MINUTES OF THE
TUESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2007
Mayor Bolender called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following Commissioners were present at roll call: Commissioner Dickmann, Commissioner St. John, Commissioner Sokol, Commissioner Siira, Commissioner Kopplin, Mayor Bolender, Commissioner Grabowski, Commissioner Correll and Commissioner Peterson. Also present were Jeff Fortin, Planner, and Peter Wagner, Zoning Administrator/Planner.
Commissioner Grabowski moved to approve the minutes of January 3, 2006 special meeting and the January 9, 2007 Plan Commission meeting. Commissioner Dickmann seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The minutes were approved as submitted.
Report on Significant Common Council Actions
Mr. Fortin updated the Commissioners on the actions that were taken at the January 16, 2007, Common Council meetings. There were no comments or concerns from the Commissioners.
Sign Appeal – Continental Properties (Kohl’s Center)
9001 & 9035 S. Howell Avenue
Tax Key No.: 859-9034 & 859-9035
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was returning to the Commission from the January 9, 2007 meeting where the Plan Commission held the item in order to obtain a legal opinion from the City Attorney regarding the status of the original sign variance granted on June 15, 1998.
Commissioner St. John stated one of the variances that had to be given was for an off premise sign and that is a line the Commission has not yet crossed.
Attorney Debbie Tomczyk, 1000 N. Water Street, representing Continental Properties, there was a legal opinion issued to address the concerns from the last meeting. The concern regarding the additional proliferation of signage, there would not be any additional signage on the two parcels whether they are divided or not in the future. They will continue to be a single sign addressing the signage needs of the center. This would be the signage for the center. This particular variance will result in less signage at the overall total property for the four users who will in the end be at these locations. Commissioner St. John stated it would still result in a variance for an off-premise sign. The second question would be if Continental was also committing to not do any more CSMs on the parcel. Atty. Tomczyk replied they might do additional CSMs on the parcel but there would not be additional signage requests even for future lot divisions.
Commissioner Sokol questioned the definition of off-premise sign. Commissioner St. John explained the current configuration of the land and the way it was split Office Max and Sherwin Williams would be on a different lot from the Kohl’s and the sign would be on the Kohl’s parcel. Atty. Tomczyk suggested adding additional requirements to the variance request that would require any advertising on the sign to be for the users in the center. Commissioner St. John explained it was originally approved as a center and now the argument is being brought that Continental has the right to another sign because they are working on the split. It can’t be both ways.
Commissioner Correll questioned where the second sign could be located. Mr. Fortin explained the graphic from the staff report showing where the sign would have to be located to stay out of an easement and still meet the required setback from a neighboring property line which is 20 feet for a pole sign and 10 feet for a monument sign. Atty. Tomczyk explained that would not be the proposed location of the second sign. Commissioner Correll commented the Commission did request Continental to submit a proposed location of a second sign. Atty. Tomczyk explained they did not want to push something they did not think was a better signage solution.
Commissioner Dickmann did have concerns with the approval of an off-premise sign. He would like to see just one sign with conditions, but how could they control the signage so that Continental would not come back for another off-premise sign if the land is split again. Atty. Tomczyk would stipulate to the condition of no additional signage.
Commissioner St. John questioned if Petco was added to the building and it was split off and its sign was added to the pole sign it would be another off premise sign. Atty. Tomczyk stated it would not be an additional sign panel.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if they put it in writing at what point and time does someone come along and say that it does not apply. There is a similar case in California. Atty. Tomczyk responded the variance would run with the land so it would go in perpetuity.
Commissioner St. John questioned which of the four parcels would the variance run with. Atty. Tomczyk explained they only owned two parcels the Kohl’s parcel and the Office Max parcel. It would run with the two parcels together. Commissioner St. John questioned how it could run with two parcels. Atty. Tomczyk explained it would benefit the two parcels and that is how Attorney Haskin wrote it in his opinion.
Mr. Fortin explained no additional pole or monument sign should be put on the parcels or any subsequent land divisions of these parcels created by certified survey map no. 6779 beyond what currently exists. It would tie it to the CSM and then if it was divided it would still be tied.
Commissioner Peterson questioned the possibility of combining the parcels into one because the issue seems to be that there are two separate parcels. Atty. Tomczyk did not believe that would be possible because there were separate loans on each of the parcels.
