PLAN COMMISSION

April 8, 2010                                                                                                                                      

 

 

Members present:  Knudson, Burchill, Yoerg, Selissen, Vance and Casanova

 

Others present:  Denny Darnold

 

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Knudson at 7:00 p.m.

 

A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Burchill to approve the March 25, 2010 meeting minutes.  Motion carried.

 

Review of amendments to the Municipal Sign Code, Chapter 202 – Signs.  Darnold noted that there were generally four issues that the plan commission has been focusing on:

                Electronic

                Banner

                Portable

                Off-premise

The city currently has a moratorium on the installation of electronic signs; and this is the one issue that needs to be discussed tonight so that draft language may be prepared, Darnold noted.  Darnold reviewed the information that was submitted to the plan commission in the packets and two examples of language in sign regulations from other communities for electronic signs such as illumination, height, area allowance, etc.  Darnold commented that he hoped to discuss the related issues in regard to electronic signs so that he could prepare a draft ordinance for the plan commission to review at the next meeting.  Darnold reviewed a list of related issues including messages and /or sign locations for electronic signs such as limited text, duration, orientation, color, setback, brightness, dimmer control, audio, height and sign area.  Darnold suggested that previous plan commission discussions concentrated on the message, Darnold urged the commission also to review the issue of height, sign area and proximity to residential areas.

 

Yoerg asked if the amendments will be in addition to the existing ordinances.  Darnold stated that is the intent, but that at this time the entire sign code should be reviewed to bring up to date where necessary.  Yoerg asked if electronic wall signs will be permitted.  Darnold stated the recommendation to date is to continue to limit electronic signs only to freestanding signs.  Knudson commented that the discussions regarding electronic signs would not allow extra signage, but would change in regard to how an electronic sign may be able to display the message.  Knudson reiterated that there is a moratorium in place for electronic signs.  Yoerg expressed concern about businesses in the downtown area erecting electronic signs and the potential negative impact that may have.  Knudson noted that the city is not changing the sign regulations to allow electronic signs on walls of buildings and that there are only a few freestanding signs in the downtown area.  Darnold noted that no electronic signs are permitted in the designated historic district.  Darnold asked if the plan commission wanted to prohibit or to restrict electronic signs to less than 30 sq. ft. in the central business district.

 

Casanova asked if inflatable signs will be addressed.  Darnold stated yes that would be discussed later in the review of portable / temporary signs.

 

 

Page 2, Plan Commission

April 8, 2010                                                                                                                      

 

 

Vance asked about images on electronic signs.  Darnold noted that to date the proposal is that the image or message must remain static for a determined period of time.  If a business desires to have a sign that changes more often than the determined rate then the sign must be approved for a conditional use permit.

 

Knudson reviewed his recommendations noting that graphics or images are regulated if they change at a more frequent rate than to be established by ordinance.  Thus, if the message or image or video changes at a more frequent rate, then the applicant will need to have a conditional use permit approved by the city.

 

Vance noted that driving through Oklahoma that electronic signs were changing at a rate of about every two seconds and if the state has a state law that the electronic signs cannot change less than every eight (8) seconds that the law is not being enforced.

 

Knudson referred to a video on U-Tube that showed how electronic signs looked based on varied rates of message display such as 2, 4, 6 or 8 second intervals.  Knudson added that within that video was a segment that showed electronic signs In Oklahoma and that the public was not pleased that the signs were being allowed to operate in violation of state law.  Knudson encouraged the plan commission to review those videos if not already.  (Note:  The videos were part of the city presentation to the Downtown Planning Committee meeting of February 9th.)

 

Vance commented that he did see most frequently signs changing at a rate of 2 – 4 seconds.

 

Selissen asked what a “Nit” is.  Darnold noted that it is a degree of luminance, but added that he cannot describe that.

 

Vance asked if there may be a way to demonstrate what level of luminance that may be.

 

Knudson commented that the level of light needs to be greater for color than monochrome messages and more for daytime than nighttime sign function.

 

Knudson reiterated that the standards of electronic signs that are allowed for an administrative permit is being reviewed.  Other considerations would be, as shown in the handout – Changeable Copy, such as dimmer control.  Knudson added the reason for the moratorium is to look at these issues for electronic signs that will be proposed in the future.

 

Vance asked if the time the message can change may be required of existing signs.  Darnold noted that is an issue the city attorney will need to review and advise the plan commission and Common Council.

 

Knudson noted that the existing ordinance does not allow change in color or allow flashing and there are a few signs in the city that do one or both.

 

 

 

Page 3, Plan Commission

April 8, 2010                                                                                                                                      

 

 

Knudson reviewed the list of general regulation considerations:

-          Limited text - no additional language to be considered, it was felt the limitation of 30 sq. ft. addressed the concern.

