Plan Commission

April 22, 2010                                                                                                                                     DRAFT – 4-28-10

 

Members present:  Knudson, Burchill, Yoerg, Olson, Selissen

 

Others present:  Dennis Darnold

 

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

 

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to approve the meeting minutes of April 8, 2010.

Motion carried.

 

Request to extinguish part of the drainage utility easement between lot 91, The Lighthouse at Hudson Pier Second Addition (25 Coach Light Drive) and lot 5, The Lighthouse at Hudson Pier (21 Coach Light Drive – vacant lot) – Frederick Ibey.  Darnold reviewed Mr. Ibey’s request to vacate part of the drainage and utility easement between lots at 21 and 25 Coach Light Drive of The Lighthouse at Hudson Pier residential development.  Darnold noted that the 10 foot easement and a 20 foot drainage easement on the north side of lot 91 will not be vacated.  Mr. Ibey owns both lots and is requesting to be able to extend the deck on his residence (lot 91) toward lot 5; and to be able to build over the lot line, the easement will need to be extinguished (vacated).  Darnold stated he advised Mr. Ibey that the grading plan will need to be submitted to the city.

 

Yoerg inquired what private utilities may be located in the easement, if any.  Darnold noted that natural gas and electricity, telephone and cable television would be the private utilities that may use the easements.

 

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Olson to recommend that the drainage and utility easement to be extinguished between lot 5, The Lighthouse at Hudson Pier and lot 91, The Lighthouse at Hudson Pier Second Addition, except for 10 feet abutting the front property lines (Coach Light Drive) and the 20 feet abutting the back lot line of lot 91 and 10 feet abutting the rear property line of lot 5; that the owner provide a grading / drainage plan for the two lots; and the property owner will need to get approval from the private utility companies to release the easements.  Motion carried.

 

Amendments to Municipal Code, Chapter 202 – Signs, Community Development Director.  Knudson noted that the discussion would primarily be for the proposed amendments to the sign regulations particularly for the electronic message display, banner and portable signs.  Other issues will continue to be discussed in future meetings. 

 

Darnold reviewed the information provided for this evening’s discussion and consideration of proposed amendments to the sign ordinance noting there is proposed language for electronic message display signs, banner signs and portable signs.  Darnold noted that there are two alternative recommendations for the electronic message display signs A1/A2 and B1/B2.  The difference of the two alternatives is the referral to the regulation of brightness or illumination (page A2) or illuminance (page B2) of signs and the method of measuring the brightness.  Alternative A refers to measurement for illumination in a measurement unit referred to as a “nit” and alternative B is a measurement unit for illuminance called a “footcandle.” 

 

 

Page 2, Plan Commission

April 22, 2010                                                                                                                                     DRAFT – 4-28-10

 

Darnold also noted that in alternative B1/B2, page B1 that he suggested Section 202-4, D should be deleted and recreated as:  “No illuminated sign which changes in either color or intensity of light shall be permitted except one giving time, date, temperature, weather or similar public service information, except in designated commercial districts, refer to Section 202-5 (9).  All illuminated signs shall have a shielded light source. “   Darnold noted that the plan commission has recommended that electronic signs be allowed in the Public District; and if that is endorsed, it would be best to remove “except in designated commercial districts, refer to Section 202-5 (9)” and replace with “except for electronic message display signs as referred to in Section 202-5 (9).”

 

Darnold referred to an information sheet from the International Sign Association that discussed measurement of brightness, and the preferred method of measurement is illuminance using a footcandle meter because the measurement considers the ambient light conditions.  Darnold stated he is leaning toward using the footcandle measurement method because of the associated cost of equipment, and it is the industry recommended standard.

 

Yoerg asked if the city has equipment available to conduct this form of enforcement or if the enforcement would be conducted by a consulting firm.  Darnold noted that the city does not have this type of measurement equipment and whether the city would contract for assistance to measure the brightness of signs has not been discussed.

 

Burchill asked if the signs have a setting for brightness.  Darnold noted that the measurement may be necessary if the sign malfunctions.  Darnold commented that it is probably in the best interest of the sign owner to limit the brightness due to cost savings and longevity of the sign.  

 

Knudson commented that it is unlikely the city would purchase a meter and that the city would hire a consultant, as needed, to review signs.  Knudson added that the candela (nit) standard is noted to be a more objective form of measurement and that the measurement method by the candela standard would allow the city to measure the sign brightness without any coordination or cooperation of the sign owner.

 

Yoerg reiterated the issue of the signs being rated for an established illumination level.  Darnold noted that the signs should adjust automatically the brightness based on daytime and nighttime periods, and the brightness should be considerably less at night.

 

Darnold referred to another key element of sign illumination, that cities should consider, is the requirement that electronic signs come equipped with a photo cell or other automatic dimming technology based on ambient light levels and that electronic signs should be able to adjust to account for night/day and cloudy/sunny conditions.

