AgdaPkt 2000-01-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Principal Planner Jany, informed Council that his presentation was composed of three parts: first some background information on the sign ordinance, secondly a report on sign inventory and lastly discussion on the next steps and direction from Council. With the adoption in June 1999 of a new sign ordinance by the City Council, the purpose was to streamline the sign ordinance. Such ordinance was needed because the old ordinance did not take into account proportion of buildings (where allowable sign area should reflect fa�ade area). The previous ordinance also allowed for no exceptions. The current ordinance offers three types of exceptions: minor (which can be granted by staf�, master sign programs, and variances, which can be granted following certain legal findings. This type of flexibility is both business friendly, and it also helps solve problems in the long run. The new ordinance also has amortization periods, (which is the amount of time a non-conforming sign can remain before it has to be removed)these vary from 30 days to 7 years. Principal Planner Jany, requested Council to provide him with guidance on the following issues: 1) How should the City approach enforcement? (Phased approach or comprehensive approach); 2) What should the time lines be and assess staffing needs? 3) Does council which to set a date for a public hearing? 4) How are we going to staff up for the increased need in enforcement and follow-up? Planning Technician Kowalski, reported that since June staff has been busy trying to develop an inventory of over 1300 sites, and each site has several signs. The City is required by State Law to take inventory of all signs in place, and once this is done, and only then can the City begin enforcement on the business that have violations. The intent is to keep this database updated so that our staff will know exactly what signs are out there. Each item in the database will include: name of business, physical address, digital picture, sign dimensions, fa�ade measurements, maximum allotment for each business, and if they are in violation or not of the ordinance. The results of the study show that of 1300 business perused, at least 531 had one violation or more. Citywide, there was a total of 906 violations, consequently a few of those businesses have more than one violation. The most common violation is excessive signage in the entire parcel, and the second most common violation is prohibited signage, and the third most common type of violation is excessive window signage. A discussion took place comparing and contrasting the old ordinance versus the new one, and the reasoning behind all the current violations. Council and staff engaged in dialogue, which addressed amortization periods, implementation of new ordinance, inventory and sign types. Before any enforcement action, staff suggests a positive public education campaign to explain to the residents and business world process occur to explain the goals and components of the sign improvement process. Staff clarified that the incremental steps are as follows: after public hearing, and council approving continuation of project, site inspection has to occur, confirmation of the calculation, confirmation of the status of the signs, written notice has to be given, staff-up for enforcement and follow ups. Council discussed issues related to costs, type of enforcement, and public involvement in the process. Council Member Pierce thanked staff for all the time and effort placed in this project. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ' DECEMBER 13, 1999 MINUTES �IIOT FOR C�TATION PAGE 7 __ . _._ . _ .__ ,._. _.__.. .