2012_0514_Packet as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 4, 2012 Page 3 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke confirmed that those temporary signs would then 96 be regulated and enforced by the Community Development Department, not through the Building 97 Permit process. 98 At the request of Member Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke advised that temporary signs were currently 99 reported to staff by others seeking to do the same thing, or reporting non-compliance concerns. 100 Mr. Paschke advised that those types of calls to staff were very frequent, along with calls about 101 right-of-way versus private yard signage regulations. 102 Chair Boerigter questioned the signs using people standing in front of a business or on a 103 sidewalk, and questioned how those were regulated. 104 Mr. Paschke advised that they were not regulated in the proposed sign ordinance as they were 105 usually in the public right-of-way; and staff was unaware of other provisions for their regulation, 106 noting the difficulty in monitoring them as well. 107 At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Paschke addressed campaign signs, noting that those 108 were specifically regulated by MN State Statute, with the City Code modified several years ago to 109 mirror statute. 110 Chair Boerigter noted that specific language in Section 1010.09, Section 6, Items a-g, addressing 111 political signs. 112 Considerable discussion ensued regarding Section 1010.10 (Dynamic Displays) related to current 113 provisions and the current code regulations that were very limiting for those types of signage (e.g. 114 number of display changes limited to 3 times within a 24-hour period) and the need to upgrade 115 the City’s ordinance to facilitate ever-increasing technological advances in dynamic signage, and 116 their various types, light colors and/or intensity, and flashing capabilities. Mr. Paschke further 117 noted that the City’s current Code didn’t do justice to electronic message centers that stayed 118 static; with most technologies far in advance of the existing code. Mr. Paschke noted that the 119 proposed code language was more applicable to current legislation, based on recent case law for 120 other communities (e.g. City of Minnetonka, MN), and what made sense with those newer 121 technologies without allowing those technologies to cause great distractions. 122 Chair Boerigter concurred that when the sign code was previously revised, he considered it overly 123 restrictive for those dynamic signs; and questioned how time/temperature signs had been 124 addressed. 125 Mr. Paschke advised that the proposed code addressed those signs (e.g. banks, Walgreens Drug 126 Stores) and if not spoken to in past ordinance language were then considered to be prohibited; 127 but now would be covered in Section 1010.10 for dynamic displays. 128 At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke advised that a television monitor at a gas pump, 129 as an example, would be a separate issue and not fall under the sign ordinance regulations. Mr. 130 Paschke further advised that those types of items, as well as menu boards, would be reviewed 131 and permitted in conjunction with Site Plan review and approval on an individual basis. Mr. 132 Paschke advised that consideration, during those reviews, addressed whether or not there were 133 major distractions to traffic on the streets, as well as how internal circulation was addressed; and 134 the amount of internal signage needed for direction on a case-by-case basis. While partially 135 covered in City Code, Mr. Paschke advised that final regulation would be addressed as part of the 136 Site Plan review and approval, with some sites requiring more identification than others. 137 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke clarified that menu/order board signs were spoken 138 to in City Code, but not regulated under the sign ordinance, but reviewed as part of the Site Plan 139 process, or Building Permit process in some cases, depending on whether they were part of the 140 overall site signage. Mr. Paschke clarified that there were no requirements for setbacks, heights, 141 or square footage regulating those signs as part of the proposed sign ordinance. 142 If that was the case, Chair Boerigter suggested removal of that definition under Section 1010.02, 143 #20, since it was not applicable. 144 Mr. Paschke advised that staff would review that specific definition, and if not referenced 145 elsewhere in the proposed ordinance, it would be eliminated. 146