 

Knudson asked Darnold to call to see if consultants are available to assist the city in the measurement of the brightness of the electronic signs, but for tonight to choose one method to move ahead in a draft form.  It was agreed to include the footcandle measurement method for now.  It also was agreed to insert the provision that a photo cell or other automatic dimming technology would be included.

 

Page 3, Plan Commission

April 22, 2010                                                                                                                                     DRAFT – 4-28-10

 

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to recommend the amendments for the sign ordinance for electronic message display signs as alternative B1/B2 and to include the requirement for a photo cell or other automatic dimming technology to be required.  The recommendation is to be forwarded to the city attorney for review.  Motion carried.

 

Darnold reviewed the proposed amendments for portable signs and banner signs.  Darnold referred to the table titled “Types of Signs.”  He noted that he added electronic message display signs to the table as the last column.  He explained that at the last meeting the plan commission discussed the inclusion of electronic signs in the public district, but did not include banner signs.  He asked if the plan commission wanted to consider banner signs in the public district.

 

Knudson questioned if the school would be granted an exception for community events.  Darnold asked who may declare a community event, such as the Mayor or Common Council.

 

Burchill noted the typical school banner signs like Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD) or the theatre productions are placed near the entrance to the senior high school.  Darnold reminded the commission that the proposed amendments to the sign ordinance would not allow banner signs to be placed on fences as the senior high school has done.

 

Yoerg commented that he considers banner signs as temporary.   Darnold noted that the banner signs per the proposed amendments would allow banner signs up without a time limit so long as it meets the other wall sign criteria.

 

Olson asked if the banner signs will apply to the historic district of downtown.  Darnold responded that banner signs would be allowed in the central business district (downtown) and the designated historic district, but restricted to a maximum of 20 sq. ft. so that type of sign fits better with the pedestrian scale of the neighborhood.  Knudson added that the banner signs will be required to be attached to the wall of the buildings and be part of the allowable wall signage.

 

Olson asked about the banner sign that is hung over Second Street.  Darnold stated that has been allowed as it serves to provide information about upcoming community events.

 

Darnold noted that in the downtown commercial area that many of the businesses may already be at the maximum allowance for wall signs and may be precluded from having banner signs.  Knudson concurred providing an example of a 20 foot building frontage would only get about 21 sq. ft. of total signage.

 

Olson asked about the provision of graphics in the sign ordinance to illustrate how signs will be regulated.  Darnold noted that it is the intent to provide graphics to make the ordinance easier to understand.

 

Knudson asked if the committee was ready to provide a recommendation.  Darnold asked if the committee wanted to allow banner signs in the Public District.  Darnold expressed that he felt that banner signs should be allowed in the Public District with a maximum area of 80 sq. ft.  Darnold noted that a new section to the ordinance will be needed to address signs allowed in the Public District.

Page 4, Plan Commission

April 22, 2010                                                                                                                                     DRAFT – 4-28-10

 

Darnold reviewed the revisions proposed by the plan commission.  He stated that Section 202-4, R. needs to be deleted and to recreate as Section 202-4, R:

                Portable signs are not permitted except in the B-2, General Business District and B-3, Central Business District as follows:

(1)     One portable sign shall be allowed per building, plus for multiple tenant buildings with frontage wider than 100 feet, one additional sign per 30 feet of building frontage, or part thereof.  Portable signs allowed under this provision shall be allowed in addition to permitted freestanding signs.

(2)    Portable signs shall not exceed three feet in height and 2 ½ feet in width.

(3)    Portable signs must not be placed in the public right-of-way.

(4)    Portable signs shall not be considered temporary signs.

(5)    Portable signs must be placed on the private property or business premises to which it refers.

Darnold noted that he is suggesting the addition to subsection (5).

 

Olson expressed concern about signs that are currently up along Coulee Road.  Darnold noted that signs placed on the right-of-way and off the premises of the business will not be permitted, and one portable sign will be permitted per lot unless there is a multi-tenant building.

 

Burchill asked about vehicle signs.  Darnold noted that identification of the business on a service vehicle is okay, but to place a sign on a vehicle for the intention of it being only for the purpose of that sign message is not legal.  Darnold noted that he will be proposing language for vehicle signs.

 

A motion was made by Yoerg, seconded by Burchill to adopt the proposed language for the banner and portable signs and to refer it to the city attorney for review.  Motion carried.

 

Darnold commented that he visited with the city attorney about the issue of off-premise signs.  She expressed concern about the limitation of content.  Darnold suggested that perhaps the city attorney should attend a future plan commission meeting about concerns about the issue of the content of signs.

 

Other business for discussion purposes only or placement on future agendas.  Darnold noted that the next scheduled plan commission meeting will be held on Monday, May 10, 7:00 p.m. 

 

Yoerg asked about the status of a tree planting / tree replacement program.  Burchill and Darnold explained that the public works committee and particularly Tom Zeuli, Public Works Director has been working on preparing the city for the Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)and that the public works committee is going to discuss the issue of a community tree program at the committee meeting scheduled for April 27th.

 

A motion was made by Burchill, seconded by Yoerg to adjourn.  Motion carried.  7:41 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Dennis Darnold, Secretary