My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.4. SR 06-15-2009
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2009
>
06-15-2009
>
5.4. SR 06-15-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2009 3:23:09 PM
Creation date
6/12/2009 3:23:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
6/15/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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 Minutes Page 5 <br />May 18, 2009 <br />Council provided direction to staff on the following items: <br />1. Remove language stating a sign permit is required whenever there is change of <br />copy. <br />Mayor I{linzing stated this would be cumbersome to applicants every time they wanted <br />to make a sign change. <br />Councilmetnber Morin concurred but understood staff's intent to catch non-compliant <br />businesses and questioned if alternative ideas be developed far non-compliance issues. <br />2. More examples of rural based business signs. <br />The Council stated they had no issue with leaving the rural based business signs in the <br />ordinance but would like to see some examples. <br />3. The monument sign language as presented by staff is okay. <br />4. The housekeeping recommendations are okay. <br />5. Review of the commercial construction and commercial real estate signage <br />requirements from 64 square feet to 32 square feet. <br />Councilmember Gumphrey is opposed to reducing the square footage requirements. <br />Council requested more data from staff as they are unsure of how the size of the sign <br />would affect a commercial property, They suggested that one b4' sign may not be as <br />much of an issue as multiple signs. <br />6. Keep directional signs separate from the sign ordinance <br />it was noted that these types of signs help identify to traffic the correct direction to <br />follow and should not count against maximum signage. <br />7. Create alternative language to deal with signage fox large lots such as car <br />dealerships. <br />Couaalm.ember Morin suggested one sign per a specific amount of continuous lineal <br />footage yet to be determined for the Highway Commercial designations. <br />8. Section 30-861; Who is the "any person" that must apply for a permit and can <br />penalties be enforced for temporary sign violations. <br />Councilmelnbea: Morin questioned if the person must be the property owner, <br />landowner, tenant, or sign company and who gets penalized for installing signage <br />incorrectly. <br />Mr. Barnhart stated the property owner, tenant, and sign company are notified of <br />violations but that usually the permit expires prior to the violations being fixed. <br />Mr. Beck stated if the sign company pulls the permit and violates the sign ordinance <br />they could be liable for penalties. He stated the citlr would have more leverage to <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.