5.2. PCSR 10-10-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Case File: OA 06 -06 Page 3 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. The requirement that the signs be placed on an approved surface was agreed to be an easy way to communicate to the public where signs can be located as well as for enforcement. Staff Comments Staff had stated that duration and number of permits would have little 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 each permit and verify the sign is taken down to refund the applicant's deposit. Staff would like to propose that there not be a limit on the number of permits, just the duration of the temporary sign located on a property. Staff also question if a quarter of a year is too long a duration for such temporary signs. Staff would recommend that it be limited to 30 days. After the workshop meeting, staff had a more theoretical question and that is, if these signs are generally seen as a negative image within the City, why is it acceptable to have these "temporary" signs on a property for a quarter of the year? The ordinance goes to great lengths to regulate how, where and what size permanent signs can be. Temporary signs are more or less arbitrarily placed on a property without regard to their context. If they are a negative image, why not prohibit them? Definitions Staff is recommending that the language for portable signs and temporary signs be changed as not to indicate what they are made of nor give an example of what one might be. Also, staff is recommending that the definitions for both be the same. S:\PLANNING \Case Files \2006 \OA \OA 06 -06 Signs \OA 06- 06_PC -2.doc