Commissioner Correll stated one of the issues he had was that they originally requested a variance on size when the development started and a variance was granted, and now they would like another variance to make it work. Has there been any thought to changing the square footage that was previously allotted? Atty. Tomczyk explained she understood the problem the Commission was faced with but the problem she had was it was just not Continental Properties that they had to deal with they also had an obligation with Kohl’s and Office Max that committed them to a certain size of signage. Commissioner Correll suggested negotiation between Continental and Kohl’s and Office Max to make it work. Atty. Tomczyk explained they had no way to bring the two stores to the table. The expansion was supposed to be for additional space for the Kohl’s store.
Mayor Bolender questioned if Attorney Haskin had given a legal opinion. Commissioner St. John explained if the Commission does not give the variance and another sign goes up for Sherwin Williams, Office Max must come off the pole because it is off premise and go onto the Sherwin Williams sign in Attorney Haskins opinion. Atty. Tomczyk did not dispute that was his opinion but there were other solutions potentially to that problem and she would have to talk with Continental about that situation. In theory they still have an additional 190 square feet of signage. They would just make a bigger sign of the existing sign and still have one hundred square foot of signage on the second sign. So, they would still end up with the 290 square feet of signage total on the property under that scenario.
Mayor Bolender questioned if Continental needed to continue talking with Attorney Haskin to get the issues nailed down.
Commissioner Kopplin commented she did not think this should be going to Larry. Continental owns the property, they are leasing to Kohl’s and the negotiation should be going on with them and not with Larry. As much as she did not think two signs would look that good she did not like the location of the other sign. This should not be before the Commission but between Continental and Kohl’s. There needs to be give and take on both parts. Atty. Tomczyk questioned if a solution would be to make this a planned unit development with special sign restrictions. Mayor Bolender like that option and felt the PUD might give them the options that they needed to get this signage in place. Mr. Fortin explained they have recommended the PUD as an alternative, but the other question is whether or not the Plan Commission and Council will be willing to accept the 273 square foot sign as part of the PUD. Mayor Bolender stated they want businesses to come to Oak Creek but we want them to have a three foot sign. To have obnoxious signs does nothing for development in the City. We need to have appropriate signs in appropriate places to serve their purpose. A PUD is something that we might be able to work out.
Commissioner St. John felt a PUD was a lot better than setting a precedent with the off premise sign however; this is the third time they are in front of the Commission with this variance. He believes that is an option if the Plan Commission says no. He feels they should vote on the issue and get on with it. If it is a no then they know they have to come back with another option whether it be a PUD or a smaller Kohl’s sign.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if they have ever gone to a PUD after the development has been built. Mr. Fortin could not think of an example. Commissioner Kopplin had a problem with setting a precedent. Atty. Tomczyk commented there was new development coming at this location and that may be an opportune time if the PUD was something to be further discussed.
Commissioner Sokol stated he would rather see Continental come back before the Commission with some of the suggestions from Commissioner Correll. He would prefer they were not forced to make a take it or leave it situation.
Commissioner St. John questioned if Atty. Tomczyk would like a vote or would like to withdraw the application. Atty. Tomczyk would like to have the item tabled.
Commissioner St. John stated they have tabled three times. Mayor Bolender commented the decision was up to the applicant.
Mayor Bolender directed the item tabled until further notice by Continental Properties.
Conditions and Restrictions – US Cellular Monopole Tower
301 W. Ryan Road (Oak Creek Police Station)
Tax Key No.: 958-9002-001
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission they recommended to the Common Council on November 28, 2006 that they issue a conditional use permit to allow for the installation of a 150 foot high monopole cellular tower on the Oak Creek Police Department property after a public hearing subject to conditions and restrictions that staff has now prepared for the Commission’s review. Staff is proposing that the pole be gray but white may also be a preferable color. Mr. Fortin informed the audience this item would go before the Common Council with a required public hearing.
Mayor Bolender commented the item would go into the hands of the Common Council for a public hearing where residents could voice their opinions and fears and worries. At that time the Common Council would vote aye or nay. This body simply was going over conditions and restrictions which would be forwarded over to the Common Council. It does not matter how the Plan Commission votes but it matters how the Common Council votes.
Commissioner Grabowski as the Alderman of the district did hold a neighborhood meeting and she was very happy to see a good attendance from the residents of Fairfield. They also had Jim Weinmann from US Cellular present at the meeting. Her position has not changed since the last meeting and she did not feel that this was an appropriate location for the tower. They are here at this time for the conditions and restrictions but she wanted the Commission to know her position on this item.
