PL PACKET 08191997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes July 15, 1997 Page 11 1 There was Commission consensus that the individual signs included in the comprehensive sign 2 package must be consistent in height, length and whether lit or not lit. The fonts do not need 3 to be consistent as long as the sign fits within the designated area. 4 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted the letter of City Attorney dated July 15 which included his suggested 5 revisions to the sign ordinances regarding ground signs in residential districts. He suggested 6 paragraph (1) of Section 1400.12, Subd. 1 be amended to make it clear that the sign may 7 identify only the resident, not the resident's business. He also suggested other changes that 8 are simply clarifications and changes to make the language consistent with the rest of the 9 ordinances. He suggested the following: 10 1400.10 Ground Signs. Are permitted in all districts but only to the extent permitted in this 11 Section and in the District Schedules set forth in Section 1400.12. 12 1400.12, Subd 1.(1) is amended to read as follows: R-1, R-lA and R-2. One sign per 13 dwelling unit per right-of-way frontage stating the street address, which may also include the 14 name of the resident. Additionally, one address sign may be located on the curb in front of 15 each dwelling unit or on a freestanding mailbox. 16 1400.12, Subd.1 (4) add: Each of the following may erect and maintain one ground sign 17 subject to the provisions of Section 1400.10 on the property to which the sign pertains: (a) 18 Schools and publicly owned facilities listed in Sections 1615.02 (b) and (c) and 1616.02 (b) 19 and (c). (b) Churches, temples, synagogues and City buildings listed in Sections 1615.03 (a) 20 and (c) and 1616.03 (b). 21 There was Commission consensus to add "identification" to Section 1400.12, Subd. 1(1) 22 between "one" and "sign" in the first sentence. 23 Commissioner Gondorchin asked if placement of the signs should be restricted. 24 There was Commission consensus to address this issue separately. 25 Commissioner Makowske stated he was not in favor of Section 1400.12, Subd. 1 (1) requiring 26 that the street address be required on the identification sign. 27 There was Commission consensus to remove "which may include" and replace it with 28 "and/or". 29 There was direction for Staff to make the suggested changes and forward to the City Council 30 with the Planning Commission recommendation to incorporate into the City Ordinance. 31 32 VIII. CONIMENTS. 33 Commissioner Gondorchin asked when the pylon sign at Apache Plaza would be removed and 34 also if the name of the Shopping Center was being changed.