Laserfiche WebLink
9 <br />�lORaWDflM <br />DATE: 10 March 1993 <br />TO: Planning Commission <br />FROM: John W. Shardlow,, AICP <br />RE: Unresolved sign ordinance Issues <br />At the February meeting,, only four planning commissioners - were <br />resents due both to regular absences and John Goedeke'a <br />appointment to the City Council* * When we finally got to this item <br />appoi . <br />on the agenda, the hour was late and at least one aber of the <br />commission was feeling i11. Consequently, the decision was made to <br />continue this discussion to this month. <br />We have simply attached the same background memo - that eras included <br />0 <br />in your packets last mohthe At this point, the city council has <br />reviewed all of the recommendations that the Planning Commission <br />has made and has adopted the vast- majoritys on some others they <br />have agreed With the recommendations, but, have delayed adopting <br />them pending the resolution of the remaining questions& <br />OFF -MBEs CHMCK SIGNS <br />m. <br />The Council was not inclined to go along with the .complete' ban on <br />these signs that the Planning commission had recommended* They did <br />favor limiting their size and they liked the idea of limiting <br />sir <br />locations to the next collector street (or some similar ; limit) . We <br />have maps illustrating the locations of all churches and other <br />institutional uses within the Citye We also have maps showing the <br />locations of all collector streets-0 <br />srmo L BANNERS J= 8PZc SIGNS FOR <br />The reco =ended ordinance called for a z of two special <br />events of four days per event. The council suggested either an <br />increase to three events for a total of twelve days, or simply <br />allowin g them twelve days that can be divided up any way the church <br />chooses. <br />