-          Duration – Knudson noted that he originally suggested ten seconds per change of message.

Darnold noted there had been some previous discussion about allowing change at a minimum of two seconds, but the commissioners were to review existing signs.  Knudson commented that he is not comfortable with two seconds.  Knudson added that he did not think the Council will approve a minimum frequency of two seconds.  Vance noted that a frequency of two seconds does not create a flashing effect.  Knudson reiterated that the message duration being discussed is for signs that will not need a conditional use permit and without public review.  It was agreed that a frequency of four (4) seconds is proposed for the minimum display time without a conditional use permit.

-          Orientation – Knudson questioned the meaning of the term orientation as it applies to the sign ordinance.  There was discussion whether to restrict electronic signs a certain distance from residential zoned properties oriented so they cannot be seen from residential properties.  Casanova suggested that if an electronic sign is proposed within 150 feet of a residential district that a conditional use permit would be required.   Vance asked how long is a city block.  Darnold noted about 330 feet.  Knudson noted the distance is not measured from property line to property line, but from where the sign is proposed to the edge of the residential district.  Yoerg expressed concern that the signs proliferate to a point that they create sign pollution.  Knudson stated that electronic signs currently are not restricted in height.  Darnold commented that he has previously encouraged that the height of electronic signs must be restricted to mitigate their impact.  Burchill reminded the plan commission that a previous proposal for a sign near a residential area drew concerns expressed by nearby residents.  The commission agreed that electronic signs are required to be at least 150 feet from residential districts.

-          Color – It was questioned if the school district wanted to put in an electronic sign would they be permitted.  Knudson noted that the electronic signs, as proposed, are only allowed in the general business and central business districts.  Darnold commented that if electronic signs are to be allowed in the public district that the height needs to be regulated, such as a maximum height of ten feet.  It was agreed to allow electronic signs in the public district.

-          Setback / separation– It was agreed that electronic signs must be a least 50 feet from other electronic signs.

-          Brightness – It was agreed for the proposed draft that the maximum for luminance is 5,000 nits at night and 500 nits during the daytime.

-          Height  –Vance asked about where the measurement is taken, top or bottom of the sign.  Knudson responded top of the sign.  Knudson asked Darnold what height he would recommend in the general business district.  Darnold answered 25 feet.  It was agreed that 25 feet would be the maximum allowed height in the general business district, 20 feet in the central business district and 10 feet in the public district.

-          Sign area – Currently the maximum allowable sign area for electronic signs is 30 sq. ft. in the general business and central business districts.  It was agreed to propose maximum sign area of 30 sq. ft. in the general business and public districts and 20 sq. ft. in the central business district.

Page 4, Plan Commission

April 8, 2010                                                                                                                      

 

 

The committee reviewed two examples of regulations for luminance.  Casanova asked how the settings would be controlled.  Darnold responded that the sign company would have to certify that at installation the luminance was set within the limitations of the sign ordinance.  Darnold noted that another alternative is to have the sign company certify that the luminance has been set within the established limits and those records would become part of the permit approval.  Vance asked if a sign company could be called to verify if they can certify the luminance.

 

Darnold reviewed the regulations for banner signs and recommendations to date.  One per wall with a maximum sign size, but cannot exceed the overall maximum for all signs on that individual wall.  The size of banner signs should be more restrictive in size in the central, neighborhood or office districts such as 20 or 40 sq. ft. so the banner signs would be at an appropriate scale for the neighborhood.  The discussion focused on the central, neighborhood and office districts.  Vance noted that banner signs are commonly 3’x10’ or 30 sq. ft. in area.  Knudson reiterated that in the general business district where most of the banner signs are displayed is limited to 80 sq. ft. if the business has not used up its signage allowance for wall signs.  Yoerg asked about banner signs in the multiple family residential districts.  Darnold commented that generally the apartment complexes advertise availability by placing a small yard sign out.  The committee agreed to the banner maximum area limits of 80 sq. ft. for general commercial, light industrial and general industrial districts; 40 sq. ft. for office district; and 20 sq. ft. for neighborhood business and central business districts.

 

In regard to freestanding signs Darnold suggested that for the office and neighborhood business districts and the public district that the maximum area to be 60 sq. ft. and height to be 10 feet.

 

Darnold reviewed the proposed regulations for portable signs, expanding the allowable signs to the general business district, but restricting them to 7.5 sq. ft. in area and to be placed on the private property, except that in instances where multiple tenants exist on a parcel, wider than 10 feet, that one additional sign per 30 feet of building frontage, or part thereof will be permitted.  Knudson noted that the initial draft allowed portable signs on the public right of way if adjacent to the building similar to the regulations for the downtown commercial area.  Darnold commented that much of the development in the general business district has a lawn area of five or more feet from the property line to the parking lot to place the sign.  Knudson stated the city is heading in the direction of not allowing signs in the right of way.

