Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-84 Council Special MinutesMINU7.'IsS OP THE SPFCiAL MP,ETING CITY COIINCIL Li'LTL1? CANADA, MINNESOTA Pursuant to due call. and noti.ce thereof a spec~ial meeti.np, of: the Counci.l. of the City of Li.ttle Canada, MinnesoCa wtis held on the 21st day of. March, 1984 in the Council. Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canacia Ko1d i.n sai.d CiCy. March 21, 19£34 Acting Mayor Mi.chael Pahey chaired t:he meeting and called :it to order at 7:00 I?.M. and the followin~; were present at roll. call: MEMF3I;RS Pf2FSeNT: Acting Mayor Councilwoman Councilwoman Mr.. Michael Fahey Mrs. r4ugs Nardini. Mrs. l~everl.y Scalze MEMIIERS ABSENT: ALSO PRES~NT: P4ayor Councilman City Clerlc City Planner Itecording Secr.ecary Mr. Raymond Hanson Mr.. Denni.s rorsberg P4r. ,Joseph Chlebeclc Mr. Davi.d Licht Mrs. Kathleen Gl.anzer Si.gns Mr. 1'ahey pointed out that the City has had a moratorium in effect on Che enforcement of the Sign Ordinance. The purpose of tonight's meeti.ng i.s to consider the amendments proposed by the Ci.ty's business community to the Sign Or.dinance. A Commi.Ctee was formed in October of 1983 and consisted of. two Councilmembers and representatives of. the business community. The recommendat:ions before the Council were made by the CommitY.ee. Mr. Pahey pointed ouC that any change to the ordinance wi11 require a 4/Sth's vote of the Council. Pahey pointed out that there were only three Councilmembers present at the meeti.ng. Mrs. Scalze introduced the followinp, resolution and moved its adoption: RIiSOLUTION N0. S~F-3-17.1 - R~MOVING PROM TARLP ACTION ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMPNT OT' THE SIGN ORDINANCT DPAI.ING WiTH 'C~MPORARY SIGNS The foregoing, resolution was duly ,econded by Mrs. Nardin~i. Ayes (3) Scal.ze, Nardini, Pahey. Nayes (0). Resolution declared adoptecl. This resolution appears in Resolution Boolc No. 11, Page 130. P1r. Pahey pointed ouC that the public hearing on the amendment of the Sign Ordinance has been closed, F[owever, P1r. Pahey inviCed any cominents f.rom those present. Pa~;e -1.- MINUTF.S City Council Marcli 21, 1984 Signs (Cont.) Kathy TipLer, 2800 Lakeside Court, appeared before the Council as a citi.zen-at-large. Mrs. Tipler f.elt thaC the citizens of the communi.ty should be represented i.n Chi.s maCter as we11 as the business community. Ms. Ti.pler fel.t that Che temporary signs were a bloC on the landscape. Tipler felt that busi.ness people should realize that consumers are loolci.ng for a Uusiness that loolcs lilce it wi.ll. be in business for. a long time. Tipler di.d not feel that temporary si.gns instilled conf:idence i.n the consumer for the business. 7'i.pler did not see any reason why the City coul<t not loolc good. Tipler felt that business shottld have permanent lootcing signs an<l the junlc on the roadway shoulc.( be removed. hlrs. Nardini reported thaC the Chamber of Commerce was i.nformed that toni.ght's meetino was not a public hear:i.nn, but was a workshop for the Council on the Si.~n Committee's recommendations. Ilowever, if anyone hact some strong concerns that they wanted heard, the Council would hear them. Mr. Fahey repor.ted thaT. one of the items the Sign Commi.ttee broupht up is that when someone advertised a sale, i.t was generally for a two ~oeelc period and the present 7 ciay temporary sign li.mitation was a hardship. Mrs. Scalze pointed out that the temporary sign limitaci.on of seven days provided a ~vay to adverti.se a grand openi.n~ or going out of business sale. Scalze clid not feel that 7 days was too great a restricti.on. P9rs. Nardi-ni commented that Or<tinance 209 was amended ~lay 25, 1983 which placed this seven day ].i.mi.tati.on. Mr. Pahey poi.nted out that a~rand openi_ng may run more than 7 days and pointed ouC that Christmas holiday sales run longer than 7 days, The Planner reported Chat the Counci.l amended C11e sign ordinance i.n hlay of 19H3 at the eequest oF the business community. Previous to this si~nap,e coas based on street classification and now the ordi_nance :is based on square f.ooCage of a building. The I~laner reported that studi.es have been done wi.th relation to s:i~;nap.,e on speed l.imi.ts on streets. llowever, the Council wiped out this considerati.on when the ordinance was amended. The PLanner commented that the Counc~i.l has t:o consi.der si.gnage for identifi.cation versus adverti.sing. The Planner stated that he did not understand why the business communi.tv wants to sign their buildi.ngs to the poinC where no one Page. -7- MT.riuTrs City Counci.l. March ?.l, 1984 Signs (Cont.) lcnows what is goi.n~; on. The Pl.anner po~i.nted out th~t there i.s al.so newspaper and radi.o advertisi.ng avai.l.able. The Planner pointed out the example of. a business sign of: which ?