11-28-2001 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 2001 TEMPORARY SIGN ISSUES The City Planner reviewed his report dated November 6, 2001 relative to temporary signs and enforcement problems that the City has with these signs. Based on the discussion, the Commission felt that in addition to the temporary sign permit fee, a deposit should be required for temporary signs to ensure compliance with the code and removal of temporary signs in a timely fashion. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Council should determine the temporary sign permit fee and the deposit amount. However, the Commission felt that neither the fee nor the deposit should be so high that businesses will circumvent the process and put up temporary signs without obtaining a permit. The Commission also discussed whether the amount of temporary signs allowed per property per year should be changed to per business per year. The discussion centered around strip malls and shopping centers and the fact that the current Code limits the amount of temporary signs on a per property basis. The Commission felt that this application should remain in effect, pointing out that otherwise there would be temporary signs on a constant basis at strip malls and shopping centers. The Commission felt that if these businesses needed additional signage, then a review of the ordinance pertaining to permanent signage was in order. Keis asked if plastering windows with signage was allowed. The City Planner reported that there are some exemptions for window signs inside the building. It was noted that a public hearing would be required to amend the Zoning Ordinance. At this point, the Council was seeking input from the Planning Commission on the issues. The Council will then call a public hearing to formally act on the temporary sign ordinance. Keis recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the temporary sign ordinance providing for a deposit for temporary signs, with the amount of temporary sign fee and deposit to be determined by the City Council at a level so as to not encourage property owners to circumvent the ordinance, and indicating that any other issues relating to temporary signs may necessitate the City taking a look at its ordinance regulating permanent signs. Motion seconded by Duray. Motion carried 5 — 0. Page 22