HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.A. Presentation regarding the Chamber Public Policy Committee's Sign Regulations General Business
7. A.
SHAKO1'EE
TO: Mayor and City Council
Mark McNeill,City Administrator
FROM: R. Michael Leek,Community Development Director
DATE: 09/02/2014
SUBJECT: Presentation Regarding the Chamber Public Policy Committee's Sign Regulations(B)
Action Sought
Provide input on new recommendations from the Chamber Public Policy Committee after the presentation by
President Angie Whitcomb.
Background
In 2012 the Committee made several recommendations to the City Council,Planning Commission,and Economic
Development Advisory Commission(EDAC)for changes to the City of Shakopee's sign regulations. (See attached
letter dated September 4,2012)Over the next 12 months and several joint meetings with the Planning Commission
and EDAC, staff drafted a revised version of proposed regulations.In September of 2013,both strikethrough and
clean copies of the resulting draft regulations were provided to the Committee for review before it would be moved
forward in the City review process.
At a meeting on July 15,2014,the Committee presented city staff with a new set of recommendations that would
do away with the previous draft regulations and start over.Ms. Whitcomb will present these recommendations to
the City Council on September 2,2014.
Recommendation
Staff has no recommendation regarding the Committee proposal.
Budget Impact
There is no direct budget impact associated with this item.
Relationship to Vision
This item is related to city goal B. Positively manage the challenges and opportunities presented by growth,
development,and change.
Requested Action
Provide input on new recommendations from the Chamber Public Policy Committee after the presentation by Ms.
Whitcomb.
Attachments: Letter
Chamber&
Visitors Bureau
Shakopee —Minnesota
September 4,2012
City of Shakopee
Economic Development Advisory Commission
RE: 2012 Sign Ordinance Study
Dear EDAC Members,
In early 2012,the Shakopee Chamber of Commerce,through its Public Policy Committee(PPC)embarked on a
study to examine the current Shakopee,sign ordinance to see how it was impacting local businesses. The
project was the result of Chamber members voicing concerns about the ordinances Initial research revealed that
the majority of the current ordinance was adopted well before the recent boom in retail and commercial
development in Shakopee. For these reasons,the PPC initiated a study to examine the current ordinance. In
this report,we present the findings of that study. I
The Process
The first step in the process was to divide the ordinance up into relevant sections and assign a committee
member or two to each section. Those members then reviewed that section and made an informal report to the
group on that section. Second,the PPC held three(3)public open house events. The events were open forums
for business owners,citizens,and public officials to discuss the existing ordinance. The event locations were
chosen to try and reach the various retail and residential areas of the City. One was held at the police
department,one at Turtle's and one in Southbridge. Following this information gathering,the PPC then
reviewed ordinances from other municipalities to compare them to Shakopee.
The following cities were among those examined: Bloomington,Apple Valley,Woodbury,Chanhassen,Eden
Prairie,Savage,and Lakeville.
The Findings
At the conclusion of this study,the following themes repeated themselves:
1) The current ordinance is difficult to navigate,both in print and online,
2) Businesses along the 169 corridor feel the ordinance is very restrictive. In Southbridge area,signage for
the business park is not clearly visible from the highway. Most believe the sign height requirement is
too low for highway areas. The same concerns were raised to the East of Marschall Road on 169 and
the Dean Lakes area.
3) We heard from developers that national chains have declined bringing retail business to Shakopee
because of the sign ordinance. Builders shared that many national chains have a checklist of items when
exploring potential sites. Because.their"standard"signage does not meet the Shakopee ordinance,
Shakopee is taken off the list of potential locations.
02-11.1.51.18.66 :1-80g lg Ea Crrtrity;Rturtl i • Statoj ct 1 55. i 9 4 wwvi sup N .drg
I Flo e: : lax J 2-I15'14 9 I■i 1 oI
1 I.4 -
...4 _ .. I Snty-9 74.4215[ ' + ' ! 1
a. ,�. t , � r zi ➢ � 1 , � i l t i
i 4 ,J_ ...
1
Chamber&
VVisitors Bureau
Shakopee—Minnesota
4) The temporary sign regulations are difficult to navigate. Some areas allow it,some don't. Many are
concerned about special short-term business promotions(sidewalk sales,food specials)running afoul of
the ordinance.
5) Many Multi-tenant property owners and managers felt the ordinance is very restrictive on them. Both
for on building signage as well as free-standing signage.
6) Monument sign regulations arc too restrictive re:size,number and location on lot.
7) Electronic message signs: there was a desire to utilize new sign technologies that are prohibited by the
ordinance. Topics discussed included change frequency,brightness level,dimming and motion control
of varying electronic signs.
8) Overall,it was felt that the.current ordinance made businesses visibility difficult in many commercial
areas in Shakopee,
9) Fear that any changes to older signs(that are grandfathered in)will result in City applying more
restrictive guidelines or not allowing sign at all.
