My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 03/27/2025
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Public Works Committee
>
2025
>
Agenda - Public Works Committee - 03/27/2025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/27/2025 2:42:53 PM
Creation date
3/27/2025 2:27:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Public Works Committee
Document Date
03/27/2025
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
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
Planning Manager Larson stated that real estate signs are another common violator. <br />Chairperson Gengler asked if there is any way to rule that a sign has been in place too long, without <br />the permitting process. <br />City Planner Martin commented that would be similar to the language that was added for window <br />signage, requiring it to be in proper placement and good condition. He stated that without the <br />permit they would not know when the sign was installed. <br />Chairperson Gengler stated that her biggest concern with temporary signs is if they are a safety <br />hazard, such as those installed to a stoplight post or placed in the right-of-way where the view <br />would be obstructed. She stated that if the removal of those signs could be enforced in another <br />way, she could support removing the process that currently does not seem to be working for <br />anyone. <br />City Planner Martin commented that the Code does include language that the only temporary signs <br />allowed in the right-of-way are government signs such as road construction and voting here signs. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked how issues could be addressed if the language for temporary <br />signage were removed. <br />City Planner Martin commented that he does not propose to eliminate temporary signage language <br />but instead reframe it. <br />Commissioner Anderson stated that he likes the allowance for sandwich board signs within the <br />COR and did not oppose temporary signage outside of the COR as long as they are not placed in <br />the right-of-way and are in good condition. He was unsure how that would be enforced. He stated <br />that perhaps permits are required for a certain size of a sign. <br />Chairperson Gengler noted that perhaps certain types of temporary signs would require a permit. <br />She asked and received confirmation that there is already a limit on the number of temporary signs <br />that can be on a property. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy commented that people are already not getting permits and there is no <br />enforcement. <br />Planning Manager Larson commented that there seems to be a consensus that the signs need to be <br />properly placed and in good condition. He suggested that the Commission look around town in <br />the next few weeks at temporary signs and they can continue discussions at the next meeting. <br />Commissioner Hunt asked for information on how other cities regulate temporary signs. <br />City Planner Martin commented that temporary signs are very differently regulated from <br />community to community, but noted that in driving around it appears that temporary signs are an <br />issue in most communities. <br />Planning Commission/ February 27, 2025 <br />Page 7 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.