_/3rd's is taken up by the advertisment of: a product and the other third :is the business name. The Planner felt that the number of signs could be mini.mized and in doing so communication would be enhanced. Sharon Clausen of Freelance Prof:essiona].s a~reed with the Pl.anner's comment:s and poi_nted ouC the huildi.ng that she :is i.n as a classic example. CLausen commented that there are two types of busi.ness invol.ved, bi.g business and sma11 busi.ness. Clausen stated that smal7. business depends on drive-by husiness and 1.oca1. business, while big busi.ness can af.ford media advertising. C1.ausen stated that 90% of: the business i.n i,i.Ctle Canada i.s small busi.ness. Mrs< Sca1~e pointed out that temporary signs must follo~a setback requirements. Scal.ze commented that the Si.~n Ordinance al~oays requi.red thi.s, but people have put these signs on the boulevard and they are a hazard. Mrs. Nardi.ni_ pointed out tkiat the Uusiness commun:i.ty wantsto sign their wi.ndows 33 1/3%. The Pl,anner pointed out that the City previ.ously changed the si~n orcli.nance with r.egard to wi.ndow si~;ns along wi.th pylons at the sugp,esti.on of the business community. The Ci.ty Clerk commented that the City }ias had a si.~n ordinance in effect si.nce 1964. Mr. Pahey asked if the City should prohi.bi.t an advertisi.ng sign ofL-prem:ises. Mrs. Scalze poi.nted out the example of tkie Able 'Cowin~; si.~n. Mrs. Nardi.ni. stated that these types of signs and portable signs are the bi.g problems in the City. Rita Stelli.ck of the Market Place stated that the busi.ness community is concerned about advertising si~;ns versus identification si.gns. Stelliclc pointed out the businesses on Ri.ce Street, not located on the street,that need an identi_fi.cation si~;n on Rice Street. Mrs. Scalze statecl that thi.s si.p,n could be called an i.ndustrial parlc sign. Mrs. Nardi.ni agreed that this was a bact area. The Planner stated [hat thi.s was covered under current code anct probaUl.y would f.all into the catagory oi area identificati.on si.gn. 14r. Qui.rin sCated that i.t was interpreCed that you could have thi.s type of si.;n, but i.t could not include the T.ype of: business i.t i.dentifi-ed. Pa~;e -3- MINt)TFS City Council March ?_l, 1984 Signs (Cont.) 'l'he PLanner sCated that the lep,al name of the busi.ness coul.d be put on this type of si~;n. Ms. Stell.ick stated thattl~ey were inf.ormed that thi.s si.gn was not permitteci. Mr.s. Nardini. stated that she would speak to the I3u:i.ldi.ng Inspector about. this. Mr. rahey aslced if an area i.dentif:icati.on sign could be located on another piece of property. Pahey felt it would be better to have a requisemenC that the sign must be within so many feet of the property. 'Che Planner stated that an area identi.f.ication sig,n must Ue l.ocated coithin the area it identifies. If. i.t is wit of the area~ it is a directional sign. The Planner stated that a directionaJ. sign bears the business name, address and di.rectional arrows and can be located on pubLic or private properCy. Mrs. Nardi.ni. poi.nt:ed out that Stenger sign on i,ittle Canada Road anci Centerville Road i.n relation to the Steng,er property. Mrs. Scalze aslceci if thi.s type of. sign could be handled under a conditi.onal use permit. The Planner stated that: that is what he would su~;gest. The Planner stated that an area ictentifi.cation si.nn would have to be at the entr.ance to Che property. However~ a<ti.rectional. si.gn is a di.f.ferent matter. 'Che Pl.anner suggesced that he draft sometk~i.ng to disti.nguish between the two tynes ot si.gns more clearly. Scalze poi.nted out t:hat on Rice Street it would be a hazard not Co have that particular si~n in place Co i.ndi.cate where these businesses are. Fahey agreed that area identificati.on should be on the property~ and directi.onal si~;n shoul.d be in Che i.mmediate vici.nity. The Planner sLated that the directional. si.~n would be of.f.-premises with the name and address of the business and ].ocated ~aithin a reasonable vicini.ty to the business unless there i.s justifi.cation presented to the CounciL ~ Pahey pointed out that Che i.ndustrial area near Stenger's wi.ll develop some day and the whole area caill need to be identtified. Pahey pointed out that whatever Mr. Stengcr i.s allocaed to do, other business in the same area will wante ~]r. Quirin asked Che s:i.ze oI an identificati.on si.gn. The Planner repli.ed that 10 snuare feet is allowed per si.gn. Page -4- nzNUT~s CiCy Cotmcil P1ar.ch 21., 19£I4 Si.