Planning Commission

CITY OF DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES May 2, 2013 6:30 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Gunter Hansen, Sue Wright, Doug Chambers, Kelly Farber, Keith Volz, Pat Baer, Jack Hezlep, Shawn Riley, Tasha Brackeen, Choose an item., Choose an item. MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Kippenberger CITY STAFF PRESENT: Cody Bird, City Planner, Marcia Hartman, Recording Secretary CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: Minutes of Thursday, April 18, 2013 Planning Commission Meeting MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Gunter Hansen VOTE: 8-0-1, Shawn Riley abstained PUBLIC FORUM OPENED PUBLIC FORUM CLOSED MEETING DATE: May 2, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO: 1 CASE DESCRIPTION: Continuation of Public Hearing – Amendments to Article 7 of the Derby Zoning Ordinance APPLICANT: City of Derby REASON FOR REQUEST: Establish regulations for Electronic Message Signs BACKGROUND INFORMATION:  Electronic message signs and light emitting diode (LED) signs are an increasingly popular and available technology used for commercial advertising.  Due to the nature of electronic message signs, it is advisable to establish regulations to ensure the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and to recognize aesthetic values and visual enhancement of the community.  A Public Hearing is required to amend the ordinance. o Notice of the Public Hearing was originally published in the city’s official newspaper on March 27, 2013. o The Public Hearing was held at the April 18, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 1 of 7  o City Staff presented proposed amendments which included new definitions for terms specifically pertaining to electronic message signs and suggested regulations for display brightness, locations, and sizes of electronic message signs. o Discussion included the need to address the following:  Apply the same electronic message sign regulations to all potential users – Do not differentiate between commercial users and churches and schools;  Adopt measures to ensure that single-family residences are protected from any injurious effects of electronic message signs;  Need for regulations controlling maximum permitted brightness;  Consider maximum permitted heights of electronic message signs;  Regulate the location of electronic message signs on a zoning lot (e.g. 100 foot setback from single-family residential properties);  Adopt sufficient regulations to control adverse effects, but do not limit the artistic nature of the variety of sign mediums.  Following discussion, the Commission approved a motion to continue the public hearing in accordance with Article 11, Section 1100.F.8. of the Zoning Ordinance: The motion stated that the Public Hearing was to be continued during the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on May 2, 2013 commencing at 6:30 in the City Council Chambers located at 611 N. Mulberry Rd., Derby, Kansas. o The Commission shall prepare its findings and the factors on which to base its recommendation and will vote at the conclusion of the hearing. STAFF COMMENTS:  Some of the Commission’s discussion topics from the April 18, 2013 meeting are addressed in the previously proposed amendments: o Regulations pertaining to electronic message sign brightness – Section 704.E.2.d. establishes a maximum brightness level of 5,000 nits between sunrise and sunset and 500 nits between sunset and sunrise. This section further requires that a light sensing device be installed to automatically adjust the brightness in accordance with these standards. o Maximum permitted heights of electronic message signs – Height of signs is already addressed in Section 706 for each zoning district. Staff recommends that the maximum limits already in place for height of signs along with the brightness levels specified will be sufficient to minimize the potentially injurious effects of electronic message signs. o Artistic nature of signs – If adopted, the proposed amendments will establish requirements for electronic message signs which regulate the time, place and manner of display. The proposed amendments are content-neutral and do not impose any regulations which eliminate creativity or artistic expression. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 2 of 7   Staff recommends the following changes to address the Commission’s discussion from the April 18, 2013 public hearing: o Section 701 – Included “Video Display Sign” with Electronic Message Sign and added a definition for “Video Display Sign.” o Section 701 – Modified the definition of “Ground Sign” to remove the term ‘monolithic’ and to clarify that all structural components of a sign must be completely enclosed. o Section 704.E.2. – Added a new subsection “a” to establish size dimensions for all electronic message signs. It is proposed that any electronic message sign under 25 square feet be permitted. If the proposed electronic message portion of a sign is greater than 25 square feet, it cannot exceed 25% of the gross surface area of the sign, provided that no electronic message sign shall exceed 50 square feet. o Section 704.E.2. – Added a new subsection “b” to require a 100 foot setback between any electronic message sign and a single-family residential property, as measured from the nearest edge of the sign to the nearest property line of the single-family residential property. o Section 704.E.2.k. – Removed the word “adjacent” from subparagraph “k” because it was redundant. o Section 705.C.2.h. – Changed timeframe for removal of political signs to seven (7) days as was discussed. Also modified language to give Zoning Administrator the authority to remove political signs after 7 days have passed instead of stating that the Zoning Administrator will remove political signs after 7 days have passed. o Section 706. – Removed electronic message signs from the list of “Type, Size and/or Maximum Gross Surface Area of Signs Authorized” for each zoning district.  