HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes08_0722City of Falcon Heights
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 2008
PRESENT: Commissioners Anderson, Hasegawa, Lukermann, Noble, Rodich, Watkins. Also present were Council Liaison Laura Kuettel, City Attorney Cynthia Kirchoff and staff liaison Deborah
Jones.
ABSENT: Commissioner Salzberg (with notice)
A quorum being present, the meeting was called to order by the chair at 7:04 p.m. The minutes of the June 24, 2008, meeting were approved.
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY SIGN CODE
Staff liaison Jones gave a brief summary of the issue and the process to date. Additional information is available on the website. A draft ordinance has been prepared in accordance
with the commission’s discussions in June. The commission was asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the draft ordinance, incorporating any changes they might see fit.
The ordinance includes only the portions of the sign code that are up for change at this time; the rest of the chapter still applies. Jones reviewed the provisions in the proposed ordinance.
The chair opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
The chair opened the commission discussion by calling for comment from commissioners.
Commissioner Lukermann asked how many signs in the city are presently non-conforming. Jones said the only one that came to mind was the roof sign for The Source, which is legally non-conforming
(and not a dynamic sign). She did not know if the pylon sign for the center is non-conforming but stated that any change applied for would have to bring it into conformity with the code.
Commissioner Noble said she felt the proposed 150 foot buffer would not be enough to keep glare from Falcon Heights Town Square if a dynamic sign were to be installed in the Snelling
Larpenteur area outside the buffer. At her request, Jones showed slides of maps for both 150 feet and 200 feet for comparison.
Commissioner Anderson pointed out several possible “holes” in the draft ordinance that might be open to interpretation that would allow the kind of distracting elements the commission
has been trying to avoid. She asked for stronger language
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
amendment to her original motion; Watkins seconded the motion and called the question. The motion carried.
INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Ice Cream Social is coming up next week, with fun to be had for all. Volunteers are needed, especially for the dunk tank. The event is a wonderful occasion for residents of all ages
with plenty of activities and entertainment. The location is Community Park.
Jones reminded commissioners of an upcoming training opportunity.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah Jones, Staff Liaison