~;ns ~ConC.) The Pl.anner felt that a directi.onal si.gn would be extremely 1i.mited in use. The Pl.anner did not f.eel that just because a busi.ness is locate<! tcao blocks oEf Rice Street was a reason that the business shoul<1 have a directional sign on Rice. A di.rectional sign should be used only where there :is <lif.f.i.culCy in ].ocating a business. Ms. Stetli.clc poinked out that. the Uusi.ness on Rice Street are paying a premi.um to be located on that street. 7'he Planner agreed that busi.ness has the option of. ~oher.e to iocate. The i.ssue of signing is bein~ used as a bai.l-out. S9rs. Clausen stated that there i.s a Problem with truclcs not being abl.e to locate some busi.nesses on Sprttce Street. 'Che Planner pointed out Chat if there is a need to direct traf.fic, the City can erect directional signs within the right-of-way. Mr. Licht poi.ntecl out that there are other ci.ti.es that do T.his. The City Clerk felt the City could erect a street sign for Spruce Street with the a<ldress numbering on it. Mr. T'ahey stated that he felt an industrial parl< or street coulct be i.denti.fied by the City, but he was opposed to the City i_denti.£yi.ng individual busi.nesses. Mrs. Nardini aslced if there should be an industrial parlc sign located on Ri.ce Street rather than each i.ndividual busines>. Mrs. Sc11ze pointed out thaC this ~oas the only entrance f:or these businesses. Scalze felt that in extreme cases directional signs should be allowed under cond:iti.onal use permiC. Mr. Qui.rin stated that the City mi.~;ht subject itselL to criti.cism by putCing up directional signs. Narctini pointed out that the area on Ri_ce Street being di.scussed is uni.que and there is no vi.si.bi.l.i.ty. Fahey felt that the directional si.~;n must be within so many feet of the property untess there are speczal circumstances. Then a conditional use permit woutd be required. 'Che Planner fel.t thae these t*ao signs should be reworked anct qualif.i.ed and he sCated that he woul.d work on this. 'Che Planner felt that tkie directi.onal sign should only be used when there is a unique traffic problem that woulcl result because of di.fficulty i.n identifyi.ng a proper.ty. Mrs. Nardini. poi.nted out that t_he P4ontrea7. Court sign i.s also located on Litt:le Canada Road and CenterviLl.e. Page -5- ~fINUTF.S City Counci.l March 21, 1984 Si.gns (Cont.) Mrs. Clausen suggested that the Ci-ty erect a City directory at the Ci.ty Center. Mr. Li.cht commented that. the probLems are arising due to the sCreet nami.n{; system and numberi.ng system. Mr.s. Scalze f.elt that i.f. Chere ~oere directi-onal s~i.gns erected, they shoul<t be smal.l anct uniform. The J?7.anner sugs>,ested that they coul.d be erected on street si.~;ns. Mr. I'ahey poi.nted out that the Council would have contr.ol if handled under a conditional use permit. Mrs. Nardi.ni felt that Ckie Ci.ty should erect directional signs, NIrs. Scal.ze di.sa~;r.eed. Scalz.e poi.nted ouC Chat the City could require a certain type ot s:i.~;n to ensure. uniLormi.ty. Mrs. ~ardi.ni. felt that the Ci.ty could erect the dir.ecti.onal si.gn at: less cost than a busi.ness. Mr. Qui.ri.n f.elt that tlie City wouLd attract undue cr:i_ticism i.f: i.c erected directi.onal si.gns. The Planner >tated that the City would develop criteria under which a di.recti.onal. sign ~voiil.d be erecteda The Planner stated Chat the problem woul.d have to be a demonstrated and doc~mented one. ~li-i<e Holmes aslced aUouT, a case where another busi.ness is compLaini.ng abouC another Uusiness. ~'~Ir. I~lolmes stated Chat he Yets tr.uclcs at his business tryi.ng to fi.nd Vi.ncent Drass and Reynolds. Mr. Flolmes asked if. the Ci.ty ~oould accept this documentation. Mrs. Nardini f.elt that there sho~il.d be si.gns identif.yi_ng the businesses at the entrance to Ryan Industri.al Parlc. 7'he Pl.anner suggested that address numberin~; could be nlaced on tlie Spruce Street si~n. Mr. Pahey fel.t that the Planner should report to the f:ull Co~mcil. on disectional signs aC a later date. Mrs. Nardi-n:i. stated thak she caas agreeable to 7_5% o.f: windows being signed. "4r. Pahey reported thaC Che S:ign Committee i.s recommendi.np, 33% excl.usive of, holi_day signs. Mrs. Scalze stated that she f.e1t that the ordi.nance should be simple for the i~ui.ldi.nh Ins~ector to enforce, Sc~lze stated that visibili.ty and safety must be consi.dered in the wipdow signing. Ms. Stellick stated that the current Language in the ordinance requi.res a permit Lor a holiday sign. Ms. Ti.pler stated that ~a:ith 33%, of: a windoca si.