My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 09 16
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2010 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 09 16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:30:11 AM
Creation date
9/29/2010 1:36:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCPKT 2010 09 16
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
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 />August 19, 2010 <br />Page 3 of 17 <br />Page 17: remove the first (1 bullet under the Size section. <br />Discussion of pages 21 -25 resulted in the following changes: <br />Page 21: remove the fifth (5 bullet under the Political Signs sections. <br />Page 21: requested a review of the Political Signs section by the City Attorney. <br />Page 22: under the Civic Events section change the first (1 bullet wording <br />regarding the two (2) weeks to read `four (4) weeks'. <br />Page 25: the wording should clearly state the Iconic Sign and Landmark Sign will <br />have the same review process. <br />Page 25: the introduction statement in the Landmark Sign <br />include wording regarding the review process. <br />Discussion of pages 26 -29 resulted in the following <br />Page 26: caption under the bottom picture is spel <br />Members of the Public: <br />Michael Menaker, 1827 West Chokecherry ated his suppo • he decisions <br />made by the Planning Commission this - - g. His d'scussion in • -d <br />comments regarding: civic events /off pre ® - signs • is /Landmar gns; and <br />ction needs to <br />Murals. Menaker emphasized a desire for a <br />applicants with non - conforming • s. <br />He thanked staff and the Plannin <br />accomplished on this project. <br />Lipton thanked Menak <br />business owners. <br />Public Hearing <br />Lipton stated the <br />in downtown Louis <br />Sheets the section .s worded for Murals. <br />iy. <br />review process for <br />sion fo work that has been <br />is dedi ct and to the downtown <br />nts: <br />de direction to staff regarding Murals <br />Br. - stated he i•or - Mural section. He acknowledged a potential <br />prob - regarding gr <br />Pritchar• • • -s not sup .. murals and sees them as a potential problem <br />Lipton sugg- -d rem • • the section but would be willing to go either way. <br />Loo stated she support murals and concerned they encourage more <br />tagging then a bla all. <br />O'Connell stated she recommends the removal of the Mural section. <br />Sheets asked what regulations are available at this time regarding murals. <br />Russ stated the section would control the size and placement but can not <br />regulate content. <br />Russell stated he was going to recommend removal of the section but he now <br />thinks the City Attorney has presented a good option. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.