Laserfiche WebLink
August13,2008 <br /> Moved by Council Member Olson,seconded by Council Member Roberts <br /> that this is the third and final reading of Council Bill No.080627 <br /> Gerry Ervine gave some updates as brought forward at the previous city <br /> council meeting.Relating to frequency of sign changes,he stated that the <br /> word,display,might be better choice of words rather than,messages. <br /> There was a concern about the relationship of signs to zoning and street <br /> system designation. There was also discussion about the planning <br /> director's authority,i.e.having authority to refect any application he felt <br /> inconsistent with the residential seting. Another option is to not allow <br /> changing message signs on non arterial streets. <br /> Council Member Stonecipher questioned the one hour change display <br /> period. <br /> Gerry Ervine stated that sign companies have suggested that less than <br /> one hour might be better. One hour may be too lengthy. They also <br /> suggested that in order to keep the signs in balance it might be helpful to <br /> have more <br /> sign area. We have been very restrictive about the non <br /> changing message portion of the sign. <br /> Council Member Roberts wanted to clarify that what is before the city <br /> council are options.He stated he would suppod the provision that would <br /> not allow these signs in the areas that are not arterials".Separate from <br /> that,he indicated that he is in favor of the ability of the planning director to <br /> condition or not allow'.That would be limited to the aderiels.(friendly <br /> amendment) <br /> Council Member Olson accepted this as a friendly amendment'to the <br /> main motion. <br /> Council Member Nielsen questioned putting signs on poles and their <br /> height <br /> David Mascarenes,507 Laurel Dave,stated that we are trying to fix <br /> something that is riot broken. He spoke in favor of using the variance <br /> process and leave the code as N. <br /> 264 <br />