~;ned, i.t would malce it harder f.or. a sheri£f. to look into. Page -6- MINIJTPS Ci.ty Counci.l. March 7_1, 7.984 S:i.gns (ConC.) Ms. Stellick poi.nt:ed out that the only pl.ace a l.iquor store can advertise its pri.ces is i.n its windo~as. The Planner poi.nted out thaC the signi.ng in windows must fall under the 15% general signage limiCati.on. The Planner poi.nted out that a lot of. businesses are i.n violation of this. 'Che Planner pointed out thaC a business shoul.d not get the extra Uenef.i.t because it has larger windows. Therefore, windo~a signage shoul<1 come under the total si.gna,n,e li.mitati.on. Mr. Pahey stated thaC he would be willi.np, to 5e more generous on window signs if: the City restricts the portable si.gns. Mrs. Scalz.e stated t:.hat the City wi11 not be able to make competiti.on equal because there wi.li be the busi.ness wi.thout any wi.ndows. Mr. Fahey statec! that wi.ndow sign, were not objecti.onable to him, but he would li_ke to ~;et rid of. the por.tables. Mr. Quiri_n stated that the ordi.nance presently says 2S% of t:he window can be si.gned or ?.0 square f.eet or less. Qui.rin pointed out Chat 7_0 square feet co~il.d cover the orhole windo~v. P1rs. Plardi.ni. poi.nted out that the si.gns musC sti.ll. fall under. the 15% of. the Cotal bui.tding si-louette. Mr. Qui.ri.n stated that 33% caould sti.l.l. provi.de f:or building security. Ms. St:ell:iclc stated that Little Canada's orctinance i.s complex and otlter cities have much si.mpler orct:inances. Stell.iclc stated that the Little Canada ordi.nance has too many excepti.ons. Mr. Qui.ri.n did not f.eel wi.ndow si.gns sl~oul<1 be part of: the overall ].imitation. Mr.s. Scalze disagreed. Scalze poinCed out that a bui.ld:i.ng could be Uui.lt thaT. was totally glass. Mr. Pahey agreed that the ordinance should be made sz.mpler. T'ahey did not f.eel. the City should have an ordinance it is not goi.ng to enforce, Mrs. Nardi.ni pointed out that the Ci.ty increased its building silouette limiCation by 50%. Mrs. Nardi.ni pointed out that the business communi.ty is now asking f.or more and next year it wi.l.l be more. Mrs. Scalze pointed out that Che MGPQ winclow si.gns are in v~iolation of the ordi.nance. Mr. P'ahey stated that he coas will.in~; to go witl~ the 33% i.f: it were i.ncluded as part of the I.5% limitati.on. ~Irs. ScaLze poi.nt:ed out that the city i.ncreased the silouette percentage Y.o ].5% as most Rice Street busi.nesses were notin conformance wiT.h t:he 10% f~gure. Page -7- MINU'CES City Co~ncil March 21., 1984 Si.gns (Cont.) ~lrs. Cl.ausen poi.nted out that gas staCions are not in conformance wi.th the ordi.nance. Mrs. Scalze repl.:i.ed that the servi.ce stations in the Ci.ty will h~ve to comply if the City decides to enforce the ordi.nance. T4r. Quirin pointed out that the City cannot enforce every ordinance. Many are enf.orced by compl.aint. Qui.ri.n stated that the City has ordi.nances for fl.ap,rent vioLaCions. Mr. Licht stated that enEorcement was a diff:erent matter. The Planner stated Y.hat businesses can submit drasoings of si;nage and the City staff. can r.eview this and identi.f.y signs that are i.n violati.on. Mr.s. Scalze felt that i.t could also be Ci.ed into licensing of. businesses. Mr. Pahey agreed and stated that the T3ui.lding T.nspector would not i.ssue 1 li.cense for a business wit:h si.gns in violation. T4r. Licht stated that i.f. a business wants another sign, the }3uildin~; Inspector can look at the drawing and determine :if the s:ign was withi.n the 15% li.mitation. Mrs. Clausen suggested that signs wi.th reader boards shouLd have the boards covered with pLastic so that Letters cannot be removed by vandals. Mr. Pahey Felt that this was a personal problem and did not Leel businesses would lilce the City requiring covers for the reader boards. Mr. Quirin did not feel there would Ue wholesaLe use of the 33% of window signing if it came under the 15% building silouette limiCation. Mrs. Nardi.ni_ felt that the ?.5% should remain. The City Planner di.d not f:eel the City would be givi.np, up much by i.ncreasing the percentage to 33%. The Plan~er pointed out thar the window signs would sti.l]. be restri.cted by the 15% overall limitati.on. Mr. I'ahey introduced the following resol.uti.on and moved i.ts adoption: RESOLU'C~ION P10. 