Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Case File: OA 06-06 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />A second area of concern was the placement of signs on an approved surface. The Planning <br />Commission thought this might be a detriment to a few businesses. The reason staff is <br />recommending this is parking lot setbacks are lO-feet from the property line, which coincides with <br />the current sign ordinance. Most of the temporary signs are not being placed 10-feet from the <br />property line and are usually in the right-or-way. For ease of administration and customer service, <br />requiring them on approved surfaces, staff can explain to an applicant where an approved surface is <br />on their site versus where the property line is. Also, an efficient on site inspection of the sign by <br />staff could be executed due to the approved surface location requirement <br /> <br />There are a few other minor housekeeping issues with signs that staff would like to discuss. One is <br />that Section 30-866 references "construction signs" three times with three different allowed sizes. <br />Staff is recommending that one size of construction sign be allowed, but not require a permit, as the <br />location of the sign can be clarified at site plan review. Currently only signs under 64 square feet are <br />exempt from a permit. <br /> <br />A second item would be the fee we charge for sign permits. Currently we charge different fees for <br />different sized signs, but the staff time is typically not that different for small or large signs. Staff <br />would recommend one flat rate be used for ease of administration and customer service. It is <br />recommended that a flat fee of $50.00 per sign be adopted. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed language <br />and recommend approval of a flat fee of $50.00 pet sign. <br /> <br />S:\PLr1-'N~ING\Case Files\2006\OA \OA 06-06 Signs\Oli OG-06_PC.doc <br />