My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9(b) Approval of May 31, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes
Laserfiche
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Agenda Packets
>
2018
>
06-21-2018 Planning Commission Meeting
>
9(b) Approval of May 31, 2018 Special Meeting Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2018 10:34:35 AM
Creation date
6/15/2018 10:34:34 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
Planning Commission Member Wilson asked if the 2,00o foot diameter had been <br /> removed. Chair Hallan stated the spacing would be 2,00o feet with a 1,00o foot radius. <br /> Council Member Akerson asked what the overlay district was. Mr. Burslie explained it is <br /> a specific area on specific properties. This will be discussed later in the meeting for an <br /> ordinance amendment establishing an overlay district for offsite signs. <br /> Chair Hallan noted the letter from the Chamber suggested changes to allow multiple <br /> posts with landscaping. He was concerned with maintenance over time. Planning <br /> Commission Member Leckband stated use of multiple posts would be to use wood <br /> rather than steel or metal. He felt this would lead to maintenance issues and decay of <br /> the sign. Chair Hallan stated two wood posts can be used,just not on a 40o square foot <br /> sign. <br /> Chris Monroe, Chamber Director,clarified that the letter earlier referred to as being � <br /> from the Chamber, is from the Sign Committee. Those recommendations are from the <br /> Sign Committee. <br /> Chair Hallan noted the exterior IYghting in their letter. Lighting systems have changed <br /> dramatically and are no longer the bright lights shining in the sky. He has no issue if the <br /> lighting is downward or up toward the sign. <br /> Planning Commission Member Wilson stated he Iived in Flagstaff,Arizona, and they <br /> had the dark slaes initiative due to the observatories. He preferred the dark sldes. <br /> Planning Commission Member Leckband noted the letter states"illumination of <br /> advertising devices shall not interfere with traffic safety". Who enforces that? He was <br /> not in favor of that language because the Gity can't enforce it. Mr. Burslie stated that if <br /> there is a safety issue, MN/DOT or State Patrol will deal with it. <br /> PUBLIC COMMENT OPENED: <br /> Council Member Swanson — �tequested the Planning Commission recommend the <br /> downward light concept. Upward lighting creates light pollution. <br /> Council Member Akerson — Stated lighting has changed and the City shines lights <br /> upward. <br /> Steve Anderson, Franklin Outdoor Advertising— Stated throughout the industry, <br /> downward lighting is rare. The lights designed for billboards are designed to shine on <br /> the billboards. Work on the signs is done from the top down and it is a hazard to be <br /> working around conduit, cords and arms. <br /> Mayor Adams — Stated she does not have an issue if the light is going up at the sign,just <br /> so it is not polluting the sky. <br /> MINUTES 2 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> May 3i, 2oi8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.