84-3-122 - BASL;D ON INPUT PROM THI: i3USINESS COMMUNiTY 9ND CITI7.EN-A7'-LA13GE, I'C IS THE RECOMMENDATION OL' TI~I~ CITY COUNCIL THAT THE llPFINTTION OP AREA IDGN'LIFICATION SIGN B~ RF.TAINED AS IS AiVD 'CNA7' 'I'HL PLANNEK ]3L' D:IREC'tED 7.'0 Di,2APT A NEW DPFSNITION L'OR D~i,RECPIONAL SIGD1 ALLOWING ITS 7?LACPMENT OPP-PR~MIS~.S SUBJF.CT TO CONDlTIONAL l1SF; PI;RMT'C The foregoing resolution was dul.y seconcied by Mrs. Nardi.ni. Ayes (3) Fahey, Nardi.ni, Scalze. Piaves ~0). Resolution declared adopted. This resoluti.on appear.s in Resol.uti.on Book No. 1.1, Page 131. Pa~e -8- ritNU~rrs c~cy c~Urt~;.t March 21, 1984 Signs (Cont.) Krs. Scalze i.ntroduced the Pollocaing resol.ution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION N0. 84-3-123 - I3ASED ON INPUT FROi~ TIdE CI7'I7EN-AT-LAR(;E AND TI-IP I~UiID1PSS COMMUNITY, IT 7S T}Il: RECOMMPNDATION OF TIIT C011NCIL THA'P THI: PLANN~R A~ DIKL;CTPD TO REGONSTRIJCT TH~ SL.CTION OP TH1~. STGN ORDINANC~ DFALING WTTI{ WINDOW SIGNS 90 THAT THE END OS.1PC'CIVB I6 THAT ONP-THIRD OP A F]INDOW CAN f3P SIGNP;D AS LONG AS THE 7'OTAL SIGNAGii IS 6dI'L;IT.N ].5% OP T'HP TOTt1I~ BUILDING SIIAIJET'CE 9'he fore~;oi.ng resolution was duly seconded by Mrs. Nardini. Ayes (3) Scalze, Nardi.ni, 1?ahey. Nayes (0). Resolution dec].arecl adopted. Thi> resoluti.on appears i.n Resolution 33oo(c No, 11., Yage 13?_. The Planner sCated that holiday si.gn should Ue defi.ned and suggested that holiday be a State, Pederal or P1uni.cipal hol.iday. 'I.'he Planner stated that thi.s is the intent of the present ordi.nance. A holi.day sign would be, for example, a banner across the road. Y1r. Quir.in asked if a Christmas tree in £ront of a buildi.ng w~s considered a hol.iday sign. The Planner repli.ed that this would not be considered a si~n. Mrs. Nardini. asl<ed iL the Market Place had a banner that said Seasons Greetings, if thi.s would be considered a holiday sip,n. The Planner replied that i.t coould. Mr, Fahey asked what classif.i.cati.on a search LighC woulc( have. 'Che Planner repLi.ed that this was considered a portable sign. Mrs. Clausen pointed out the pi.nlc bunny i.n front ot one stor.e in Che City. ~Is. Stelli.ctc stated that the Ci.ty needed holiday sign clefi.ned, Ste1.li.clc also reported that the business community is ~oncerned that a per.mit is required f.or this type of si~;n. Ms. Ti.pl.er poi.nted out thaT. the busine,s community is requesti_ng that hol.i.day si.gns be allowed for 60 days. Ti~ler poi.nted out that ther.e could be holi.day si.gns up all year round. Mr. Qui.ri.n poinT.ed out that a holiday si.gn would not contain t:he orord "Sale". Nlrs. Clausen po:i.nted out that communi.ty organi.zati.ons coul.d be hurt wi.th the 33%, wi_ndow si.gn limitation and stated that busi.nesses wi.11 not want to put these signs in their wi.ndows i.f. they are counted as part of the 33%. Page -9- MiNUTrs City Counci.l. March 21, 1984 Signs (Cont.) Mr. Fahey fe1.t that these si.gns di.d not taice up much area and could be accommodated wi.thin the 33% ].imitati.on. Mrs. Nardi.ni. suggested that the~Ci.ty could go baclc to the 25% winctow si.~;n li.mitati.on and then al.low community event: signs up to 33%,. Mrs. Clausen f:elt that communi.ty event si.gns should not count i.n the calcuLations. Mr. Quiri.n did not feel that the inspecti.on would be that cl.ose that there would be a proUlem. Mr. Quiri.n reported that Che F~uildi.ng Inspector felt that a hol.iday banner o~ould be counted as part of a busi.ness~s signage. Ms. SCe ll.ick reported Cliat. she wanted to put some {;arland up on the Market Place and was intormed that thi.s would be countc~d a, part of: Che si.p,na~;e, Mrs. Scalze disagreed with t:his. Mr. Fahey fel.t that the Planner should defi.ne holiday sign and the length of time a holiday sign shoul.d be up. Mrs. Scal.ze stated that the City cannot get into rel.igi.ous hol.i.days and, therefore, East:er would not be included as a hol.iday. The Pl.anner a{;reed Chat the holidays shoul.d be just State and Federal holidays. The Planner did not feel that a hol.i.day sign should be counted i.n the signa~;e cal.culati.on as long as it does not contai.n the ward "Sale". 