Subparagraph 4 of Sections A through E of 706 references Section 704.E. of the Ordinance for Illuminated Signs. Section 704.E. was amended to include the same size regulations applicable to all zoning districts.  In addition to the proposed amendments presented at the April 18, 2013 meeting and the above additions, Staff is also recommending the following amendments: o Section 701 – Added a definition for “Message Sequencing.” o Section 702 – Added subsections “K” and “L” to include Electronic Message Signs on moving vehicles and signs employing sound projecting devices or audio content to the list of prohibited signs. o Section 704.E.2. – Added a new subparagraph “c” to require that a minimum distance of 50 linear feet separate any two electronic message signs. o Section 704.E.2. – Added a new subparagraph “f” to clarify that changes from frame to frame shall be instantaneous and without transitions. o Section 704.E.2. – Subparagraph “g” – Modified a previously proposed amendment to include video as a permitted frame effect, provided that frame effects are not used to transition to a new frame. This paragraph also prohibits the use of “dissolve” and “fade.” “Scrolling” or “travelling” text was also included as prohibited frame effects. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 3 of 7  o Section 704.E.2. – Added a new subparagraph “h” to require each individual frame display a complete message. This is in order to prevent “Message Sequencing” as defined in Section 701. This is in order to ensure the safety of motor vehicle drivers which may be distracted while watching an electronic message sign to see the second or subsequent portions of a message.  All proposed amendments to Article 7 are marked on the attachment. RECOMMENDATION: Move to approve the amendments to Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Derby, subject to Planning Commission comments. Attachments: Proposed amendments DISCUSSION: Cody Bird – indicated that this meeting was a continuation of the April 18, 2013 public hearing for establishing regulations for electronic message signs. No further legal publication was required. Cody asked the members to review the new suggested changes that resulted from the discussion at the April 18 hearing. Keith Volz – commented on the ground sign definition and had concerns regarding the aspect of encasing the structure. The interpretation indicates that pole signs could have the poles encased and continue to look like pole signs. Kelly Farber – said the term “monolithic” helps to define the structure to be the same width for enclosure from top to bottom, rather than allowing encased poles. Cody Bird – agreed with Keith’s point and said that we should allow enough flexibility for creative design, such as tapering. Kelly Farber – felt that the recent Shelton Collision sign example fits the definition of monolithic. Keith Volz – asked if we could consider defining sign structure by a fraction of the total sign, such as 1/3 of the width of the top. Kelly Farber – said the sign would still need to be enclosed and solid. Gunter Hansen – recommended the definition to say 2/3. Cody Bird – recapped the members’ points asking if they want to keep the term monolithic in the existing definition and add another sentence that quantifies percentage or 2/3 of the overall width of the sign. Kelly Farber – expressed concern about specifying sign portions as 2/3. Sue Wright – asked if regulations were due to safety or aesthetics. Keith Volz – answered aesthetics. Keith Volz, Kelly Farber, Sue Wright – asked who made determinations on sign issues when applicants disagree with the regulations. Cody Bird – responded that the Zoning Administrator makes decisions on signs unless a conditional use is required. Conditional Use signs require approval of the Board of DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 4 of 7 Zoning Appeals. Applicants have the right to appeal decisions of the Zoning Administrator. Such appeals are also taken to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Kelly Farber – indicated that he would not have a problem with establishing a requirement for the base to be 2/3 the width of the widest part of the sign, and keeping the monolithic definition. Sue Wright & Keith Volz – further discussed the ground sign definition. Cody Bird – recapped the discussion: the current definition for ground sign would be kept and the Commission may or may not include the percentage or fraction for the width of the base. The Zoning Administrator determines if a proposed sign meets the definition. If the applicant disagrees, the matter would go before the Board of Zoning Appeals as a Conditional Use Sign. Cody Bird – said he felt comfortable with the direction the members had provided and concluded that the proposed amendments to the definition of “ground sign” would be removed. The current definition would remain in effect. Sue Wright – asked the difference between ground signs and monument signs. Cody Bird – answered that the difference is in the height, which is defined in the district regulations. Kelly Farber – asked Cody if it would be helpful to add fractions into the definition. Cody Bird – answered that it would add clarification but is not necessary. Cody Bird – asked the Commission if there were any comments on the electronic message signs from the continuation of the last discussion. He said the definition of a