Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Page 2 <br />February 26, 2019 <br />----------------------------- <br />Motion carried 7-0. <br /> <br />4.2. Temporary Signs <br /> Ordinance Amendment, Case No. OA 19-02 <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg presented the staff report. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg asked why staff recommended cutting back the number of <br />days a temporary non-profit sign could be displayed from 30 days to 14 days. He <br />asked if it stemmed from a complaint. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg responded the goal was to reduce the amount of signage on <br />properties. Reducing the number of days was not complaint driven but was staff <br />recommendation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Rydberg heard from a few local businesses that two weeks is not <br />enough time to advertise an event. He believes 30 days should be a minimum. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson-Vito agreed 14 days did not seem like enough time for people <br />to register for an event as the goal of these signs was to get as much visibility as <br />possible as advertising. She asked if there is not a current issue with the time frame, <br />why is staff requesting to change it. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated one reason was the shorter time frame would allow more <br />events to be advertised on a property since only one sign can be there at a time. He <br />stated another reason was the city’s goal of beautification and excess signs can be <br />unattractive. <br /> <br />Commissioner Thiel stated sign advertising probably wasn’t the organization’s only <br />form of advertisement. He agreed the 14-day restriction made sense and excess signs <br />were not attractive. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson clarified currently businesses could have signs for 30 days but any <br />time over that would count against their 90-days allowed and the new proposal <br />would count against their 90 days after 14 days. He stated during this time they could <br />not put up a temporary sign for their own business but would be advertising for the <br />non-profit event. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg reiterated the proposal was to reduce the saturation of signs and was <br />not based on complaints. <br /> <br />Chair Johnson saw some advantage to a business being able to put up signs for <br />multiple events on a faster rotation but felt some businesses would still be able to <br />find a loophole. <br /> <br />Mr. Leeseberg reminded the commission it was the prerogative of the business <br />owner what timeframe they would allow the sign to be displayed on their property. <br /> <br />