'Che Planner stated that he ~oi11 define holiday and recommended that a hol.i.day sign not be counCed in the si.gnage cal.cul.ations and that a holiday si_gn in a w:indow cannoC exceed the 33% li.mi.tation. ~1rs. Scalze aslced how the City can ~et r.i.d of things like p:ink bunnies in fr.ont of businesses. Mrs. Nardini. stated that i[ the City allows Christmas trees and garland, how can i.t say pi.nk bunni.es are not allowed. Mrs. Scal.ze repLi.ed that this i.s merchandize Chat i.s for sa1e. Mr. Fahey suggested that the det:inition of sign be l.ookecl at: by the Planner. Mrs. Nardini aslced how much time a holid~y sign would be allowed to be up. Ms. Stell.ick commented that the Longest peri.od of time for a holiday sign would be over the Chri.stmas hol.i.days and 45 days should Ue suff:icient. Council. was ap,reeaUle to a~t5 day time li.mi.C. Mrs. Scalze i.ntroduced the following resolution and moved its adopCion: Page -10- MINlJT9iS City Co~mcil March 21, 1984 Signs (Cont.) RPSOLUTTON N0. 84-3-1.?_4 - RECOCpP4t'~1DING TI~tAT HOLIDAY SIGNS BE DELET.ED P'ROM THE 'PHMPORARY SIGN PROVISION OP C 4 ANI) DI'FINING }IOJ IDAY AS A STATP OR NATIONAI,LY KNOWN I~IOI,IDAY AND DliCLARING THAT A HOLIllAY SIGN CAN P;XCF,GD TI~IE 15% t3UILDING SILOUETTP I.ZP1I'CA7'ION I~UT C4llST Pt1T L IIITHIN TtIF ONE-THIRD WINDOId SIGN ]?ROVISION AND PURTHER ALLOWIP]G HOLIDAY SIGNS 'LO Bli UP POR A MAXIMUM OP 45 DAYS AND DECI.,N2ING THAT NO PERMIT WILI~ I3r RPQUIIt~D FOR t[OLIDAY SIGNS, AND LASTLY THAT HOLIDAY SIGNS CANNOT CONTAIN AllVPRTISING 14AT~R7AL, THTS RECOMMP.NllATION i3ASCD ON I.~ISCUSSION IdITI! TIIE i3USINPSS COMMUNI'CY AND CI'CT7.I;N-AT-LARGT' The f.oregoin~ resolution was duly seconde<t by t4rs. Narda.ni.. Ayes (3) Scal.ze, Fahey, T]ardi.n:i. Nayes (0). Resolut.ion decl.ared adopted. 7'his resolution appears i.n Resol.ution f3oolc No. 17., Pa~;e 133. ~1rs. Scalze st:ated that she saw nothing wrong wi~h leaving the ordinance as is wi.th regard to temporary si.gns. Scalze po~i.ntecl out Chat i.C provi.des f.or speci.al occasi.ons and that the Council has acted on hol.i.day signs and window signs. Mr. Fahey felt that i.f the City allo~as temporary si.gns the time limit should be increased ~0 14 days as that is the tength of most sales. Mrs. Scalze pointed out that this portion of the ordi.nance covers signs on orheels and the Council. must be agreeable that it will enf.orce setbacks f.or. these signs. The Planner pointed ouC that the Code presently does not aLlow search lights on wheels. Mrs. Scalze stated Chat she lilces the ordi.nance as i.s. Mr. Quiri.n suggested th~t the time li.mit be eliminated and let the businesses deci.cle how to use their a1.l.otment of days f.or temporary signs. The busi.ness coul.d use it periodi.cally or else all at one time. Ms. Stel.liclc po~i.nted out that many Uusi.nesses run sales £or 10 day periods. Steili.clc felt thi.s should be allowed as long as the total. number of days Lor temporary si~;ns are not exceeded. Stell.iclc also pointed out that there are seasonal businesses that might ~oant to use its days during the:i.r busy season. Ms. Tipler, po:inted out that the temporary si.gn is supposect to be usecl f.or an excepti.onal thi.ng. Pa~;e -11.- MTNiJTES City Council March 21., 7.98/F Signs (Cont.) Ms. Stel.l.iclc did not f:eel the City should legislate what a business wi.shes to put on a temporary si.;n. Mrs. Scal.ze felt that i.f. the C~ity allowecl temporary si.gns Lor a ten-day peri.od, then someone would request twelve days. Pahey felt that the Ci.ty should fi.x the number of days per year £or temporary s~igns and then the b~siness could determ~i.ne how i.t would use them. The ]'].amter poi.nted out that most businesses ~aoul.d want the si.gn for two weeicends, and thi.s would consist of ten days. 'Che Pla~mer poi.nted out Chat the maxi.mum number oE days coul.d still remain the same. ~Ir. Qui.rin pointed out that this woulc( a1.1o~a the busi.ness to be flexi.ble. Also Qui.rin requested that the permit only be a one-time permi.C with more than one member of. the staf:L ailowed to issue the permit. Mr.. Quiri.n stated that once the permit is taken out, the busi.ness could noti.fy the Ci.ty when the sign would Ue up, Mrs. Scalze stated Chat her intent was t:o ~et rid of the clutter and she was not opposed to all.o~vi.n~; businesses flexibility. Mr. Holmes poi.nted out thlt he has a si.