My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3(a) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Offsite Signs
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2018
>
05-31-2018 Special Planning Commission Meeting
>
3(a) Ordinance Amendment Regarding Offsite Signs
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/25/2018 11:45:00 AM
Creation date
5/25/2018 11:44:59 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Sigh height was discussed. Chair Hallan stated the word"maximum"is used twice; <br /> remove one. The amendment states the height shall not exceed 3o feet at road grade; <br /> that is road grade at sign stationing, not a half mile away. <br /> Sign lighting was discussed. This refers to eicterior lighting, not the messages on a <br /> digital sign. Clarification should be included to state exterior illumination. <br /> Sign display was discussed. The amendment states i5 seconds. The consensus of the <br /> Planning Commission was to change this to 8 seconds. Color with a definition is also <br /> included. This does not refer to content of the sign a�d should state"Color of entire <br /> structural support system shall be earth tone". <br /> Sign setbacks were discussed. It was the consensus to remove setback from an at grade <br /> intersection. <br /> Planning Commission Member Wilson inquired whether or not language should be <br /> included to explain why the 2,00Q foot spacing was included. Chair Halian stated this <br /> would not be included in the ordinance. Mr. Burslie stated the overlay district language <br /> includes findings of fact e�laining why the district is being created and this will be <br /> included there. <br /> Chair Hallan pointed out discussion regarding the Land Use Matrix and the permitted <br /> versus Conditional Use Permit(CUP)will be discussed afker public comment is taken. <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> Troy Rheaume, RHO&RGB Outdoor from St. Cloud— He represents electronic <br /> billboards only. He personally feels static signs become stagnant. Digital does allow <br /> signs to be fresh and interesting. Billboards in Little Falls is eye pollution. The number <br /> of signs needs to be limited. If local businesses can't be found to advertise,businesses <br /> from other communities will be contacted. He suggested purchasing a community sign, <br /> maybe going to the larger businesses to pay for it. A community sign would be more <br /> affordable for advertisers. <br /> Chris Monroe, Chamber Director—Thanked the Planning Commission for all of the <br /> work that has been done and the items included in the amendment are acceptable. The <br /> only comment she would have is when considering the permitted versus CUP. This has <br /> been a lengthy process already and would be onerous to businesses to have to go <br /> through another process for a CUP. <br /> Chair Hallan stated the City would revert to a CUP to at least see how the process goes <br /> as something could be missed in the amendment. But as Ms. Monroe pointed out,the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.