2012-03-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 7, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Paschke noted that, in general, the clause only comes into effect when the sign 97 owner wants to upgrade or otherwise improve their signage and/or property, similar to 98 current code; and triggering the City to condition approval on bringing their signage into 99 compliance with today’s code. At that time, Mr. Paschke advised, any ongoing concerns 100 or issues can then be addressed; however, compliance requirements are typically 101 predicated on such a trigger. 102 Chapter 1010.04 … Section D.2 (Pages 14- 15) 103 Vice Chair Gisselquist noted the public rights-of-way language on this section and sought 104 clarification of the types of signs being addressed. 105 Mr. Paschke clarified that this was not directed to people holding signs; but those signs 106 on poles, on rights-of-way or on boards (e.g. political signs; Parade of Homes signage, 107 etc.). 108 Section 3.0, Chapter 1010.02, General Provisions (pages 3-4) 109 Member Lester sought clarification between fees and fines and the frequency they 110 changed. 111 Mr. Paschke advised that the fees stayed fairly static if they followed those of the past; 112 and while staff could consult with the City Attorney for his advise and look at them again, 113 as most City fees were generally adopted annually by resolution, but since they didn’t 114 often change, he didn’t anticipate many fines being processed unless necessary to bring 115 them back into compliance. 116 Chapter 1010.04, Section B (page 14) 117 Member Wozniak, in addressing removal of abandoned signs, questioned if that section 118 was new. 119 Mr. Paschke advised that, under current code, it was addressed through the City’s 120 Nuisance Code, but was often cumbersome; and that by having things spelled out in the 121 Sign Ordinance, the Nuisance Code could serve as a back stop for a clear and effective 122 way to set up the sign ordinance, unless it was a life and/or safety issue. Mr. Paschke 123 advised that, if that was the case, the City would remove abandoned signs and the 124 property owner would be held responsible for those costs. In staff’s review of other 125 municipal codes and in consultation with the City Attorney, Mr. Paschke advised that this 126 was common practice. 127 Member Lester, in that same section, noted appearance (e.g. faded, chipped, rusted 128 signs) and questioned whether this wasn’t in the eye of the beholder and who would 129 determine if a sign needed to be cleaned, renovated or replaced. 130 Mr. Paschke advised that the City would make the determination, and while there was no 131 ready definition, there was usually a clear distinction among those signs and others. Mr. 132 Paschke noted that the sign owner always had the right to appeal any administrative 133 decisions. 134 Member Wozniak asked if this also addressed signs and content; with Mr. Paschke 135 responding affirmatively, that it included the entire structure: the sign, the pole, and the 136 advertisement itself. 137 As an example, Member Wozniak noted the abandoned Geller’s Jewelry sign base in the 138 middle of the parking lot near the Dairy Queen on Lexington Avenue (immediately north 139 of Larpenteur Avenue). 140 Mr. Paschke advised that the Lexington Plaza strip mall had a Master Sign Plan; and had 141 other non-conforming signs (e.g. roof mall sign); and once they embark on remodeling or 142 refurbishing the exterior of the mall, the signs will need to meet the master sign plan 143 requirements. Mr. Paschke reiterated that non-conformities were typically allowed until 144 you trigger compliance through an improvement. 145