~;n on the si.de of. his truck and asked how thi.s applied under the ordinance. The Planner. repl.:ied that he coulcl supply a definition so thae this would not .f.ali under the ordi.nance. Mr. Pahey stated that he was agreeable to providin~ f.or temporary signs f.or a business 30 days per year l:o be used by Che business as it wished. Mrs. Scalze stated that she was agreeable to ten days a Cime, three times per year. Mrs. Nar<tini stated that she was more agreeaUle to something Less than 30 days. The Pl.anner pointed out that under the present ordinance, a busi.ness can t:ake out a temporary sign perm~it for seven days and at the end of that time, reapply agai_n. Nardi.ni stated tltat she a~;reed to let the businesses have the flexi.b:i.lity to have the si.gns when they wanted, but was more agrecab7.e to 20 days per year. P4s. Stel.li.clc poi.nted out Chat this is more restricti.ve than cahat ttie Ci.ty presently has. Nardini repli.ed that she would l:ike to see temporary ,i.gns done away cvith. htr. Fahey staced that a ni.ce temporary s1.gn does no[ offend him. Fahey stated thlt a lot of. smal.l busi.nesses depended on the temporary s i.~;n, Page -12- MINUTPS City Counci.l March 21., 1984 Signs (Cont.) Mrs. Scalze felt that busi.nesses should have ni.ce permanent si.~;ns, rather than t}~ese temK>orary signs. Fahey stated that he agreed that Che temporary sians should be 1im:i.ted to speci.al occasions anct should not Ue a pri.mary methoc! of advertisi.ng. The purpose of: the ordi.nance is to clean up the t:emporary junlc si.gns. Narctini poi.nted out that cai.ndow signs were increased and the percentag~ of si.louette. Mr. Qui.rin requestecl that temporary si~;ns be a ll.owed f.or 30 days per year wi.th one annual. permi.t. Nardini. objected to the 30 days. Mr. Pahey sCated that the 30 days was f.ine with him wiCh three occasi.ons of Cen days each. The City Clerlc poi.nted out that 98% of the temporary si.gns are located on the ri.ght-of.-way and once this is °nforced, most of these signs wi11 be elimi.nated. Mr. Pahey stated thaC the Council was a~;reeable that the si~;ns should be located £ive feet off the right-of-way. Nlrs. Clausen aslced if a wi.ndow si.gn included painti.ng on a wi.ndow. 7'he Planner repliect thaC i.t did and the size was calcul.ated on the silouette of the sign. Mr. Pahey suggested that the ~25 annual. f.ee sug};este.d by the business community could be reduced to ~10. Mrs. Nardi_ni disagreed. Nardi.ni. fel.t that the $25 would be more adequate to cover sCafL costs and enforcement costs. Mr.. Fahey f:elt that 1~ days three times per year wi.th permi.ts talcen out each ti.me would be tkie best way Lo handl.e Cemporary signs. Then 'Che I~uildinp Inspector could pol.i_ce the situati.on. Mrs. Ti.pler telt thaC the pr.ocess shoul.d be made as di.ff.iciilt as possible so thaC these signs wi.l.l. not be appl~ied for. P1rs. Nardini. felt that a dis[ance of ti.me shoul<i be placed between the permi.ts so that there i.s not a steady temporary sign at a business for 30 days. Mrs. Scalze EeI.C a~10 permit fee should be chzirp,ed each ti.me a 10 clay permit is appl.ied for. Mr. Quirin requested an annual permiC and allowi.ng the busi.ness to notif:y the Ci.ty when the sign would go up. Page -1.3- MINU'LE?,S Ci.ty Counci.l March 21, 1.9fI4 Signs (Cont.) S1rs. Clausen aslced if a temporary s~i.gn would be f.or. each business, or one per shopping center i.n the case of shoppin~ centers. ^-.tr, P'ahey f.elt that the City had to allow one per business. Mrs. Ti.pl.er poi.nted out tliat the Market Place has 17 busi.nesses anct could have 17 Cemporary si.gns on d:i.splly at one time. Mrs. Stell.i.cl< suggested that the CiCy l.i.m~it one temporary si.gn per r.epi.stered property at any p,iven time. The Planner ~~ointed out t.haC there ~i.s an advantage to being in a shoppin~; center as a business draws traf:f.i.c from the center. Fahey sT.ated that he woul.d like to go wiCh three occasi.ons of: 10 days per year wi.th the temporary sign havi.ns; to be located five Eeet of.f the ri.s;ht-of:-way. The Planner also su~gested that the sign not Ue allowed to take up a designated parlci.ng spot. Mrs. Nardini stated that the Ci.ty would not gain anything by Chis proposal. Nardi.ni. suggested that the City try no temporary s:i.gns for a year. Nardi.ni. pointed out the concessions the CiCy has already granted. Mr. Qui.ri.n stated thaC to him temporary si.