video display sign was added and indicated he understood from the commission that these signs were not overly distracting as long as they were within the size and dimensional requirements. He asked the members if they were agreeable to this. Commission – agreed. Cody Bird – addressed the discussion on the size of the signs. The original proposed amendments suggested 50 square feet for B1 and B2 districts and 100 sq ft for B3 and B5. He said that the members had suggested a consistent size for all districts. Cody removed the size from the districts and placed it in the general standards section, making the size requirements the same in all districts – 50 square feet maximum. Keith Volz – asked if that would allow for signs like the Derby Friends Church. Cody Bird – answered yes; as the proposed amendment is written, if a sign is 25 square feet or less, the whole sign may be for electronic messages; but if it’s over 25 square feet, it must be less the 25% of the overall sign up to a maximum of 50 square feet. Keith Volz – indicated that the language on 7-14.b was well written regarding the distance from residential property. Cody Bird – asked if there were any questions or modifications on the new additions that weren’t discussed at the last meeting. Some new definitions were added, such as “message sequencing” which would prevent signs from displaying lengthy messages in short segments, thus requiring drivers to keep their attention on the sign for prolonged periods of time. Shawn Riley – asked if there was a definition for frame. Cody Bird – answered that it was on page 7-5. Keith Volz – asked for clarification on the difference between a frame and the sign itself. Cody Bird – likened the frame of an electronic message sign to a slide of a PowerPoint presentation. Shawn Riley – asked if continuous messaging was defined as messaging going across the board. Cody Bird – said yes, that was the intention of message sequencing. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 of 7 Shawn Riley – asked how it would be enforced. Cody Bird – answered that code enforcement would report it and staff would notify the owner. Shawn Riley and Kelly Farber – questioned the interpretation of scrolling versus messages appearing by frame. Cody Bird –said the language was rewritten for subparagraph “g” on page 7-14, but indicated that it may need to be revised. Kelly Farber – provided an example of a sign reading “Go Derby Panthers” with one word appearing on each frame that would not meet the language requirements. Cody Bird – said that was a good point to consider. He asked if the message sequencing should be removed. Kelly Farber – asked if message sequencing was a current problem. Cody Bird – answered that this recommendation came from conducting research of other sign regulations and was included to address this type of situation before it became a problem. Members – all agreed that the language should be changed. Kelly Farber – asked members if they were okay with the definition of message sequencing, but not the restriction to prohibit it. Shawn Riley – recommended removing subparagraphs “f,” “g,” and “h.” Kelly Farber – pointed out that the new regulations should not be so restrictive that it would make things difficult for businesses to abide by the sign ordinance. Members – agreed to remove subparagraphs “f,” “g,” and “h” and to note the change in the motion. Kelly Farber – asked members for any other questions. Cody Bird – provided a summary of the changes to the proposed amendments. The changes included: (1) keeping the current definition of a “ground sign;” and (2) removing subparagraphs “f,” “g,” and “h” from the Illuminated Signs section on page 7-14. All other comments were general discussion with no changes. Pat Baer – moved to approve the amendments to Article 7 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Derby, subject to Planning Commission comments and subject to the definition of “ground sign” to remain as it is stated in the current Zoning Ordinance, and to omit subparagraphs “f,” “g,” and “h” from the proposed amendments. MOTION: Pat Baer SECOND: Tasha Brackeen VOTE: 9-0-0, unanimous MEETING DATE: May 2, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO: 2 CASE DESCRIPTION: New Commissioner Orientation Cody Bird – announced the departure of 4 members, Kelly Farber, Keith Volz, Tasha Brackeen and Sue Wright, and asked if they had any parting words. He asked that the Planning Commission materials be returned to staff. If members wished to keep the materials, he asked that they allow staff to ensure copies are current. DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 6 of 7 At this time, the 4 exiting members stepped down from the bench and new members took seats on the Commission. Cody Bird – introduced the new Commission members: Herman Hicks, Dennis Poteete and Kathy Wills (Mitch Adams was absent). New Members – provided brief introductions. MEETING DATE: May 2, 2013 AGENDA ITEM NO: 3 CASE DESCRIPTION: Election of Officers Jack Hezlep – nominated Pat Baer to be Chairman. Pat Baer – accepted the nomination. MOTION: Jack Hezlep SECOND: Shawn Riley VOTE: 8-0-0, unanimous Shawn Riley – nominated Jack Hezlep to be Vice Chairman. Jack Hezlep – accepted the nomination. MOTION: Shawn Riley SECOND: Pat Baer VOTE: 8-0-0, unanimous Cody Bird, City Planner – is appointed as ex officio Secretary of the Commission and an election is not required, in accordance with the By-Laws of the Planning Commission. MOTION TO ADJOURN: Pat Baer SECOND: Gunter Hansen VOTE: 8-0-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:30pm Marcia Hartman Pat Baer Recording Secretary Chairman DERBY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 7 of 7