10)In recreational areas,there is a desire to be allowed to advertise with promotional banners.
11)Historical buildings felt very limited in allowable signage due to setback requirements,etc.
12)The variance/CUP process is not a business-friendly alternative for most small and medium businesses.
National chains simply won't go through the process in general,will choose a city that is more amenable
to their signage requirements. Process is expensive,and outcome often unknown.
13)A number of Downtown businesses would like to work with the City to develop a way to provide more
visible signage from Hwy 101 to increase visibility of downtown retail area.
14)Regulations that make sense for some areas(i.e.historical downtown)don't make sense for others
(Dean Lakes). The ordinance should be tailored specifically to the unique needs of the businesses in
each business area.
15)Shakopee lacks strong directional signage directing customers to the various retail centers in town
(particularly those not visible from 169).
16)Almost all attendees agree that the ordinance should promote quality,attractive signage and not sacrifice
the overall aesthetics of the community.
17)Them was some concern raised about whether historical marker signage is allowed in Shakopee, An
example of this is found in Carver where historical buildings have landmark signs on them. These signs,
if allowed,would help create and enhance an historical perspective in certain parts of Shakopee.
Possible Solutions:
Following the informational gathering exercise,the PPC met and discussed some possible solutions to
address concerns heard from Shakopee businesses.
1) Develop a graphic presentation such as a table or chart with basic requirements for each zone. Examples
of this are found in Savage and Chanhassen. Improves navigability of ordinance and organization of
regulation.
2) Consider implementing a"highway overlay district"for the 169 corridor. This area would have
regulations that are tailored specifically to the needs of those businesses. Perhaps this could include
taller and larger allowable signs yet require higher quality. For example,Woodbury allows larger
signage along freeway frontage.
3) Consider including visual examples of allowable styles of signage. Example: Woodbury,Chanhassen.
4) Implement a"master signage plan"ordinance. An example is found in Apple Valley. The concept
encourages the business/developer to think forward on signage needs for each particular development,
K4, I'ast County Roar h fl • l�akrr�aee,.`MN 5379 • ti.,ww.snaiwpa e or
1`lir:rlaC'
'1,-,2-44c,Irbil • PHN 91)4-445-1669 * '1-(111-b)12( 1-831)571-2 IL
Chamber&
Vi�sitars Bureau
Shakopee —Minnesota
and allows more signage(25% increase)over otherwise allowable space for those electing to engage in
a master signage plan. Master plan goes through the planning and approval process,and can be
modified over time,but only upon application. Allows City to have input on aesthetics,while allowing
the business interest more flexibility. In Apple Valley,it also reduced the size of the sign ordinance
significantly. To make this attractive to businesses/owners,the City must sufficiently incentivize the
process by allowing greater sign usage in areas that seek such approval.
5) Develop a clearer temporary signage policy. Consider allowing special promotion signage to retail and
commercial businesses more easily and frequently. The PPC liked how Apple Valley handled this,they
allow special promotion signage(sidewalk sales,etc.)with a permit, The application for the permit is
free. There is a short handout on those requirement and it is very easy to navigate. Allow the
applications online to speed the process.
6) Re-evaluate maximum sign height requirement in areas where there are significant variations in grade
due to roadways,etc. The main area would be along the elevated,and lowered,stretches of 169.
7) Consistent enforcement. Currently,Shakopee has very limited enforcement of the sign ordinance which,
in turn,has created a feeling of confusion among business operators. One city,Eden Prairie,uses a
"tab"permit system where conforming signs receive a small sticker indicating conformance with the
ordinance. This makes non-conforming,non-permitted signs more readily visible.
8) Make Ordinance more searchable. Consider making it possible to view just the portion of the ordinance
relevant to each district,as opposed to the whole document.
9) Build more flexibility and predictability into the ordinance for businesses seeking a variance,and clearly
address concerns over fees that come with signage permits.
10) Retool the electronic sign section.
11)Consider loosening regulations on historical signs to recognize the historical nature of certain areas and
properties in Shakopee.
Action Steps:
The business community,through the Shakopee Chamber,would like to see City staff commence a
comprehensive review of the sign ordinance that takes into consideration the current demands of the varying
business centers in town,the desire of the City to be an economic development leader,and the need for
reasonable sign regulation. It is hoped that the information and suggestions in this report will provide a
roadmap for that process. The PPC respectfully requests that City staff engage stakeholders in the process as
appropriate. The suggestion is to involve the EDAC,the Chamber,SCALE and others as appropriate, The
Shakopee Chamber of Commerce hopes that changes can be made to the ordinance that are ready for Council
consideration by July 2013.
ESN.List !Lottn v Row! 1E)1 ■ -,11,11sotte(- ION „E)':pt;t • }sww shakuupir;ui
e I'Iiuur. 9 -1-4a,1-1Kit) • I Etx 441i-11169 Frrt
gin*