Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee

Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee June 20, 2016 Page 1 of 2 Present: Stu Sautner, Joel Feist, Richard Galster, Rolly Ackerman Absent: Dave Pankow, Tyler Neether Ackerman called meeting to order at 1:00 pm Harmstead Harmstead, SRF, gave overview of changes from last meeting. Chapter 22 and 22.1 created to split out on premise and off premise signage. Harmstead described changes in Sections 22-1 through Section 22-5 Discussion on Section 22-5. Ackerman asked how advertising signage would work at a ball field where advertisers are on the outfield perimeter. Harmstead said that would be covered with c. Banners on public property. Feist suggested eliminating “on premise” in b. to help clarify what the intent is. Further, Feist suggested to add advertisement as being exempt in a. and then eliminate b. Harmstead continued describing Section 22-7 & 22-10. Harmstead discussed addressing signage in AG zoning. In section 22-7 add AG to list of zoning districts. Also needs to be added in Section 22-11. Sybil Tetteh, Assistant City Planner, discussed the issue with 4 signs being allowed, two per entrance. Section 22-7a needs to be adjusted down. Discussion among the committee recommended reducing the signage per entrance down to one sign versus two. Remainder of chapter 22 comments related to removing billboard language out and into the new chapter. Harmstead described the table on page 5 of the memo discusses digital sign requirements and how the table is the same as digital billboards. Harmstead described chapter 22.1 text changes and how a new chapter was created to split out sign regulations and billboard regulations. Harmstead described 22.1-5 items k & l which were follow up items from the last meeting. Changes were made as directed. Section 22.1-6 h was discussed and the point of widening description is acceptable. Ackerman asked Lance if he thought it was ok, which he responded it was to him. After the summary Ackerman asked for public comments. Mr. Wayne Munson from Indigo discussed some items. 22-3 there was a typo. Also, discussion from Mr. Munson and group on the 10’ setback for signage. The city engineer was consulted as to whether this could be an issue. He stated it would be on a case by case and could not think of an “always an issue” reason why the setback should be enforced. Harmstead recommended Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee June 20, 2016 Page 2 of 2 that the side yard setback requirement be eliminated. He recommended that the rear yard setback be enforced. Harmstead brought up Mr. Munson’s email discussing on premise signage and billboards. He thinks billboards shouldn’t be allowed to advertise on premise. The definition in the current code prohibits this from happening. Discussion among the come committee recommended that on premise billboard advertising is allowed. However, after further discussion the decision by the committee was to keep the ordinance as written with the definition prohibiting on premise billboards and have the city attorney review the matter in the near future. Mr. Munson discussed in Section 22-7 in special purpose said the signage area allowed at 48 square feet. Most signs now are 68 square feet. Commercial requirements are different from special purpose. Committee discussed changing size to 70 square feet maximum to allow current signs to conform. Mr. Munson discussed Section 22-8 a.3. in the last sentence remove the word cabinet to read “primary sign area” to help clarify the requirement. Further discussion on 22-8 c. was to leave that section alone. Committee recommended Remove 1. a, d, e, 2 & 3 in 22-11 g Section 22-13 Mr. Munson stated that he can get a letter from the manufacturer on their letterhead that says the sign brightness with the following models is compliant to code. But it’s hard to measure the brightness like for billboards. This solution would solve the issue. The committee was in favor of that recommendation. Mr. Ness then gave his comments. He wants to see 22.1-6 c be taken out of the code. He feels it shouldn’t apply due to the fact the interchanges are in the city and the federal government doesn’t regulate interchanges in the city. Based on conversations with the NDDOT being more restrictive than the federal requirements are fine and do not jeopardize the federal funding the state receives. The committee recommended the section stays as is. No further public comments were brought forward. Harmstead them summarized the recommended changes from the committee above in preparation for a vote by the committee. The two for legal review are definitions of on premise sign and building official review of wall signs Feist made recommendation to approve the recommendations as brought forward, Sautner seconded the motion. The committee recommended approval unanimously. Meeting concluded at 3:10 pm.