Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[04] Minutes 2014 [01] Jan 13 January 13, 2014 14 Page of Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the EDA, Planning Commission, and City Council met in special session on Monday, January 13, 2014 at 6:30 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Bob Loso, Gina Dullinger, Matt Killam, Rick Schultz, Renee Symanietz, Ross Rieke, Steve Frank, Judy Weyrens, Brad Cobb, Dale Wick, Larry Hosch, Chad Hausmann, Gary Osberg, Daryl Schaefer Weyrens stated that the purpose of the meeting is have a discussion on the community vision for signage. It has been a while since the City has reviewed the sign regulations and with changing technology and advertising methods it seems appropriate to discuss again. Discussion items should include billboards, static versus dynamic signs, and how much signage per business should be allowed. The current Ordinance identifies different types of signage based on the zoning classifications, which seems appropriate. To help facilitate the discussion, a map has been prepared illustrating the signs adjacent to CR 75 including approximate dimensions. Osberg stated there must be a standard for billboard height. Schultz stated that billboards are currently not allowed to be constructed in the City. Symanietz added that for those billboards that have been grandfathered in, the heights were determined by the speed limit on the road. She added that faster speeds allow for higher heights. Schultz stated that the reason for the meeting is over the past two months both the Joint Planning Board and City have been faced with an issue regarding the conversion of static signs to dynamic signs. The current Ordinances don’t specifically address dynamic signs so the Council placed a moratorium on new signs so that the City could consider what regulations should apply. The purpose of this meeting is for visioning. Weyrens stated that the purpose of the meeting was not to review detail or draft ordinances; rather a discussion on the big picture of signs. The Ordinance will be drafted after this discussion. Osberg stated that if you talk to engineers with the billboard companies and ask them what types of billboards are being put at specific speed limits. He added that they should be able to give an average height and size of the billboards constructed at different speed limits. Cobb stated that there are different types of billboards. He said that there are rented spaces where people could come in and contract those advertising spaces, and fixed signs. He asked if any of the signs on the map have rented space. Weyrens stated that it depends on if the signs are on-premise or off- premise. The Perkins and St. Joseph Meat Market signs are off-premise and are contracted. There is an additional half-dozen signs that are rented. Weyrens added that the purpose of the meeting is to not look too much on the mechanics, but to focus more on a vision of what they want to City to look like. Osberg stated that another reason the City is looking at signs is due to the recent Variance request approval for the McDonalds sign. He added that a sign is a sign. Osberg feels that signs should be constructed based on the speed limit. From and EDA standpoint, the developers need to know that there is consistency between St. Joseph’s sign regulations and that of other surrounding cities. If St. Joseph put too many limitations, that will be less attractive to developers. Frank stated that he has spent time looking at model codes from sign groups and from the League of Minnesota Cities. He found that many cities are going away from signs. Frank agreed with Weyrens that the meeting is not to focus on the details, but to find out the purpose. He suggested thinking of what to do for different areas and corridors of the City. Once the generalizations are agreed upon they will be given to staff who will then come back with the specifics. He asked if the City even wants a sign Ordinance, or is the City okay without one. Frank added that from the discussions that have taken place, it is a consensus that everyone wants a sign ordinance. Everyone is in agreement that it will be different based upon different corridors, zoning districts, and if the sign is on premise or off-premise. Symanietz mentioned that she has seen other cities removing billboards that were advertising for businesses in surrounding cities. January 13, 2014 24 Page of Weyrens added that the Planning Commission has had some real good discussions. She asked if they see a future of billboards out on B2 (Co Rd 75) and B3 (Co Rd 2) commercial areas. Weyrens added that there will be different needs for signs in these areas. Rieke asked how much space is needed between billboards. Weyrens stated that typically it is 1,000-1,300 feet in between signs. Rieke stated that he wouldn’t want billboards in the B-2 district. He added whether signs are permitted should be based on the zoning district. Wick added that most of the billboards wouldn’t be advertising businesses within the city limits. Frank asked whether grandfathered in billboards could be eliminated by a certain date, or if ownership changed hands. Weyrens stated that you can regulate the repairs and modification, but you can’t put a time limit as to when the billboard needs to be taken down. Symanietz stated that if anything the city should require sign owners to upkeep the sign. Rieke stated there is a lot more of the flashing on signs. Should this be allowed both in a billboard sense and from a business sense? Symanietz stated that there have been a lot of studies done on these types of signs. She added that many of the local businesses may not be able to afford the larger signs where as competitors from other cities who can afford will take away from the local business. Weyrens asked if the city wants to see static or non-static sign. Does it matter if the sign is on or off premise? Weyrens added that in the B-2 businesses are allowed to have a free standing advertising sign not to exceed 200 sq ft. Osberg asked