2012-04-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 4, 2012 Page 4 However, he suggested that the same thing could apply, with spotlights used on those signs to 141 advertise such a multi-family complex. 142 Mr. Paschke opined that, in most cases, he would concur that the same thing would apply; and 143 was not aware of any internally illuminated signs as an example, with spotlights used to highlight 144 most of those types of signs. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would support using similar language 145 for MDR, HDR-2 and HDR-2 Districts. 146 Member Olsen noted a minor typographical error in Section 1010.04, Line 276, changing the first 147 word from “issues,” to “issued.” 148 Chair Boerigter questioned the compliance status of existing signs in the City. 149 Mr. Paschke advised that some were in compliance, while some were not; and staff currently 150 worked through the City’s existing public nuisance ordinance. However, Mr. Paschke noted that 151 enactment of this revised sign ordinance would provide staff with the ability to regulate and/or 152 enforce those sign laws throughout the community. 153 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the “Fine” (Section 1010.04 – 154 Maintenance, Removal of Signs, Fines) was entirely new; and further provided a process for 155 enforcement not currently available. 156 If existing signs were not in compliance, Chair Boerigter questioned how property owners were 157 advised; with Mr. Paschke advising that, as staff became aware of issues, property owners were 158 sometimes noticed in writing of their lack of compliance. Mr. Paschke noted that staff was aware 159 of a number of existing signs that were not in compliance and that a number of them remained 160 out-of-compliance with limited staff resources to address them. 161 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke advised that “sandwich board” signs were 162 currently prohibited; but that the new sign ordinance would allow them, provided a temporary sign 163 permit was applied for. Mr. Paschke advised that the intent was that, if temporary sign permits 164 were required for temporary signs, and the time frame expanded from 20 to 90 days for their 165 utilization for special events, it would diminish or eliminate their use on a continual basis and 166 potential violations. 167 At the request of Chair Boerigter, Mr. Paschke confirmed that those temporary signs would then 168 be regulated and enforced by the Community Development Department, not through the Building 169 Permit process. 170 At the request of Member Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke advised that temporary signs were currently 171 reported to staff by others seeking to do the same thing, or reporting non-compliance concerns. 172 Mr. Paschke advised that those types of calls to staff were very frequent, along with calls about 173 right-of-way versus private yard signage regulations. 174 Chair Boerigter questioned the signs using people standing in front of a business or on a 175 sidewalk, and questioned how those were regulated. 176 Mr. Paschke advised that they were not regulated in the proposed sign ordinance as they were 177 usually in the public right-of-way; and staff was unaware of other provisions for their regulation, 178 noting the difficulty in monitoring them as well. 179 At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Paschke addressed campaign signs, noting that those 180 were specifically regulated by MN State Statute, with the City Code modified several years ago to 181 mirror statute. 182 Chair Boerigter noted that specific language in Section 1010.09, Section 6, Items a-g, addressing 183 political signs. 184 Considerable discussion ensued regarding Section 1010.10 (Dynamic Displays) related to current 185 provisions and the current code regulations that were very limiting for those types of signage (e.g. 186 number of display changes limited to 3 times within a 24-hour period) and the need to upgrade 187 the City’s ordinance to facilitate ever-increasing technological advances in dynamic signage, and 188 their various types, light colors and/or intensity, and flashing capabilities. Mr. Paschke further 189 noted that the City’s current Code didn’t do justice to electronic message centers that stayed 190