Laserfiche WebLink
Case File: OA O6-OG <br />Page 2 <br />Overview <br />The City Council is becoming concerned with the frequency, the number of and duration of the <br />temporary signs being placed around the City of Elk River. Staff began cross referencing the signs <br />that were installed with the permits pulled and found that a majority of the signs did not have <br />permits, were up too long and/or were in the wrong locations. <br />Staff has drafted an ordinance addressing the concerns with the temporary signs and includes <br />changes as listed: <br />0 30 days per calendar year vs. 90 days currently permitted <br />0 3 permits per year to a premise vs. 6 permits currently permitted <br />o Sign must be located on an approved surface vs. 10-feet from property lines <br />o Only signs for City functions can be placed on City property <br />Staff has reviewed a few other ordinances of adjoining communities and our current allowed time <br />frame is one of the longest allowed: <br />C~ # of Davs # of Permits <br />Elk River 90 days 6 permits <br />Big Lake 60 days No Limit <br />Ramsey (42) 7 days @ a time 6 permits <br />Otsego 21 days No Limit <br />Maple Grove 10 days 1 pern~it <br />Staff is recommending that three (3) permits per year not to exceed 30 days in a calendar year be <br />allowed. This would cover all temporary signs such as wall mounted banners and freestanding trailer <br />signs. <br />Staff is also recommending that temporary signs be located on an approved surface as it easier for <br />staff to determine acceptable locations because the location of the property lines on site are usually <br />not known. <br />The recommendation for only allowing signs advertising City functions on City property is to avoid <br />the possible issues of fairness and equal opportunity. Staff does not want to have to be placed into a <br />position to decide which non-profit organizations can place a sign on City property. It is <br />recommended that only City functions be placed on City properties to preserve fairness and equal <br />opportunity. <br />Planning Commission Workshop Meeting <br />Staff presented the proposed language changes to the Planning Commission. The commission was <br />in favor of making changes but was concerned with multi-tenant buildings, which have four or more <br />businesses, would have to "compete" over the three permits being proposed. Staff clarified that <br />currently only one sign per property can be displayed and the tenants need to "compete" for that. <br />S:\PLANNING\Case Files\2006\OA\OA OG-06 Signs\OA OG-OG_PC.doc <br />