The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About15.D.3. Sign Ordinance Discussion Is-. iJ. 3 , CITY OF SHAKO PEE Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council Mark McNeill, City Administrator FROM: R. Michael Leek, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance Discussion MEETING DATE: July 20, 2004 CASELOG: NA INTRODUCTION: On June 15,2004, the City Council directed staff to review businesses whose 3.2 percent malt liquor licenses were being renewed for sign compliance, and to notify those not in compliance with the sign ordinance of the need to come into compliance within 30 days. In accordance with this direction, planning staff visited the sites of the licensees, prepared, and sent letters notifying them of violations, as well as the need to come into compliance. After the businesses not in compliance were notified both city staff and council members recei~ed numerous calls regarding the letters received by these businesses. In response staffhas been directed to prepare a memo regarding the issues for the July 20th Council meeting. DISCUSSION: This memo will outline the issues and attempt to suggest some alternatives that could be considered by the Council to address the issues. Because discussions of signage and enforcement of sign ordinances can get quite involved and lengthy, staff strongly suggests that the Council 1 ) solicit comment or suggestions in writing from the business owners who received letters regarding violations, and 2) set a time for a workshop meeting at which the Council can discuss the input it receives and the alternatives and reach consensus about the changes it may want to see made in the sign provisions of the zoning code. It appears that the principal issues raised are; 1. The use of neon lighting in signage; 2. Temporary signage (banners and pennants); 3. Window signs and coverage of windows by signs. Neon Lighting: Currently, City Code Sec. 11.70 SIGNS, subd. 2 PROHIBITED SIGNS, K.3., prohibits the following; G: \CC\2004\07 - 20\signordinance.doc 1 "illuminated signs which exhibit any of the following:. . .signs containing neon lighting." Many of the licensees, of course, have signs in their windows that make use of neon lighting. In many cases these signs may be provided by their suppliers, and may have been used for years. Staff suspects that at the time the basic sign code was developed the underlying concern may have been that signs using neon lighting carried with them a connotation of garishness. Over the last several years, neon lighting has gained more design respectability and can be used attractively and in a way that is not distracting to passing motorists or pedestrians. Thus an alternative might be to simply delete this prohibition from the code. Temporary Signage: Shakopee's Zoning Code (at Sec. 11.70, Subd. 5) allows temporary banners and pennants under the following circumstances and conditions; . ".. . for grand opening of business establishments or special events.. .;" . A sign permit is required; . Only one temporary sign permit may be issued at a time; . The banner or pennant cannot exceed 32 square feet in area; . The banner or pennant is to be affixed to a principal structure owned or leased by the business which the sign is advertising; . Such banners and pennants can only be displayed for a total of 30 days per calendar year. Some of the businesses reviewed have temporary banners that don't necessarily advertise a special event or the business per se; have not received a sign permit; are not affixed to the principal structure; and whose display in total exceeds 30 days per calendar year. If the Council concludes that the current provisions are too restrictive, there are many options that could be considered. For example, the Council could establish provisions that; . Allow a certain number of temporary banners and pennants of a certain size without a sign permit; . Allow additional banners or pennants with a sign permit up to a predetermined number of banners/pennants or sign area; . Allow display of banners and pennants whether or not they advertise either the business or a special event; . Allow display for a period greater than 30 days up to year-round. The suggestion was also shared with staff that if a business had in the past received a permit for a temporary banner/pennant it might be allowed to continue to display banners/pennants under that permit even though the banner/pennant itself might be different. G: \CC\2004\07 - 20\signordinance.doc 2 Window Signs: Two sections of the current ordinance address the limitation on window signs, Sec. 11.70, Subd. 4, LOCATION OF SIGN and Subd.8, Commercial Sign Regulations, H. 1- 5. These provisions appear to be in conflict. The author ofthis report, as zoning administrator, has used basic principles of legislative interpretation to harmonize the provisions. Specifically, where there are 2 provisions, one that is more general and the other more specific, the more specific should control. Subd. 4 in my view is more general, having to do with the question of sign location, while Subd: 8 is more specific to the provisions that apply to commercial signs. Thus, in evaluating window signs it is my belief that the provisions ofSubd. 8 controls. If the Council views it differently, in order to eliminate any confusion, it might direct that one or the other provision be deleted or modified so that they correspond exactly to one another. Subd. 8 allows 10% of the window area to be occupied by permanent signs, and up to 50% of the window area to be occupied by signs of any type. If the Council feels that these are too restrictive, it may direct that some other percentage be allowed. Enforcement: The issues raised by the Council's recent direction are only a part ofthe problems encountered. Others include illegal signs in rights-of-way, other types of temporary signs, off-premises signs. Planning staffhas for some time tried to tackle some of these issues on a continuing basis (most notably illegal signs in the rights-of-way); other enforcement is done primarily on a complaint basis. Of course, any time enforcement action is taken on a sign issue; a common first response from the recipient of the enforcement action is to complain of other signs they feel may be in violation. Frankly, at this time the City does not have the staff resources necessary to systematically stay on top of all sign violations/violators. To do so would likely require additional staffing dedicated to enforcement only. The police department CSO's are not a full answer to the problem either, as they tend to be relatively short-term employees who also have other responsibilities. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Set a date and time for a workshop to discuss possible revisions to the sign provisions of the zoning code, and request that business owners submit their comments and suggestions in writing so that they can be fully considered by the Council. Hold any enforcement on sign violations in abeyance until the Council has reached a final decision on any changes to the zoning code sign provisions. 2. Provide direction to staff regarding specific changes it wishes to make in the sign provisions of the zoning code, and direct that the process of zoning text amendment be commenced. 3. Provide direction to staff regarding sign code enforcement mechanisms. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative no. 1: G: \CC\2004\07 - 20\signordinance.doc 3 ACTION REQUESTED: Offer and approve a motion setting a date and time for a workshop to discuss the provisions of the sign ordinance. ~4:./~~ R. Michael Leek Community Development Director G: \CC\2004\07 - 20\signordinance.doc 4