Mayor Bolender stated any word that he was to be at the neighborhood meeting was incorrect because he was at a Fire Department meeting on that evening. Commissioner Grabowski commented that did not even come up at the meeting.
Commissioner Peterson questioned the maintenance of the pole and how it would be maintained. Mr. Fortin explained something could be added about regular maintenance. Mayor Bolender felt it should state upon condition or inspection of the City.
Commissioner Dickmann commented the white color would require more maintenance than a grey color. Mayor Bolender stated white would be the worst color in the world for the pole. It should be in a color that blends in to the sky colors. There are colors that are more appealing than white and it is not a color he would want to see on a pole. The color should make it as unsightly as possible. Mr. Fortin stated you could leave in where it is written that the structure is painted gray under 6d.
Commissioner St. John questioned the removal of snow and who was responsible because they were not the owners of the land they were just leasing. Mr. Fortin suggested it be reworded to have the removal of snow from any lease areas shall be the responsibility of the leaseholder.
Commissioner Siira questioned if the there was a limitation on the number of future carriers. Mr. Fortin stated there was not a restriction in place and he did not know if the Commission wanted to limit the number of antenna arrays on the tower. Commissioner St. John questioned if that was being done in the contract rather than the conditions and restrictions. Mr. Fortin stated he would talk with Caesar Geiger to see if there was a limitation in the contract. Mayor Bolender felt that issue should be addressed. Commissioner Siira questioned why it could not be in both documents.
Commissioner Dickmann stated in previous discussions with other towers there was something about the distance that needed to be between each antenna and that would limit the amount that could go on the tower.
Commissioner Grabowski questioned how many additional carries could be on the pole. Mr. Jim Weinmann explained some of the conditions they were talking about could be handled in either the terms of conditions of approval or in the lease agreement. He has seen some handled in both. Regarding the number of carriers, that is something that is typically not included in the lease agreement but is included in the conditions of approval. The more users that would be on the pole the taller or wider the structure would have to be to accommodate the additional weight. Commissioner Grabowski commented U.S. Cellular’s position was that there would be more than one future carrier. Mr. Weinmann explained the standard in most communities when making requirements for condition of approval is that the tower can accommodate the applicant tenant plus has room for two additional carriers. They would rather see two other tenants on the same pole rather two new towers in close proximity to the existing pole.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if there needed to be distance between carriers. Mr. Weinmann stated the standard carriers like to have is ten feet of vertical separation between the antennas but that does not have to be so.
Mayor Bolender stated they do not want to create a pole that looks like Chinese writing in the sky. He felt they would need to limit the carriers to whatever the normal amount was. He also questioned what the configuration of the antennas was. Mr. Weinmann stated that could be addressed in the conditions of approval. The antenna mounts would basically be panel antennas six to eight feet long with a six to ten inch width. You may see one carrier using a different style of mount. He suggested trying to obligate other users to use the same standard mount as U.S. Cellular.
Mayor Bolender questioned if he had any objections to the color. Mr. Weinmann stated he did have his own bias. He sees a lot of towers and has a preference for an off colored white tower. In a variety of settings that he has seen them with the various types of outside lighting, all things considered that is his personal preference. He feels it looks better than a standard galvanized color. The best options are the galvanized or the off white. Mayor Bolender stated he thought the galvanized would stick out. He also questioned if the off white was more of a blue white. Mr. Weinmann explained if you have a white white it sticks out and is very noticeable. An off white would be a more subdued white like a cream. He has seen blue monopoles and felt they were disgusting.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if under Parking and Access under d with the exception of access to where trailers are stored. Mr. Fortin explained that would need to be stricken it was taken from a template for a previous condition and restriction.
Commissioner St. John questioned what would be the most invisible color for the pole. Mr. Weinmann stated it would depend on the…the off white color would give you less visibility on the majority of days than the galvanized. Mayor Bolender stated he could agree with that and that galvanized was not acceptable. Mr. Weinmann explained in Wisconsin you typically have 2/3 to 1/3 cloudy days to sunny days or a mix of clouds and sun. Under those conditions the pole would be less visible.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned who would get the revenue from the subleasing of the pole. Mr. Weinmann stated the City would get a portion of it and it was being covered in the lease agreement.
Commissioner Dickmann questioned if the same platform requirement shouldn’t also be part of the conditions. Mr. Weinmann explained that U.S. Cellular would be reserving space the City of Oak Creek and if the City were to locate antennas on the tower it would not make sense to have them have the same mounting requirements. Mr. Fortin suggested adding something that all non-municipal carriers should have the same antenna platform. Commissioner Dickmann questioned where in the conditions and restrictions that should be located. Mr. Fortin suggested it be added in the architectural standards.
