The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014 [11] Nov 03 November 3, 2014 Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, November 3, 2014 at 6:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall opening with the Pledge of Allegiance. Members Present: Chair Matt Killam, Commissioners, Ross Rieke, Daryl Schaefer, Brad Cobb, Gina Dullinger. City Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Steve Anderson Killam stated that there has been confusion with the start times of the meetings. The general consensus was to officially make the meeting start times at 6:00 PM. Cobb made a motion to change the start times of the Planning Commission meetings to 6:00 PM. The motion was seconded by Rieke and passed unanimously by those present. Approval of the Agenda: Rieke made a motion to approve the agenda. The motion was seconded by Dullinger and carried unanimously by those present. Approval of the Minutes: Rieke made a motion to approve the minutes of September 23rd and October l4`h. The motion was seconded by Schaefer and passed unanimously by those present. Sign Ordinance: Weyrens stated the sign moratorium ends on November 22nd and the draft in front of the Commission includes suggested corrections. There has been a lot of discussion on whether to include billboards in the sign ordinance. Weyrens added that if the Planning Commission would like to include billboards, they will need to think of which corridors to allow them in. The only sign corridor now is in the downtown area. Dullinger stated that in earlier discussions, allowing off-premise signs somewhere other than downtown to direct traffic to the downtown was discussed. She added that allowing off-premise signs downtown does not serve a purpose. Rieke questioned where the sign ordinance process is right now. He added that the Planning Commission needs to make recommendations in order to get it to the Council. He questioned if there are other items in the sign ordinance that need to be discussed. Dulinger stated she found an inconsistency in the maximum height allowed. In one place it states 20ft and the other place states 15ft. Weyrens stated it would be fixed, but also questioned if a 20ft maximum height is what the Planning Commission wants to recommend. Rieke stated that to him 20ft is low for a sign, even 30ft is low. Cobb questioned if there has been any feedback regarding sign height. Weyrens stated previous sign discussions have not focused on sign heights, and no additional feedback has been received. Dullinger stated she would be okay with having the height be 25ft. Dullinger added that the grading of the land can also have an effect on how the sign will look. Schaefer added his only concerns with the ordinance are sign heights and off-premise signs. Schaefer also questioned if dynamic signs are allowed in the draft ordinance. Weyrens stated there is a piece in the ordinance that allows dynamic signs. However, dynamic signs as billboards are not allowed. Rieke added he would not be opposed to including a billboard component in the ordinance. Additionally he questioned if in the past there were any regulations on spacing of billboards. Weyrens stated that the County has a minimum distance of 1,000ft in between billboards. Weyrens stated that you can pick where you want the corridors to be and what types and sizes of the signs are allowed in those corridors. Additionally there is the option to have all billboards go through the special use permit process. November 3, 2014 Page 2 of 4 Dullinger clarified that not all off-premise signs are billboards. Schaefer added that it would be beneficial to give downtown businesses the opportunity to advertise with an off-premise sign. Killam stated that page 52.11-9, discusses dynamic signs and there are a couple businesses in town that utilize dynamic signs. He is wondering if the language in the draft ordinance should be changed. Weyrens had included the provision to allow for displays to transition every three seconds to allow special effects. Dullinger discussed the following: • 52.11-1, subd 2(c): Insert the work potentially to say; "Signs can potentially create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns, and detriments to property values, thereby potentially threatening the public health, safety, and welfare." The rest of the Commission agreed. • 52.11-6, Subd 7(d): Dullinger questioned prohibiting the words"stop" and "danger" from signs as there are businesses, for example, "Speedstop" or"Stop and Go." • 52.11-7 Subd 7(h): Dullinger would like to see pylon signs and off-premise signs separated as pylon signs are not allowed in any districts whereas off-premise signs are allowed for in certain districts. • 52.11-7 Subd. 7(i): The definition of materials the sign needs to be constructed out of is slightly different then it is in the same subdivision under section (b). Weyrens stated that in section (i), can be changed to insection (b)will be referenced. • 52.11-9 Subd 9(c): Item will be removed as it references pylon signs which are not allowed in any district. • 52.11-9 Subd 12(1): Remove"proposed"from last sentence in that section. • 52.11-10 Subd 12(g): Dullinger questioned if the additional requirement of a signed license agreement supplemental to the building permit is necessary?Weyrens stated that other cities have done it in order to keep the sign in compliance yearly. She added that it is a requirement that can be added later if there are any compliance issues. Dulinger stated that as the draft ordinance is written, off-premise signs are not allowed in Residential, the B1 district except under subdivision 20, and not allowed in B2 or B3. • 52.11-17 Subd 18(c1): Dullinger stated that she knows what the section means, but would like a description or guidelines regarding sign bands. Weryens stated she would bring to the EDA and ask for a definition and further guidelines. • 52.11-23 Subd 22: Dullinger stated that there has been previous discussions on what sign maintenance means and how that relates to non-conforming signs. Dullinger questioned what happens if Subway wanted to change their sign.Weyrens stated that they are able to change the face, but anything new would need to be brought into conformance. Rieke stated that he does not have a problem with the current sign or pylon signs. Rieke stated that he would like to have a billboard component implemented. Rieke questioned what the Commission's thoughts are on whether to have a joint meeting with the Council, or to make a motion sending recommendations over to the Council. Cobb and Schaefer agreed that a motion should be made to send their recommendations over to the Council for approval. Cobb felt that the Commission has done their due diligence with the ordinance. Weyrens questioned if the Commission would like to include language for a billboard corridor. Rieke made a motion recommending approval of the amended Sign Ordinance with all the changes discussed, and with the addition of a billboard corridor, distance of 1500 feet between them, reducing the occupation of facial footage to 30%, and sign height not exceeding 36feet, along CR75.The motion was seconded by Cobb and passed unanimously by those present. Discussion: Dullinger questioned Rieke's motion; specifically the height of all signs being 36ft. Dullinger added she struggles with the banning of pylon signs as she feels they are less distracting than signs such as monument signs. The height of the pylons would be the same as that of the billboards at 36ft. November 3, 2014 Page 3 of 4 Rieke stated that just because pylon signs are allowed doesn't mean that everyone will put up that type of sign. In agreement with Dullinger and Rieke, the general consensus of the Commission would be to include pylon signs as an option with their maximum height of 36 feet. Rieke made a motion to amend the previous motion to include pylon signs as a sign option in the same area in which billboards are allowed, CR 75. The motion was seconded by Dullinger and passed unanimously by those present. Vote on original motion as amended. The amended motion was approved unanimously by those present. Joint Planning Board Update: Weyrens stated that the Joint Planning Board is meeting on November 18th There will be two hearings for rezoning and platting. One is located over by Kennedy School and the other is located over by Sunset Ridge with 10 acre lots. Both are being proposed by the same developer. Adjourn: As the agenda had been completed, Killam adjourned the meeting at 7:02 PM. 4w / Judy eyrens A,••• istrator THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK