2012-04-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 4, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Paschke advised that it depended on what Chair Boerigter meant by a “residential” sign, 94 whether for a home occupation or a sign in the front yard. 95 Chair Boerigter clarified that one area of concern was related to the proposed ordinance’s 96 reference and definition of “name plate” signs. 97 Mr. Paschke advised that such signage was exempted under the City’s Building Code or 98 addressed in other sections of City Code (e.g. street numbers and their sizes); and other 99 standards addressed by the City’s Building Code. Mr. Paschke advised that signage, using a 100 protest sign as an example, in a residential front yard was addressed by free speech issues; and 101 the proposed sign ordinance does not speak to those. 102 Chair Boerigter referenced Section 1010.09 (Other Temporary Signs) as well as Section 1010.03 103 (General Provisions), with the General Provisions stating that it was unlawful to erect a sign 104 without a permit unless addressed in the ordinance; and asked staff to provide the location in the 105 proposed ordinance that it clearly stated that a permit was not required for a name plate or other 106 examples. 107 Mr. Paschke advised that the chart shown after line 293 of the proposed ordinance showed 108 allowed signs for residential districts, with both signage for home occupation and name plates 109 addressed. 110 Chair Boerigter questioned if a name plate was defined as a “temporary sign;” with Mr. Paschke 111 advising that it would be considered “permanent.” 112 Chair Boerigter suggested that Section 1010.09 be renamed to “Other Signs” rather than “Other 113 Temporary Signs;” since not all signs addressed therein were considered temporary. 114 Mr. Paschke concurred that the Section could be re-titled as “Other Signs,” since some were 115 temporary and some not. 116 By consensus, Members concurred that Lines 406-208 and the title of that section be revised to 117 remove the word, “temporary. 118 Chair Boerigter opined that the dimensions for residential signs seemed small; and questioned 119 how the size compared to dimensions for a sign other than for an address; and questioned if a 120 four (4) square foot sign was sufficient. 121 Mr. Paschke advised that the dimensions were different. 122 Member Strohmeier provided examples of that size, with consensus of the Commissioners that 123 the size was sufficient for the purpose. 124 Chair Boerigter questioned the residential district sign restrictions that they be “non-illuminated;” 125 and if that was for external or internal illumination. Chair Boerigter noted the number of existing, 126 and anticipated, nameplates and addresses that were illuminated by a spotlight or other means, 127 and whether this was a preference for emergency response to a residential property. 128 Mr. Paschke clarified that “illuminated” referenced an internal means of lighting the sign, not 129 external means. 130 Chair Boerigter noted, however, that the proposed code did not specify external; and questioned 131 if the City Code didn’t require address numbers clearly visible on homes. 132 Mr. Paschke advised that such regulations would be addressed in the City’s Building Code; and 133 spotlights on sight to highlight them were permitted. To avoid confusion, Mr. Paschke suggested 134 that language in the chart under Section 1010.05 (On-Premise Signs) for LDR-1 and LDR-2 135 Residential Districts be clarified as “Non-Internal Illumination.” 136 Member Lester suggested that this change be applied to MDR, HDR-1 and HDR-2 Districts in the 137 subsequent chart between lines 294 and 297 of that same section. 138 Chair Boerigter noted that nameplate signs in that chart were allowed to be up to a maximum of 139 twenty-four (24) square feet and opined that they seemed to indicate a different type of sign. 140