2012_0514_Packet as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 4, 2012 Page 2 Chair Boerigter opined that the dimensions for residential signs seemed small; and questioned 47 how the size compared to dimensions for a sign other than for an address; and questioned if a 48 four (4) square foot sign was sufficient. 49 Mr. Paschke advised that the dimensions were different. 50 Member Strohmeier provided examples of that size, with consensus of the Commissioners that 51 the size was sufficient for the purpose. 52 Chair Boerigter questioned the residential district sign restrictions that they be “non-illuminated;” 53 and if that was for external or internal illumination. Chair Boerigter noted the number of existing, 54 and anticipated, nameplates and addresses that were illuminated by a spotlight or other means, 55 and whether this was a preference for emergency response to a residential property. 56 Mr. Paschke clarified that “illuminated” referenced an internal means of lighting the sign, not 57 external means. 58 Chair Boerigter noted, however, that the proposed code did not specify external; and questioned 59 if the City Code didn’t require address numbers clearly visible on homes. 60 Mr. Paschke advised that such regulations would be addressed in the City’s Building Code; and 61 spotlights on sight to highlight them were permitted. To avoid confusion, Mr. Paschke suggested 62 that language in the chart under Section 1010.05 (On-Premise Signs) for LDR-1 and LDR-2 63 Residential Districts be clarified as “Non-Internal Illumination.” 64 Member Lester suggested that this change be applied to MDR, HDR-1 and HDR-2 Districts in the 65 subsequent chart between lines 294 and 297 of that same section. 66 Chair Boerigter noted that nameplate signs in that chart were allowed to be up to a maximum of 67 twenty-four (24) square feet and opined that they seemed to indicate a different type of sign. 68 However, he suggested that the same thing could apply, with spotlights used on those signs to 69 advertise such a multi-family complex. 70 Mr. Paschke opined that, in most cases, he would concur that the same thing would apply; and 71 was not aware of any internally illuminated signs as an example, with spotlights used to highlight 72 most of those types of signs. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would support using similar language 73 for MDR, HDR-2 and HDR-2 Districts. 74 Member Olsen noted a minor typographical error in Section 1010.04, Line 276, changing the first 75 word from “issues,” to “issued.” 76 Chair Boerigter questioned the compliance status of existing signs in the City. 77 Mr. Paschke advised that some were in compliance, while some were not; and staff currently 78 worked through the City’s existing public nuisance ordinance. However, Mr. Paschke noted that 79 enactment of this revised sign ordinance would provide staff with the ability to regulate and/or 80 enforce those sign laws throughout the community. 81 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the “Fine” (Section 1010.04 – 82 Maintenance, Removal of Signs, Fines) was entirely new; and further provided a process for 83 enforcement not currently available. 84 If existing signs were not in compliance, Chair Boerigter questioned how property owners were 85 advised; with Mr. Paschke advising that, as staff became aware of issues, property owners were 86 sometimes noticed in writing of their lack of compliance. Mr. Paschke noted that staff was aware 87 of a number of existing signs that were not in compliance and that a number of them remained 88 out-of-compliance with limited staff resources to address them. 89 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that “sandwich board” signs were 90 currently prohibited; but that the new sign ordinance would allow them, provided a temporary sign 91 permit was applied for. Mr. Paschke advised that the intent was that, if temporary sign permits 92 were required for temporary signs, and the time frame expanded from 20 to 90 days for their 93 utilization for special events, it would diminish or eliminate their use on a continual basis and 94 potential violations. 95