PCAgenda_08Nov25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in section 8 to make the ordinance more specific and explicit and leave no doubt as to • the city's intent. The commissioners joined in a detailed discussion of the language of those provisions. Commissioner Noble asked what is served in the city by allowing dynamic signs at all. Her concern is the impact on adjacent residential areas and whether the brightness limits in the draft are realistic. The "nits" measurement unit only applies to these kinds of displays, and the numbers given are conservative compared to other cities, according Ms. Kirchoff. Additional discussion on brightness standards followed. Commissioners continued to discuss the language of the provisions and the larger question of whether an outright ban should be considered after all. Would the city be subject to challenge if we enacted an outright ban? Commissioners had previously been advised that this might be the case and Council Member Kuettel said that the Council would not want to see that happen. If the city were to allow the dynamic signs but place restrictions that eliminated most opportunities, would that meet the concerns raised so far without subjecting the city to legal challenges? After more discussion, Commissioner Lukermann proposed a motion that the commission recommend approval of the draft ordinance with the attachment of several caveats, including a call for more research into the nit limits in Section 8, • paragraph 8 and some decision on the undetermined surface area in Section 8, paragraph 2. Anderson said she would like an amendment to the motion to require more specificity in the parts of Section 8 that she brought up earlier. Commissioner Watkins pointed out that there was not yet a consensus on the 150 foot distance from residential. Commissioners once again addressed the specifics of the restrictions in Section 8 of the ordinance, selecting 150 feet for the distance from residential property and 25 for the amount of sign area that may be dynamic. Commissioners also stated that they would like to have language inserted that met Commissioner Anderson's concerns about interpretation of paragraphs 3 and 5. They also wanted more specific time limits, sunrise and sunset rather than "dawn' and "dusk," for the change of brightness and to limit the display change time to between 9:00 a.m. and noon. Anderson proposed additional language for paragraph 4 that would specify one color and brightness of light on a dark background. and, with the assistance of the city attorney, came up with language that would meet the concerns articulated by Commissioner Anderson. In view of the motion on the floor not having received a second and so many changes being introduced, Commissioner Lukermann said she would like to restate her • motion. Ms. Jones read out the changes that that had been made to the wording of the ordinance in the course of the preceding discussion. After further refinement of the wording by the Commission, Ms Lukermann accepted these changes as a friendly City of Falcon Heights -Planning Commission Meeting of July 22, 2008 -Page 2 of 3