CC_Minutes_2008_0728 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 28, 2008 Page 8 two week period, at 2036 Western Avenue by hiring a general contractor to cor- rect existing code violations, as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated July 28, 2008; and further directing that the property owner be billed for all actual and administrative costs, estimated at approximately $4,250.00; and if those charges remain unpaid, staff is to recover costs as specified in Minnesota Statute, Section 407.07B; with costs to be reported to the City Council following the abatement. Roll Call Ayes: Roe; Pust; Wilhnus; Ihlan and Klausing. Nays: None. c. Consider Amendment to Chapter 1010 Sign Regulations Ordinance pertain- ing to Temporary Signs, Commercial/Industrial Real Estate Signs and the Master Sign Plan Process (PROJ0013) City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed staff's recommended revisions to the City's new sign code, since its adoption, and challenges in staff's interpretation, consideration, and approval for temporary signs. Mr. Paschke advised that the specificity on type of sign permissible and timelines, usually tied to an event that may be too short in duration for certain requests. Mr. Paschke noted that the ex- isting Master Sign Plan hearing process was proving cumbersome property re- view/approval authority, with not all staff assigned to the Development Review Committee, educated in the area of signs and sign requirements. City Planner Paschke referred discussion to staff comments detailed in Section 3.0 of the staff report dated July 28, 2008, addressing temporary signs; business and industrial "For Sale/Lease" signs; Master Sign Plans; and Enforcement considera- tions. Discussion included all-weather product materials for signs; duration of signs; sizes of signs; real estate signs; business/industrial signs; definition of temporary signs; habitual offenders; and lack of available staff for signage monitoring and enforcement of habitual offenders, in addition to educating and providing public information on sign regulations in the community. Councilmember Ihlan questioned whether real estate signs (Section 5.3 of the staff report, page 5) had a time limitation or if they could be permanent. Coun- cilmember Ihlan opined that in proposing to triple their size (from 10 square feet to 32 square feet), such signage would not be aesthetically pleasing; and further opined that they should be treated as temporary signs, but that their size remain at 10 square feet. City Planner Paschke advised that their duration depended on the situation; whether multi-tenant and incorporated into building signage or large free-standing signs.