6.3. SR 10-16-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: OA 06-06 Page 2 Overview On July 17, 2006 staff had presented an ordinance amendment to the City Council that reduced the number of and duration of temporary signs. In order to look at temporary signs from a different viewpoint, the Elk River City Council instructed staff to compose an ordinance that would ban temporary signs but would also allow exceptions for grand openings, special events. They asked that the plan be phased in (begin January 1, 2007) and to notify the business community to get their input. Staff drafted an amendment that in summary states that portable (temporary) signs are prohibited. However, the temporary use of banners for grand openings and special events would be allowed for a ten consecutive days once a year. September 26 Planninz Commission Workshop The Planning Commission reviewed language for an ordinance that would ban temporary signs but would also allow exceptions for grand openings, special events. (See Exhibit 3) Staff gave brief a presentation on the proposed language and then asked for feedback from both the Planning Commission and also the business community. One business owner was in attendance and stated that a ban on the signs would adversely affect their business. They also stated that education to the business community would be beneficial as most business owners, including themselves, had litde to no knowledge of what the current ordinance states. Jeff Gongoll, president of the Chamber of Commerce, was also in attendance and presented a list of 13 business owners' emails who objected to a ban. He had stated that approximately 250 members were notified of the Planning Commission Workshop meeting and were given a copy of the proposed ordinance. He also indicated how crucial the temporary signs are for business in Elk River. There was substantial discussion regarding what a "special event" was and whether or not the City wants to regulate what the signs say. The consensus was that the content of the sign is not the issue. It is the general negative appearance of the signs in the community and was the consensus that the signs do not promote a positive image within the City. After reviewing the previous language they had recommended for approval, the Planning Commission decided that 30 days per property was not adequate enough time for properties that have multiple businesses. They then recommended that the ordinance state 90 days per property. Staff Comments Staff had stated that duration and number of permits would have litde effect on the enforcement of the signs. In the 2006 year to date, three business/properties have pulled 2 permits; one business/property pulled 6 permits (the current max). They remainder of the permits were single ones. If the allowed number of signs was three or six, it still takes considerable staff time to process S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2006\OA \OA 06-06 Signs\OA 06-06_CC-2.doc