My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 05 09
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2019 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 05 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:12 AM
Creation date
5/16/2019 2:01:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2019 05 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 11, 2019 <br />Page 7 of 10 <br />• Freestanding signs — reduce minimum building size to get the larger size <br />Brauneis observed that he thought teardrop banners were cheap and easy to use for <br />businesses so they should not be outright banned. <br />Howe stated that there was some benefit to the teardrop banners for people who are <br />driving and can give businesses the opportunity to advertise in non -pedestrian areas. <br />Hoefner voiced a concern about high winds and the teardrop banners. <br />Moline asked for staff's rationale for not allowing teardrop banners. <br />Zuccaro replied that he did not think the teardrop banners were considered high -quality <br />sign types, but on a very limited basis they could be okay. <br />Brauneis asked if the 30-day grand opening counted as a "limited basis." <br />Ritchie noted that there were some areas that had high turnover and would have these <br />signs more often. <br />Rice liked the definition section and suggested adding "raceway" and "way -finding" to <br />the list. <br />Moline suggested that in the non -conforming signage language should regulate based <br />on the area of the sign rather than the cost of the sign as a trigger. <br />Brauneis stated that the update to the Downtown Sign Guidelines a few years ago was <br />meant to foster creativity and that encouraging creativity was a good idea when <br />possible. He did not want signs to look the same here as they do everywhere else. <br />Moline stated that the graphics in the staff packet and the way the Code was laid out <br />was user-friendly for laypeople in the community. <br />Ritchie responded to Commissioner Moline's emailed question, explaining that sign <br />area was calculated using one viewpoint. So for a multidimensional sign where you <br />could view multiple sides at once, whatever the largest surface area was visible from <br />one point, that all counted toward your surface area. <br />Ritchie also addressed Commissioner Moline's other question about the language <br />"enforced by city manager" and stated that that was typical language for enforcement. <br />Howe asked if there were exceptions for entry points to the city. <br />Zuccaro replied that the sign code would not address those issues. The consultant for <br />the Small Area Plans designed entry signs for those plans but they had not been <br />formally adopted or approved. <br />9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.