Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee

Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee June 8, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Members Present: Dave Pankow, Tyler Neether, Stu Sautner, Joel Feist, Richard Galster, Rolly Ackerman Others Present: Leo Ness, Newman Signs; Bernie Dardis, Indigo Signs; Robert Smesrud, Indigo Signworks; Josh Wolsley, Minot Voice; Wayne Munson, Indigo Signs; Eric Wanner, Future Builders, Inc.; Elysha Head, Minot Association of Builders; Mitch Flanagan, Building Official; Dwight Thompson, Code Enforcement; Sybil Tetteh, Assistant City Planner; Lance Meyer, City Engineer; Scott Harmstead, SRF; Sue Nilson, Planning Assistant Meeting called to order at 2:00 PM. Pankow directed staff to bring recommendations for the two open positions on the committee. He suggested an architect. The other representative would be from the general public. Feist stated that he spoke to Ron Merritt from the Park District. Merritt has concerns regarding internal signs in the parks and how the new regulations would affect them. Ackerman stated that internal signs are defined in the ordinance but may need to be more clearly defined. Special purpose signs may also cover that issue. Ness commented that Section 22-11 regarding special purpose signs contradicts with Section 22-2 ii). The committee agreed that they have no desire to regulate interior signs on public land. Tetteh stated that wayfinding signs are the way to define that. Pankow stated that sponsorship from advertisers should also be allowed on those signs. Munson mentioned an email that he sent to Pankow with questions and comments regarding the ordinance changes. Pankow stated he forwarded it to Tetteh and for her to have a memo done regarding it and push it out to City Council before the next meeting. Ness stated that Section 22-13 c) regarding the 500’ distance required in a highway interchange within City limits is too restrictive. The state and federal rules regarding that say you can’t put a billboard within 500’ where a ramp starts to widen outside City limits. That doesn’t apply to City limits and he feels that should be removed. Meyer commented that Ness’s information needs to be verified but believes that as long as the City is more restrictive and not less restrictive in the regulations we are OK. Ackerman stated that we started out with 1000’ distance and 500’ was a compromise. Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee June 8, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Pankow directed staff to get more information in memo format and provide some examples so they can vote on it for the next meeting. Ness stated that Section 22-12 regarding placement of billboards wasn’t defined during the City Council meeting on Monday. Pankow stated that City Council approved billboards on the highway system only. Ness stated that a sign face needs to be more clearly defined. Some of the signs have two advertisements on one side. The committee agreed that it needs to be regulated by square footage instead of how many signs are on one side. Ness stated that he wants Section 22-13 c) ““Billboards shall be located at least five hundred (500) feet from the nearest right of way of a US Highway interchange” thrown out. The committee discussed Section 22-12 regarding the 300’ requirement. Staff has had complaints from the public regarding the billboards being visible from their homes. Pankow asked if a shade could be required on the lighting of the billboards to eliminate it from shining on anything other than the sign. Tetteh stated that even at 500’ from a residence, topography can also be an issue making billboards more visible. Ackerman stated that distance isn’t going to make a difference because they will still be able to see the billboard. He feels the real issue was the white background lighting on digital signs. Tetteh suggested that reducing the size allowed for a billboard when it is close to residential would make them less offensive. Feist asked Ness if the signs that have received complaints are in compliance and he stated that they were. Ness stated that the lighting on the digital signs is now emitted down and towards the road, making them less bright. Dardis stated that the lighting on message centers on on-premise signs do emit light in different directions. The height allowed for a billboard was discussed. Tetteh stated that the Committee needs to look at the public good. Residential areas need to be protected. She has concerns regarding billboards going up on Burdick Expressway. She suggested scaling back the allowable sign size and height when near residential zones. Pankow stated that he felt billboards wouldn’t be allowed on Burdick because of the regulations already in place. Ackerman made a motion to leave Section 22-12 as is and was seconded by Feist. Motion carried unanimously. Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee June 8, 2016 Page 3 of 4 After some discussion regarding the concealed fastener requirement in M1 & M2, Neether made a motion to remove the requirement from M1 & M2. Seconded by Sautner. Motion carried unanimously. The committee discussed the building design requirements for adding an additional building on existing industrial sites, stating that they felt they may be unnecessary. Improving a small portion of a site just makes it look out of place. Tetteh stated that this is where the Non-Conforming Chapter of the Ordinance comes into play. Requirements depend on the percentage of improvements proposed. Ackerman and Pankow agreed that if the Planning Commission and the City Council grants variances to the design requirements every time one comes before them, the ordinance should be changed. Tetteh defended the ordinance and stated that there is also industrial zoning downtown and that area needs to be protected. Neether stated that he has gotten feedback from industrial businesses that are unhappy with the requirements and he would like to see them stricken from the ordinance when they are on part of a lot that isn’t visible from a right-of-way. Ackerman stated that the landscaping ordinance is requiring too much landscaping and is too expensive. Meyer stated that a design standard that would only apply in certain situations would be too difficult for Staff to regulate. He stated that he would like the Committee to get some guidance from the City Council on which direction they would like the Committee to take. It appears the City Council isn’t in step with the Committee. Pankow agreed. Harmstead stated that other cities use words like may and can instead of must and shall. This ordinance is very restrictive. Pankow stated that if we used words like may and can we would end up with the lowest standards every time. Ackerman stated that the public feels that Broadway is a “concrete alley”. Meyer stated that the public wants design standards but no one wants to follow them and so a variance is granted by City Council. Tetteh stated that City Council, Planning Commission, City Staff, and the public needs to be educated on variances; what is allowed and what isn’t. There are times where variances shouldn’t be an option. Meyer stated that he would talk to the City Manager on regarding guidance from the City Council. Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee June 8, 2016 Page 4 of 4 Pankow requested that Staff provide options for the Committee regarding Commercial and Non- Conforming Chapters. Tetteh gave some general comments regarding the Off Street Parking Chapter. Staff needs direction on what the Committee is looking for. Meyer suggested that it would be useful to allow Staff to be able to allow some deviation for parking if the site is short a spot or two. Tetteh also mentioned allowing shared parking agreements, and requiring parking lot islands so there is some relief from pavement and help direct traffic. Pankow directed City Staff to produce a memo regarding the changes to the sign ordinance for the next meeting on June 20, 2016, in the City Council Chambers at 1:00 PM. Meeting adjourned at 4:25 PM.