Agenda - Council - 01/22/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #3: Discuss Changes to the Sign Ordinance; Case of City of Ramsey Presentation Associate Planner Dalnes explained that based on the September 6, 2007 Planning Commission discussion and public hearing with regard to the sign ordinance, Staff has prepared a list of proposed changes. Associate Planner Dalnes stated Staff has taken a new approach to the revisions that do not differentiate between commercial or non-commercial speech signs. All temporary signs are proposed to be regulated the same. Changes to the temporary sign regulations would also eliminate the permit and fee requirements. All temporary signs, including real estate, garage sales, public event, and portable, black signs, (except otherwise permitted by State Statute) would be subject to the following: • Limited to 50 square feet in size • Would be permitted off-premise (with permission of property owner), but NOT permitted in the ROW • Would be limited to six weeks per year business or property, whichever is appropriate • Limited to Z signs per property • Exempt from permit application and fee Associate Planner Dahles stated Staff recommends preparing a draft ordinance to revise Section 9.12.05 (temporary-signs) of the sign ordinance based on the above items. Commissioner Cleveland asked for clarification on point four stating allowing two signs. Associate Planner Dalnes explained point four to the Commission and the current Code. She stated point four would reinforce the current code and allows them to indicate two signs per site maximum for off premise signs. Commissioner Cleveland wondered if residential properties would only be allowed two signs. Associate Planner Dalnes stated that was correct except State regulated signs like non- commercial speech signs, political signs, these are protected by State Statute., This exempt political signs and other non-commercial speech. signs- like religious signs. Commissioner Van Scoy indicated he did not want to increase the number per property but what they want to do is allow more flexibility to a site. He thought they may want to put in some sort of provision for permitting additional signs if needed. Vice Chairperson Levine thought this could be regulated by size to allow additional signs. Commissioner Van Scoy thought they could regulate this by size of property and then allow larger signs on a property by permitting. He wondered if it would be reasonable to allow more signs and larger signs through a CUP. ` Associate Planner Dalnes thought it could be changed to reflect that. She reviewed what the current code is in the City and how it would change with the new sign ordinance. -172-