10/13/2004 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board September 8, 2004 Page 8 disappointingly sparse, but the people who did attend took the opportunity to raise some important points. Staff presented its analysis and noted they had conducted an informal poll of some of the local businesses. He noted overall the reaction to the poll was one of interest in working with the City to get a procedure /policy in place that would allow businesses to advertise their products and gain more visibility while still enforcing some aesthetic control. Some even offered potential compromises such as requiring all temporary signage to be professionally lettered. The vast majority reinforced their belief that the temporary signage was necessary to gain the attention of consumers and build their customer base. He noted when asked if the businesses had requirements from their distributors to put signage up, no one answered affirmatively. Those who did receive their signage from their distributors did so only at the businesses request or as promotional items to be used at the businesses discretion. One of the businesses did state that the signage they used to advertise tobacco products was posted by the distributor on a regular basis, though whether the distributor "required" the signage could not be confirmed or denied. Based on this, staff cannot provide definitive information to support or deny the contention that the cigarette and liquor manufacturers or distributors require the retailer to display the temporary signs. If business owners have evidence of such a requirement, they should provide it. Mr. Hyden stated he wanted to take two or three options at a time and discuss them. He stated he noticed the other Cities did not address real estate signs and that appeared to be a concern with the real estate agents in the area. He stated he did not see this as a concern. Chair Rafferty also agreed that real estate signs were not of a concern and this did not need to be addressed further. Mr. Laden asked if the current Ordinance addressed signs in the right -of -way. Mr. Smyser replied the Ordinance did address this and signs were not permitted in the right - of -way. He noted, however, the problem was that there was insufficient staff time to monitor these types of signs. Mr. Tralle stated it has been his observation that since this sign issue had been discussed, the signage in the City has gotten worse. He stated temporary signs were an eyesore and he did not want them allowed in the City. Mr. Root stated there were other ways to categorize signs as well. He noted there were individual and business signs being put up and they needed to address these differences. Mr. Laden asked if it was legal to remove signs out of a right -of -way. Mr. Smyser replied the City did remove the signs. Mr. Hyden asked if they were banning all temporary signs or not. He noted if they banned all temporary signs, there would be no need for a further discussion. DRAFT MINUTES • • •