5.2. PCSR 10-10-2006 - 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. Staff had reviewed a few other ordinances of adjoining communities and our current time frame is one of the longest allowed: city # of Days # of Permits Elk River 90 days 6 permits Big Lake 60 days No Limit Ramsey (42) 7 days @ a time 6 permits Otsego 21 days No Limit Maple Grove 10 days 1 permit Staff had drafted an ordinance addressing the concerns with the temporary signs and includes changes as listed: 0 30 days per calendar year vs. 90 days currently permitted 0 3 permits per year to a property vs. 6 permits currently permitted to a business o Sign must be located on an approved surface vs. 10 -feet from property lines o Only signs for City functions can be placed on City property The intent of what the temporary signs are to be used for is for grand openings and special events, not for general advertising. Almost all of the temporary sign permits the City receives are for sales, promotions and /or employment opportunities and are rarely for grand openings and special events. In order to get back to the intent of what temporary signs were intended for, 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 Planning 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. 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 little to no knowledge of what the current ordinance states. S: \PLANNING \Case Files \2006 \OA \OA 06 -06 Signs \OA 06- 06_PC -2.doc