Ordinance 2957 to Revise Sign Code.
right here.
SYNOPSIS: The ordinance would amend Chapter 60 of the Land Development Code which governs signs in the City of Great Falls. The current sign code has been in effect since May 2005. The proposed revisions are primarily to address minor housecleaning items, to provide additional clarification, and to add a provision to address signage if a premise is subsequently subdivided.
BACKGROUND: A rather extensive and time consuming review and development process was conducted by an appointed sign committee to prepare the current sign code, which became effective on May 5 2005.
With over one and one-half years of working experience with the new code, City staff has identified a few items and issues that warrant further consideration and or clarification.
Briefly, the proposed changes include:
1. Signs for home occupations, family day cares, adult group homes and other approved home uses would not require sign permits, provided size and location standards are met.
2. All references to specific dollar amounts for fees, costs, etc. were deleted and instead payments of fees and costs would be as set by the city Commission.
3. To be consistent with the narrative description of the code, exhibit 60-6 was revised to note that one free-standing pole sign would be allowed per premise frontage for premises exceeding 50,000 square feet in area.
4. Reference was made to the appropriate section of the code that addresses signs for home occupations, family day cares and the like.
5. Clarification was provided that on-premise signs are authorized for approved commercial uses in residential zoning districts, neighborhood commercial zoning districts, and central business periphery zoning districts.
6. A new provision was added to address signage if a premise is subsequently subdivided. Specifically, the provision states, “If a premise is subsequently subdivided after a freestanding sign allocation has been established for the premise, the subsequently created parcels shall share the freestanding sign allocation; shall share the same freestanding sign pole or monument; and, the owner/subdivider is responsible for allocating the signage amongst the separately created parcels at the time of each sale or lease.”
7. If a sign permit is revoked and the sign is not removed, the City may remove the sign and the sign owner may then reclaim the sign within ten working days. After that time, the sign may be destroyed. The requirement that the owner pay a $50.00 fee to reclaim the sign was removed.
It is offered that the proposed amendments will further benefit the public and will assist staff to more clearly enforce the revised sections and to provide an additional signage provision to address subsequently subdivided premises.
All emphasis is mine.
Well. This was approved at first reading, and will be approved by the City Commission on the 19th. It is nice to see that Randy Gray was right, the City will be willing to revise the code if needed. And oh, boy, they really zeroed in on the problem parts didn't they! Note the bold italicised parts. They will be addressed.
Now let me collect my thoughts.
SYNOPSIS: The ordinance would amend Chapter 60 of the Land Development Code which governs signs in the City of Great Falls. The current sign code has been in effect since May 2005. The proposed revisions are primarily to address minor housecleaning items, to provide additional clarification, and to add a provision to address signage if a premise is subsequently subdivided.
BACKGROUND: A rather extensive and time consuming review and development process was conducted by an appointed sign committee to prepare the current sign code, which became effective on May 5 2005.
With over one and one-half years of working experience with the new code, City staff has identified a few items and issues that warrant further consideration and or clarification.
Briefly, the proposed changes include:
1. Signs for home occupations, family day cares, adult group homes and other approved home uses would not require sign permits, provided size and location standards are met.
2. All references to specific dollar amounts for fees, costs, etc. were deleted and instead payments of fees and costs would be as set by the city Commission.
3. To be consistent with the narrative description of the code, exhibit 60-6 was revised to note that one free-standing pole sign would be allowed per premise frontage for premises exceeding 50,000 square feet in area.
4. Reference was made to the appropriate section of the code that addresses signs for home occupations, family day cares and the like.
5. Clarification was provided that on-premise signs are authorized for approved commercial uses in residential zoning districts, neighborhood commercial zoning districts, and central business periphery zoning districts.
6. A new provision was added to address signage if a premise is subsequently subdivided. Specifically, the provision states, “If a premise is subsequently subdivided after a freestanding sign allocation has been established for the premise, the subsequently created parcels shall share the freestanding sign allocation; shall share the same freestanding sign pole or monument; and, the owner/subdivider is responsible for allocating the signage amongst the separately created parcels at the time of each sale or lease.”
7. If a sign permit is revoked and the sign is not removed, the City may remove the sign and the sign owner may then reclaim the sign within ten working days. After that time, the sign may be destroyed. The requirement that the owner pay a $50.00 fee to reclaim the sign was removed.
It is offered that the proposed amendments will further benefit the public and will assist staff to more clearly enforce the revised sections and to provide an additional signage provision to address subsequently subdivided premises.
All emphasis is mine.
Well. This was approved at first reading, and will be approved by the City Commission on the 19th. It is nice to see that Randy Gray was right, the City will be willing to revise the code if needed. And oh, boy, they really zeroed in on the problem parts didn't they! Note the bold italicised parts. They will be addressed.
Now let me collect my thoughts.
posted by a-fire-fly at 2:03 PM
<< Home