The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-19-2011 LPA MinutesLOCAL PLANNING AGENCY (PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION) THURSDAY, MAY 19, 2011 Immediately following the PZ Commission meeting Chairman Dodd called the meeting to order at 8:02 P.M. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Roth Mr. Dodd Mr. Durr Mr. Hepler ALSO PRESENT: OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Kayser (a) Mr. Qizilbash Mr. Carter Mr. Reyes Jan King, Growth Management Manager Dorri Bosworth, Zoning Technician Al Minner, City Manager Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney o c3ic� _C 0 ... C Q� E c O\ O O cl� V a. ? N a < < 75 A. PUBLIC HEARING — REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ORDINANCE 0 -11 -05 WHICH PROPOSES TO AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 54- 3- 16.5(e)(4)d ENLARGING THE TIME DURING WHICH POLITICAL SIGNS MAY BE POSTED Chairman Dodd called the public hearing to order. The City Attorney read the title of Ordinance 0 -11 -05 for the record. He reviewed that for the last three annual elections City Council had waived the provisions of the code that restricted the posting of signs to 30 days before the election. Mr. Ginsburg stated he thought it was a wise waiver as 30 days was indefensible in court. At a previous meeting, City Council indicated it was interested in re- instating an enforceable provision dealing with political signs and when they could be posted, and he had advised them that the amount of days should be significantly changed. The proposed ordinance suggests 75 days which would be consistent with the qualification period as discussed in the city's charter. He also stated courts have thrown out restrictions of 60 days. The ordinance was based on two grounds, public safety and aesthetics. Public Input was opened. Mr. Ben Hocker, Sebastian, stated he had researched other jurisdictions, most which were 60 days, and the 2008 -2009 waiver document. He felt the change was political since there were three open council seats this fall. He was appalled at all the political signs at last year's election and noted there didn't seem to be any code enforcement. He stated 75 days was too many and that we should be consistent with the neighboring communities. Mr. Reyes asked the city attorney if 60 days would be hard to get approved. Mr. Ginsburg stated it was ultimately City Council's decision, but it was not his recommendation. Discussion ensued regarding existing removal requirements, fines if the signs have to be removed by the city, and collection of those fines. Mr. Dodd suggested wording that said "a qualified candidate may post signs ". Mr. Ginsburg opined that a stated amount of time was better. MOTION by Durr /Roth to recommend [to City Council to approve] Ordinance 0 -11 -05 which proposed to amend the Land Development Code Section 54- 3- 16.5(e)(4)d enlarging the time during which political signs may be posted. ROLL CALL: Mr. Roth yes Mr. Qizilbash yes Mr. Carter yes Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Hepler yes Mr. Durr yes The vote was 7 -0. Motion passed unanimously. B. PUBLIC HEARING — REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ORDINANCE 0 -11 -04 WHICH PROPOSES TO AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARTICLE XVI SIGNAGE AND ADVERTISING Chairman Dodd called the public hearing to order. The City Attorney read the title of Ordinance 0 -11 -04 for the record. Public Input was opened. Mr. Ben Hocker, Sebastian, stated he could not find the back -up information on the city's webpage and therefore could not offer any input. Mr. Dodd stated he watched the previous City Council meeting where they discussed signage and he summarized their discussion where they addressed special event signs and A -frame signs. He felt the proposed ordinance didn't address those changes City Council discussed. Mr. Minner gave a brief history of the 2007 City Council action temporarily allowing the A- frames to help out the local businesses with the tanking economy and advertising. The city relaxed enforcement on some of the signage issues. Over the past years, signage has appeared that was not intended. There have been requests on both sides of the issue — more signage allowed requested from the businesses and Chamber vs action to keep the sanctity and ambience of the community, free of unsightly signage. He then reviewed a slide that showed the type of A- frames that City Council had envisioned would be permitted and used by the businesses. He also reviewed the proposed changes in the LDC which incorporated the original intentions of City Council with the necessary parameters, regulations, and enforcement. The changes were for all zoning 2 districts except for the area within the Roseland Road Buffer (with regards to signage). Feather signs were being recommended only as a type of temporary sign allowed for a set number of days per year. Mr. Ben Hocker stated he thought 48 inches was too high for A -frame signs as it might affect the visibility for low- riding cars and doesn't like the feather signs. Mr. Dodd asked the city attorney if, because the LDC definition of special event signs didn't really include "business events" signs, it would be good to create a different term, or modify the existing definition. Based on the City Council discussion he thought "special event signs" needed a better clarification. Mr. Ginsburg stated that currently special event sign and temporary sign were interchangeable terms in the code vs. permanent signs, and clarification could be considered. There was discussion regarding the "yearly" permits and if signs were grandfathered in until January 2012, and if new signs were pro -rated if the ordinance was adopted within the next months. The proposed sections regarding the disclaimer for signs in the ROW, and the notice and enforcement of fines and illegal sign collection were also reviewed. Mr. Hepler asked what is considered unsightly or problematic, and Mr. Minner responded mostly the snipe -type business signs, signs made of plywood, and handwritten signs. Mr. Reyes stated ripped or faded feather flags should also be taken down. Mr. Kayser asked if the human signs were considered unsightly. Mr. Minner stated the code does not address those types of signs but they could be discussed at a later date if the Commission desired. Mr. Dodd felt there wasn't a problem with the human signs and it was a non - existent problem that didn't need fixing. Mr. Roth went over a few clerical errors he found, and stated his dislike of fluttering sequined parts of signs, and also felt the code should additionally specify that signs could not be attached to hydrants or traffic control signs. Mr. Reyes felt the code shouldn't be too strict regarding attachments to the sign, as that was the purpose of the signs to attract customers attention. MOTION by Durr /Hepler to recommend to City Council [to approve] regarding Ordinance 0 -11 -04 which proposes to amend the Land Development Code Article XVI Signage and Advertising. ROLL CALL: Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Durr yes Mr. Qizilbash yes Mr. Carter yes Mr. Hepler yes Mr. Roth yes The vote was 7 -0. Motion passed unanimously. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: None MEMBERS MATTERS: None DIRECTOR MATTERS: None 3 ATTORNEY MATTERS: Mr. Ginsburg invited the new members to meet with him to go over items such as the Public Record and Sunshine laws, and to make an appointment thru Jean Tarbell @ 388 -8203. Vice Chairman Dodd adjourned the meeting at 8:59 p.m. (06/06/11 db) 4