My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6.3. SR 10-16-2006
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
2000 - 2010
>
2006
>
10/16/2006
>
6.3. SR 10-16-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/21/2008 8:36:39 AM
Creation date
10/13/2006 11:26:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
10/16/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Case File: OA 06-06 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />each permit and verify the sign is taken down to refund the applicant's deposit. Staff proposed that <br />there not be a limit on the number of permits, just the duration of the temporary sign located on a <br />property. Staff also question if a "quarter of a year" is too long a duration for such temporary signs. <br />Staff would recommend that it be limited to 30 days. <br /> <br />After the workshop meeting, staff had a more theoretical question and that is, if these signs are <br />generally seen as a negative image within the City, why is it acceptable to have these "temporary" <br />signs on a property for a quarter of the year? The ordinance goes to great lengths to regulate how, <br />where and what size permanent signs can be. Temporary signs are more or less arbitrarily placed on <br />a property without regard to their context. If they are a negative image, why not prohibit them? <br /> <br />Definitions <br /> <br />Staff is recommending that the language for portable signs and temporary signs be changed as not to <br />indicate what they are made of nor give an example of what one might be. Also, staff is <br />recommending that the definitions for both be the same. <br /> <br />Planninz Commission Action <br /> <br />The Planning Commission confirmed their recommendation of allowing temporary signs for 90 days <br />in a calendar year per property. They did discuss putting a limit on how long a single permit could <br />be issued for at one time and recommended that it be for 30 days. The requirement that the signs <br />be placed on an approved surface was agreed to be an easy way to communicate to the public where <br />signs can be located as well as for enforcement. (See Exhibit 2) <br /> <br />They recommended approval of the definitions. (See Exhibit 1) <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />The Planning Commission is recommending the City Council approve the revised definitions with <br />the following condition: <br /> <br />1. Definitions shall be as stated in Exhibit 1. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission is recommending the City Council approve the ordinance amendment <br />with the following condition: <br /> <br />1. Ordinance shall be as indicated in Exhibit 2. <br /> <br />S:\pLANNING\Case Files\2006\OA \OA 06-06 Signs\OA 06-06_CC-2.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.