{;ns were helpful. Nts. Ti.pler st:ated that to her t:hey sliowed a temporary business. The YLanner stat:ed that the Cit:y must consi.der public satety and aesthetics. Mr. Fahey poi.nted out that the business commcnity has asked the City to consi.der Che economics for the business. Mrs. Cl.ausen sug~;ested that the City not all.ow home for sale si.gns as they also couLd be a publi.c hazard. P1r. Pahey pointed out Chat Che CiCy needs four votes to change the current or.di.nance and rhere are only three Counci.lmember, present. Fahey f:elt that the three Council.members present shoul.d work out a compromi.se. Nardi.nt. pointed out. that the r4arlcet Place coulcl be allowed 510 days per year of temporary signs under the 10 day, three times per year proposal. The Planner stated that some cities do not allocv i:emporary si~;ns at all. P4r. Pahey poi.nted out that the Ci.ty recently enacted Appendix I: and felt that the Ci.ty should give a littl.e room i.n thi.s area. Mr. Qui.ri.n poi.nted out thlt by only allowing one [:emporary si.gn per rep.,i.stered property at a~;iven time, this woul.d cut down the number Page -1~r Mt~uTrs City Council March 21., 1.9H4 Signs (Cont.) of days the Marlcet Place would be a1l.owed temporary sip,ns. Mrs. Scal.ze stated that the Mari<et 7?lace would be allowed a Cemporary sign 365 days per year. Mrs. Nardi.ni. stated that the other >hopping cent:er would be al.l.owed a temporary si.gn ?.10 days per year. The C1er1< f.el.t that many of these sip,ns woul.ct be eli.minated by the setbaclc requi.rement. Mr. Fahey felt that T4r. Hanson and Mr. ForsUer~; would accept the 30 days per year. proposal.. Tahey stated that the busi.ness communi.ty is agreeabl.e to t.his and the City should try i.t and then Look at the matter agai.n some time in the future. D1rs. Scal.ze st:ated that she was agreeabl.e to tryi.ng i.t. Mrs. Nardini stated that she would try it, but was voting againsC her. consci.ence and f.elt that the Ci.ty shoutd try no temporary s:igns f.or a year. P1rs. Scalze introduced the f.ollo~oi.ng resoluti.on and moved its adopti.on: RFSOLUTION N0. 84-3-125 - RECOMMBNDING 7't-IAT ORDINANCP N0. 209 73E AMBND~D WTTH R~GARD TO TF:,MP013t112Y SLGAiS SO THAT A PFRMT7' POR A'PEMPORARY STGN CAN 13E ISSUIiD POR NOT N10RL TFIAN 10 DAXS AT A TIME LdI'.CN A TPN DAY INTT;RVAL SEPARATED I~Y 30 IDAYS ~dITt-I A MAXIMUM OP 30 TOTt1L DAYS POR TIsMPORARY SIGNAGE PER CAL~ND1'sIt YISAR WIT}I A YGRh1IT FEP 0~ $1 PF.R DAY~ THP 1?FRMLT CAN BE OA'CAINPD ONCP PPR YEAR GIITH TI~IP CFIOSGN DAYS STATFD AT TI{E TIM~ THF PIiRMI7' IS APPLIf.iD POR AND CONDITIONED IIPON NOT MORE TIIAN ONli 'CPMPORARY SIGN TO I3R AI.LOWI3D AT ANY GIVliN TIME PI:R RPCISTFRED PKOPERTY The f.ore,~oing r.esol.ution was duly seconded by P4r. 1?ahey. Ayes (3) Scalze, Fahey, Nardi.ni. Nayes (0). Resolution decl.ared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution 13oolc No. 11, Page 134. Park iJse Mrs. Sc.alze inf:ormed the Council that a non-profit group has Pol~icy appro2ched the Parks and Recreation Director regarding the use o£ Spooner Parlc for a Lund-ra:ising event. The evenL wi_ll consist of rides and concessions and would he held the last: weelc i.n .luly. This group has approached the Ci.ty of tiosevi.lle and coas denied use o[ 13osev:ille parl<s. Page -1.5- MzNUrzs Ci.ty Counci.l. ~larch 27., 19f34 Park Use Mr.. Fahey felt that th:is should not be allowed except in the case Policy (Cont.) oE Canadi.an Days anci Che Recreation Associ.ati.on whi_ch supports Li.ttle Canada. Mrs. Scalze stated tha~ she did not f.eel City parlcs should be used f.or this purpose and f:el.t Chat the Comici.l should set a pol.i.cy on thi.s. Mr. Qui.ri.n sCated t:hat if the City allowed thi.s it would at:tract many non-prof:it organ~izations Irom the metro area. Ms. 'C:i.pLer poinced out that the park would not be available to ~he City's CI.CLZE'115. Mrs. Scalze introduced the following resol.ution ancl movecl its adopti.on: RE;OLlJTiON N0. 84~-3-126 - SETTING A CI'LY POLICY RES'CRIC'CING TPIE USG; OL' SPOONliR PARLC FOR ANX LARGL-SCAI.~ 1.~UND RAISING IiVENT 0'L1~If;R TFIAD] CANADIAN DAXS AND LI'iTLG CANADA RECRIiATION DU3i TO POLICE PROTF.CTIOP] DII?FICUL'PI]iS, T}U3 YARK I30RDERS A SINGLE fA~1ILY RPSIDENT'f.AL NEIGItAORI~l00D, 'CI-IF, CITY DOES NO'C OWN TI[IS PARK AND I~IAS HAD PROBI~r~1S IN Ti~IE PAST 41IT,F1 TI~LI; PER~fTTTING AGliNCY RPGARDING USAGli OP' TI~IE PARK The foreRoing r.esoluCi.on ~vas duly seconded by Mr. Tahey. Ayes (3) Scalze, Pahey, Nardini. Nayes (0). Resoluti.on declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 11, Page 135. Acljourn Mr. T'ahey inCroduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RPSOLlJTION N0. 84-3-1?_7 - ADJOURNING The foregoinp, resoluti.on was duly seconded by Mrs. Nardini. Ayes (3) L'ahey, Narcli.n:i., Scalze. Nayes (0). Reso].ution declared adopted. This resolution appears in Resolution 3lootc No. 1.1., page 136. Tk~ere being no Lurther business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfull.y submitted, /~ t. ~ i~ L: c_ t. %,~_ Kathl.een Glanzer, Recordirig Secretary Pa~;e -16-