04-15-1991 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i f ;%' OROMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#1)ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS-TEMPORARY SIGNS CONTINUED sign because that is usually the size of the portable signs that are leased by business owners." Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if their intent is to allow a singla-faced or double-faced sign. if' . It was Planning Commission's consensus, with the exception of Bellows, that a double-faced sign should be allowed. Mabusth stated that would mean that 64 s.f. of signage would be allowed. Rowlette questioned the need for a two-week maximum period to display a temporary sign. Johnson noted that a "grand-opening" may require a sign to be displayed for two weeks. Bellows stated that she did not approve of the signs at all. Rowlette stated that though she does not like the appearance of the signs, as a business owner, she can honestly say that they are effective advertising tools. Bellows stated that the proposed Ordinance amendment would theoretically allow a business owner to display such a sign for two months out of the year, and that, in her opinion, is not acceptable. Kelley asked if it is now possible for business owners, through a Variance or Conditional Use Permit process, to obtain an additional period of time to display a sign. Mabusth replied, "We would usually respond to a request for additional temporary signs with a Variance process, however, there is not sufficient time. 3y the time the business owner comes to us with a request, he/she cannot wait six weeks for the Variance process." Bellows reiterated that a two-week maximum time period per quarter for displaying such a sign is excessive. Cohen stated that he did not object to two weeks. Hanson indicated that he would prefer ten days, but would accept two weeks. Rowlette, Cohen, and Moos agreed with Hanson. Bill Wear asked if the Ordinance amendment would allow each tenant in a building, (which is ten in Mr. Wear's case), to apply - 2 - :y \ .*. iiJHiti 4 ■2f vr