 

Vance questioned if the city was opening a can of worms by allowing the portable signs in the general business district, such as along Coulee Road.  Knudson noted that there have been some portable signs that have been well done such as the Valvoline Instant Oil Change located on Gateway Blvd.  Concern was expressed by Burchill about the number of signs that may be placed for commercial parcels with multiple tenants.

 

The discussion shifted to whether the city should allow signage in the public right of ways.  Knudson reminded the commission that the city cannot regulate based on content of the sign and that currently the city allows temporary signs to be placed on the right of way for garage sales and open houses, but do not allow signs for other types of sales or political signs. Knudson advised that the city will need to decide if the city will allow signs on public property or not; and if they are allowed, the city cannot

Page 5, Plan Commission

April 8, 2010                                                                                                                                      

 

 

regulate the content of the sign.  Yoerg questioned what the repercussions of changing the sign ordinance as an example for garage sales after they have been allowed for a number of years.  Vance commented that the garage sale signs may be allowed, with permission of a property owner, to be placed on the private property.  Vance asked about the banner over Second Street if that is in the public right of way.  Knudson noted that the city can exempt themselves from the rules, if a governmental purpose may be achieved, for example of the banner sign the use of the sign has been limited except for public purpose announcements such as community events

 

Knudson asked about the real estate signs allowed in the right of way.   Darnold responded noting that the only real estate signs allowed in the right of way were for open houses and must be placed and taken down within the guidelines specified in the ordinance.  Knudson commented that the city of New Richmond modified their sign ordinance to only allow the real estate signs on private property with permission from the property owner.  Burchill expressed his desire to have no signage on the public right of way except for public purpose signs.  Knudson suggested changing the sections for garage sale and open house signs that they be limited to private property and not allowed within the public right of way.  Darnold suggested that in addition that permission from the property owner would be required.

Knudson asked Darnold to draft language to limit the location of garage sale and open house signs to private property only, with permission required from the property owner.

 

Burchill asked how a sign that was placed on private property, but referred to another business apply.

Knudson noted that is getting to the next topic – off-premise signs.  Knudson noted that this again becomes a content based issue in that the city may allow garage and open house signs off-premise on private property, but not allow other types of signs.  Knudson stated that after giving the issue of off-premise sign some consideration that he believes this is a matter that would create a “can of worms” for the city in regard to enforcement.  Darnold stated the only way he could see that it would be enforceable would be to require written permission between the party requesting to place an off-premise sign on another location and  the property owner allowing the sign to be erected on their property.

 

The plan commission did not support the provision of off-premise signs.

 

Vance asked to revisit the garage sale sign issue.  Vance asked if an on-site portable sign allowed would need to be removed to allow a garage sale sign and what about Parade of Home signs.

 

Darnold commented that the allowance for the garage sale and open house signs were added about 6 to 7 years after the sign ordinance was initially adopted.  The reason there is discussion now, to not allow them on the public right of way, is a result of the recent court cases regarding signs on public right of ways.

 

Selissen asked if the off-premise sign restrictions applied to all districts in the city.  Knudson responded it applied to all districts throughout the city.

 

Knudson noted the list of signs that are exempt from getting permits in the central business district (downtown).

 

Page 6, Plan Commission

April 8, 2010                                                                                                                      

 

 

Burchill reiterated the issue for the commission to address is whether signs may be allowed on the public right of way.  Knudson noted that the research done on this matter indicates that the courts have ruled that no signs are allowed (except for public purpose such as traffic regulatory signs) or all signs must be allowed and the city cannot pick and choose as to what is allowable based on content.

Burchill noted that in regard to that issue political signs should not be allowed in the public right of ways.  Knudson noted that the political signs are not just for an advertising consideration, but a matter of endorsement for some property owners.

 

Darnold was directed to draft the ordinance that no signs will be permitted on the right of ways, except the public purpose signs.

 

Vance commented the city should not take away the signs that indicate upcoming activities for churches or other non-profit organizations.  Knudson stated that should be able to be worked out with time limits.  Vance also stated the size of signs should be limited also.

 

Yoerg asked about window signs.  Darnold noted that up to 50% of the window space may be used for signs.

 

Other business for discussion purposes.  Darnold reviewed the issue of meeting on Thursday May 6 or alternative dates of May 10, 11 or 13.  The date of May 10 allowed the most commission members to attend, so the first meeting in May will be scheduled for Monday, May 10, 7:00 p.m.  No other matters were discussed.

 

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Casanova to adjourn.  Motion carried.  8:48 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Denny Darnold