My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-18-2009 CCM
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Minutes
>
City Council 1974 - Present
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
05-18-2009 CCM
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2009 9:54:19 AM
Creation date
6/2/2009 9:51:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
CCM
date
5/18/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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).
View images
View plain text
City council Mii~u~es Page S <br />Mai ~8, 2~~9 <br />council provided d~eet~on to staff on the following items. <br />~, Remove language stating a sign per,~it is required whenever there is change of <br />copy. <br />1Vlayor I~lin~ing stated this mould be cumbersome to applicants e~rer~r tune they wanted <br />to make a s~gr~ change, <br />Councilme~nber Moon concurred but understood staff's intent to catch non-compliant <br />businesses and quesd.oned if alternati~re ideas be developed far nan~cornpliance issues, <br />2, IV~cre examples of rural based business seas, <br />The council stated they had no issue with lea~ring the rural based business signs irr the <br />ordinance but would like to see some examples. <br />3. The ~nonu~nent sign language as presented by staff is okay, <br />4, Tlae lxousel~eeping recommendations are ol~ay, <br />5, Review of the commercial construction ar~d commercial real estate signage <br />regrairetnents from d4 square f eet to 32 square feet, <br />~auncilmember Cumphrey is opposed to reducing the square footage requitetnents~ <br />ounc~l requested nxore data from staff as they axe unsure of haw the size of the sign <br />would affect a corr~rr~er•cial property, They suggested that one G~' sign may Hat be as <br />much of an issue as multiple signs. <br />G, cep directional signs separate from the sign ordinance <br />~t was Hated that these types of signs help identify to txa£~~c tl~e correct direction to <br />follow and should Hat count against maximum signage. <br />~. create alternative Language to deal with linage for large lots such as car <br />dealerships. <br />Counciltxzember Moon suggested o~.e sign per a specific amount of ca~~tin,uous meal <br />footage yet to be dete,ined for the Highway commercial designations <br />8, section 30~$G~: rho is the `zany person" that must apply for a permit and carp <br />penalties be enforced for temporary sign violations. <br />~ouncihne~nbeti Moon questioned if the person rz~ust be the property owner, <br />landowner, tenant, or sign company and who gets penalised for installing signage <br />incorrectly, <br />Mir. ~a~rnhart stated the property owner, tenant, and sign company are notified of <br />violations but that usually tae pearrnit expires prior to the violat~ans being ~rxed. <br />~, deck stated if the sign, company pulls the permit and vlalates the sign ordinance <br />they could be liable fo~• penalties, He stated the cit~r would Have nxore leverage to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.