02-13-1991 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and all others will be lost. As a result, we believe that some level of sign regulation is necessary to achieve both goals, and that the City should not simply suspend its temporary sign controls. The City regulates portable signs in three ways: 1) the number of signs are limited to one at any time, 2) the duration of signs is limited to ten days, and 3) the number of displays is limited to three per year with a thirty day lapse requirement. If the City were to consider a relaxation of these requirements, we would recommend consideration of the following issues: 1. Number of Signs. Any increase in the number of signs should include restrictions on the number of signs per linear feet of road frontage and spacing between signs. For instance, one sign for each 200 feet of frontage, with a spacing of at least 100 feet between signs. An additional restriction may be to allow more than one temporary sign only in cases of multiple occupancy structures such as shopping centers. 2. Duration of Signs. Currently, temporary signs are effectively allowed for 30 days per year per property. Where shopping centers are covered, the Council may consider allowing the same 30 sign -days per business rather than per property. It would be the responsibility of the property owner to allocate space on the sign amongst his or her tenants. 3. Thirty Day Lapse Period. The proposal from Mr. Vitale would be to eliminate the lapse between displays so that the 30 days could be used consecutively, rather than spaced over a several month period. A center such as Thunder Bay Plaza could then display a temporary sign for 300 sign days (30 days times ten businesses). If two signs were utilized, the 300 sign days would be consumed in 150 calendar days. I believe Mr. Vitale's intent would be to allow two temporary signs at all times. Our primary concern with these proposals is the visual clutter which can result, and the inertia these signs can generate over a period of time. Our final recommendation would be that, in the event the Council considers a relaxation of controls, they be adopted in the form of an interim ordinance with a specific expiration date, such as 31 December 1991. With a firm date, the Building Official can most easily enforce the permits, and the Council will have time to study the impacts of the proposal. cc: Joel Hanson Kathy Glanzer John Palacio Thomas Sweeney 2 Page 58