if the current ordinance will be revised, or if a complete new one will be created. He added that it is hard to have input when he doesn’t know what the original ordinance says. Hausmann asked Osberg what would he like to see if he was given a clean slate? Osberg stated that form an EDA point of view, is whether the City will have a fair developer sign ordinance. He said he doesn’t know if it is fair that the McDonalds sign is held to a 15ft sign. He doesn’t want to discourage developers from coming to the City. He felt the moratorium was overkill. He added that the digital signs are the sign of today. Dullinger stated that she is a civil engineer and has worked with developers. She added that a clear, rather than fair ordinance needs be developed. Developers are willing to conform to the city Ordinances to an extent and it’s a matter of getting clear and consistent definitions across. Dullinger stated that for example going to a town in Arizona, their signs are limited to 12ft in height and it is still working for them. Loso stated that in his opinion digital signs are a norm in the industry and that the City should not concentrate on the digital aspect of the sign. He feels that eventually all signs will become digital. Wick added that off-premise digital signs are regulated, whereas on premise signs are not regulated. They have different standards. Loso stated that some of the feedback he has heard in the past is that we don’t want to look like Division Street. He questioned what that meant. Weyrens stated that the newer buildings have updated signs that have a different look to them compared to the signs that older businesses have in town. The idea at the time was to change the landscape coming into town off of 75. Hausmann added that now when he needs to locate a business within a town, he uses his cell phone whereas his dad is looking for billboards and signs to tell him where to go. The younger generation is not looking to signs to find places, they are using their phones. Schultz stated that the City has the opportunity to landscape their signs and to redesign the entrance to the City. There is the opportunity to design the streetscape and how the city should look in the future. Osberg asked if a sign variance would be approved if another business were to want to construct a sign like the McDonalds sign at the same height. Schultz stated that if it was the same situation with the same setback due to the Wobegon Trail, then yes, however every request is different. Cobb asked if everyone is in agreement that there should be different allowances based on the corridor and zoning districts. All present agreed. January 13, 2014 34 Page of Frank stated that he thinks everyone agrees that a sign ordinance is needed and that staff should come back with some draft ordinances pending further direction from the Planning Commission. He wants to come up with general regulations. From his research he finds more cities are putting more and more regulations on signs. Weyrens stated that the decision still needs to be made whether to allow billboard or not and does it depend on the type of billboard. The general consensus was to not allow those types of billboards. Hosch stated that he doesn’t think that billboards benefit the city. He sees that those who want the billboards are sign people, not businesses and residents of the City. With regard to pylon signs, Weyrens stated that the current Ordinance prohibit pylons sign and the signs are limited to 15 feet in height. She questioned if the members had comments on exclusion and height limit. Symanietz stated that a sign height needs to be determined and be consistent. Osberg stated that the height should be at 30ft to be consistent with the McDonalds sign was approved. Hausmann stated that the reason for the variance approval was due to the setback. Weyrens stated that the Planning Commission will be meeting again to discuss the feedback from this meeting. She asked if the Commission feels they have enough information to go forward to start drafting the Ordinances. Members of the Planning Commission felt they had enough feedback and a good platform to go off of. Rieke stated that he wants to see design rather than pylon signs. He posed the questions as to whether the City should allow the upgrade and maintenance of the billboard off of 75 that is currently on the table. Schultz stated Hosch stated that once the signs are up, there should be regulations in the sign ordinance for upkeep and maintenance of the sign. Schultz agreed. He added that he would rather have an ugly sign that works fully, compared to one that doesn’t work. Schultz stated that he would like to see a nice scenic Welcome to St. Joseph marker rather than numerous signs. He agrees with Dullinger that they have the opportunity to change the signage going forward and what they want St. Joseph to look like. Loso asked how people are going to be attracted to the city without signage. He stated that there needs to be signs to advertise for the local business. Schultz stated that there are certain needs for advertising, but he feels that not having signs is not hindering the businesses in the City. There are alternate ways to attract people to the City. Dullinger stated that if the City spends the time to create an attractive gateway to the City, that alone will attract people. The gateway will intrigue people to want to see what is in the City. Frank asked what they want the Planning Commission to take away from the meeting. He added that people today don’t need signs to find out what is in a City. For example, he likes the gateway to Sartell off of Pinecone Road, where there are trails and a nice Welcome to Sartell sign. There are no advertisements out there for the businesses within the City. Frank suggested that Cities could advertise on the signs right off the highway where businesses would pay the stated to have their advertisement on those signs. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:00 PM. Judy Weyrens Administrator January 13, 2014 44 Page of