Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 10-07-2008• Commissioners: Council Liaison: Staff: 1. Call to order. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 6:00 PM Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Susie Wojchouski Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman - NAC Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order a declared a quorum, noting the absence of Commissioner Spartz. • 2. Consideration to an~rove the Planning Commission minutes of September 2nd 2008 Motion by Commissioner Voight to approve the minutes of September 2°d, 2008. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hilgart. Motion carried, 4-0. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. Chairman Dragsten requested an update on the following items: Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment Transportation Plan Commercial Vehicle Amendment Zoning Ordinance Update 4. Consideration to review for discussion and decision sign ordinance policy statements for the purpose of developing an amended sign ordinance. Planner Grittman presented a set of policy questions for the Commissioners to discuss in relationship to development of draft sign ordinance language. 1. What will the City's policy be toward electronic and digital displays? a. Allowed as Principal Sign Display, or as accessory message board only? The Commissioners agreed that it should be accessory, and that the electronic display should represent approximately 35% of the entire sign area. n b. Limited to static messages only, or allow motion, scrolling, graphics? The Commissioners indicated that it was reasonable to allow some movement, but they would discourage flashing or rapid movement. • c. Limited to specific locations (major thoroughfares, or any commercial/industrial/public district? This item was not addressed in detail. 2. How will the City address temporary (portable) signs? a. Limit display based on building size, or b. Limit display based on number of tenants, or c. Limit display based on street frontage, or d. Limit display based on one per building? e. Any other differentiation for multiple tenant buildings? f. Provide an incentive to utilize permanent message display (such as exempt a message board from the property's signage allowance maximum)? On this item, the Commissioners came to a general consensus that tenants in multi-unit buildings should each be allotted a separate number of days, that message boards should be encouraged over temporary signs and that an incentive program allowing for more square footage on wall signage or free-standing signage could be used to discourage temporary sign use. It was also agreed that a clause should be added allowing new business entities more initial temporary sign days. Staff indicated that it may also be possible to designate funds from temporary sign permits, or other sign permits, toward a fund dedicated for the construction and maintenance of public information message • boards. This is in response to the volume of non-profit use of temporary signs. 3. How should the City address the size of freestanding signs? a. Size/Height based on street classification (as now), or b. Size Height based on zoning district? The Commissioners determined that the base measure for sign height should be at centerline of the street frontage. The Commission also directed that sign size/height be regulated by the type of land use district versus zoning district, and that the CCD should remain as a separate sign class. 4. How should the City address the policy of preference for Wall v. Freestanding signs, and Monument v. Pylon signs? a. Require a specific formula which codifies those preferences, or b. Develop an incentive -style ordinance which provides choice, but rewards choices consistent with the preference, or c. Develop an ordinance that states the preference, but leaves the choice to the property owner? Commissioners re-stated that the focus should be to provide incentives for wall-signs and emphasize that free-standing sign materials be consistent with building materials, eliminating the "lollipop" pylon design. • 5. How should the City address off-premise signage such as billboards? a. Write new regulations that allow, but limit them, or b. Maintain the current prohibition and non-conforming status? • The Commissioners and staff discussed this item in detail in terms of easing restrictions. While no clear direction emerged, the Commissioners did ask staff to research options and other restrictions within other communities. 6. How should the City address off-premise signage such as real estate, garage sale, and similar signage? a. Write regulations that allow, but limit them, acknowledging issues related to right of way, content neutrality, and concerns over proliferation, or b. Prohibit such signs due to unmanageable sign clutter? The Commissioners came to a general agreement that one sign per property be allowed on private property, with specific size regulations. In terms of off-site signage, the general direction was to continue to prohibit off-premise signage, with the exception of pulling out real estate signage as a separate class and regulating with special guidelines for timelines and location. 7. Other questions While there were no other questions, Planner Grittman noted that it is staff's recommendation that the sign ordinance be pulled out from Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance (General Provisions) and become its own chapter of the ~COde. Sch~{mann noted that it would have its own set of defmitions. The Commission consented to that concept. Grittman stated that he would • have the first draft of ordinance language prepared for the Commission's November meeting. 5. Update Items NRUA: Schumann explained that the field research portion of the inventory was almost complete. Staff would be working with WSB to arrange a second public meeting early in November, with the project wrapping up at the end of November. Transportation Plan: Schumann reported that staff is still working with Council to determine a firm direction for the plan in terms of the level of detail. A thorough public workshop is expected to occur in November. Commercial Vehicles: Schumann indicated that when Council denied the proposed amendment, it had requested that staff track the number of complaints on this item. Through the Citizen Service Desk, only a handful of complaints has been received. Schumann stated that the City should still strive to enforce the ordinance already on the books. Zoning Ordinance: Schumann explained that she is reviewing formats and concepts in ordinance development and is hoping to have an RFP drafted for the Commission's review by their December meeting. 6. Adjourn MOTION BY COMMISSIOENR VOIGHT TO ADJOURN. • MOTION SE ED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. Record "