My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/7/1986
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
5/7/1986
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:01 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 12:24:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/07/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
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
easier to regulate. The only measuring that would need to be <br />done is measuring of signs to be sure they conform to the prints <br />we approved as we are not amortizing and getting rid of all signs <br />that didn't conform as the City did. This, however, does not <br />necessarily guaranty that everything existing will remain as the <br />ordinance states that every sign that was put in with a legal <br />permit will be grandfathered. <br />Commissioner Lyons felt unless all signs that exist are <br />tagged, we still have a problem, and Attorney Vitunac noted that <br />the burden of proof on a legal non -conforming use is on the sign <br />owner; if he can't prove it was legally existing when the <br />ordinance went into effect, it comes down. <br />Discussion arose on temporary signs such as circus posters <br />which are plastered randomly about, and it was noted this is <br />handled by a blanket permit and bonded to provide for removal. <br />Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that political signs have to <br />be removed within five days after an election, and he did not see <br />why special event signs should have a different limitation. <br />In discussion, it was agreed the removal requirement for <br />special event signs should be changed to five days after the <br />event to be consistent. <br />Commissioner Bird again expressed concern about trying to <br />work towards better aesthetics as he felt the ordinance falls a <br />bit short in this area. <br />Planner Challacombe noted that the original ordinance did <br />have a provision that said the sign would have to meet acceptable <br />sign techniques, but that was taken out at the insistence of the <br />public who attended the workshops as they feared the staff might <br />be over zealous in this regard. <br />Director Keating stated a further concern was that the <br />application of strict graphic material would eliminate script <br />letters, which are not as visible. He advised that most of the <br />major sign people do quality work, and we are mainly trying to <br />get at people who just slap up a sign and paint something on it. <br />41 <br />BOOK 64 PD: F 34?7 <br />MAY 71996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.