2012-03-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 7, 2012 Page 5 Member Lester questioned if this would also apply to reader boards. 199 Mr. Paschke advised that reader board is defined differently by the industry indicating 200 their use for words versus dynamic display signs involving more graphics. 201 Chapter 1010.02 Definitions (Pages 5-6) 202 Member Lester questioned the application of the definition of commercial signs and how 203 that language may impact temporary signs such as those used for a graduation party, yet 204 falling into that category. Member Lester sought to ensure that those signs were still 205 permitted. 206 Member Gisselquist questioned if signs, such as for graduation parties, would be 207 included in that definition as being of a commercial nature. 208 Member Wozniak noted that they could be defined as such if the gathering was held in 209 such a commercial facility. 210 Member Boguszewski noted language of the definition for promoting commercial 211 interests, and opined that a graduation party would not be seeking to draw attention to a 212 commercial interest. Member Boguszewski suggested the addition of the word 213 “commercial” in front of “event” on #6 (page 5). 214 Mr. Paschke, based on his discussion with the City Attorney, advised that some things 215 were not defined with the rationale being that it was not necessary to do so, especially if 216 they were prohibited. Using banners as an example, Mr. Paschke noted that they were 217 prohibited and therefore there was no need to define them. However, Mr. Paschke noted 218 that some signs were defined, even though prohibited, when they were found to be 219 frequently used by citizens in violation of City Code. Mr. Paschke advised that the banner 220 definition had been one that had been removed in this iteration. Mr. Paschke advised that 221 the rationale was to keep the code as simple as possible, with “less is more.” However, if 222 new technology came along, or better regulations needed to be provided, an amendment 223 could then be considered as appropriate or for further clarification. 224 Next Steps 225 At the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Paschke advised that – unless directed otherwise 226 by Commissioners based on any major concerns or issues found in this draft – staff 227 would schedule a public hearing at an upcoming Planning Commission meeting seeking 228 amendment of the sign ordinance, and allowing for public comment and further 229 discussion of a revised copy. 230 At the request of Vice Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke anticipated, depending on the 231 upcoming spring work load for staff and the Commission, a public hearing at the May 232 2012 meeting. Mr. Paschke stated that this would also allow staff time to make any 233 further modification based on tonight’s discussion and present a draft in property format. 234 6. Adjourn 235 With no further business to come before the Commission, Vice Chair Gisselquist adjourned the 236 meeting at approximately 7:10 p.m.; and once again thanked Member Wozniak for his service to 237 the City on the Planning Commission. 238