Commissioner Kopplin questioned if the City’s agreement for use of the tower would expire. Mr. Weinmann explained it had not been worked out in the terms of the lease agreement but if U.S. Cellular is approved and puts up a tower it would be there for the City’s use unless in ten years they have not located on the tower. Commissioner St. John explained they were going to be limiting them to two plus U.S. Cellular and the City. The City should not be in competition with anybody and should be able to come on to the tower at any time. Mr. Weinmann explained to do that they would need to navigate some legal waters with the City Attorney and talk about the ramifications. If the municipality is going to regulate they can’t be the permit holder and the landowner at the same time put those sorts of conditions on the permitting of the tower.
Commissioner Grabowski felt the City puts itself in a very precarious position when they tend to possibly push something through when they don’t have all the answers. She would suggest that the Commission, unless everyone feels comfortable voting on it at this time, that they have the City Attorney review the application. Mayor Bolender did not feel the question of when the City can place its antennas on the tower should keep this from going on to the Common Council to get a vote. The things he brought up meant that in their contract the City would have to do something immediately rather than down the road twenty-five years. Mr. Wienmann stated those types of issues would have to be worked out. Commissioner Grabowski stated you would want it worked out before the Council takes a vote on it. Mayor Bolender explained they would have the time between now and the Council meeting for the City Attorney to negotiate the contract. Commissioner Grabowski disagreed and did not feel it needed to be done right away. Mayor Bolender stated that was her opinion and he had his.
Mr. Fortin explained anything with the lease agreement was not something the Commission would review it would be up to the Common Council to review.
Mr. Hiram Buffington, 9651 S. Fox Run, commented the Mayor’s restraints on what could be said at this meeting were unfair because most people were not informed of the first meeting. He questioned if there was going to be any super structure lighting attached to the tower. Mr. Fortin explained they would need to comply with all of the FAA regulations and he was not sure at this time what that would all entail. Mr. Buffington commented he could not believe they were considering approving this with the amount of money that was being proposed. It would impact the property values for the homes in the Fairfield subdivision. He questioned how many of these towers have been placed in high end subdivisions. Mayor Bolender stated it doesn’t matter how many are placed in high end subdivisions. Everybody in this City has towers and every other thing to look at and he knows how they feel about their subdivision and he knows how other people feel about their subdivisions. Mr. Fortin commented he did not believe there were any cell towers in a subdivision. Mr. Buffington commented it was on the boundary and you would be able to see it for a mile. He also commented it would be an impact on future real estate transactions within the subdivision if they stick the eye sore at this location.
Mr. Donald Pierce, 421 W. Trillium, stated he read an article in the paper when Mayor Bolender first started as Mayor and he said he would not let any franchises next to his Police Station. Now he was going to let this tower go in there. Mayor Bolender stated when he ran for this job he was not in favor of the police station and he has stated they did not need that building.
Commissioner Dickmann moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the attached conditions and restrictions with the following amendments are adopted as part of the conditional use permit for the monopole structure at 301 W. Ryan Road, after a public hearing:
Commissioner Correll seconds.
Commissioner Peterson questioned if 6f was limiting U.S. Cellular to two tenants with the exception of municipal tenants. Commissioner Siira stated that was covered in 9 in the last sentence. All the Commission would need to do would be to add the number 2 between accommodating and additional.
First and second concur.
Commissioner Peterson stated 8a should read: removal of snow from off street parking areas, walks and access drives within the leased area shall be the responsibility of the leasee.
First and second concur.
Commissioner Sokol questioned if 6f was going to be going towards the mounts so they would all be the same. Commissioner Siira stated he had written that all non-municipal carriers should have the same antenna mounting platform.
Commissioner Peterson then added under 8c: The structure shall be repainted as mandated by the City upon inspection.
First and second concur.
Commissioner Dickmann commented they were still going with the gray color.
Mr. Predrag Deronja, 9654 S. Fox Run, questioned if there was an art rendition of the tower. Mr. Fortin showed him the site plan and what the pole would look like but they did not have an art rendition. Mr. Deronja would like to see how it would blend in with the neighborhood. Mr. Fortin explained they did not have an art rendition because if the conditional use would get approved by the Common Council the applicant would return to the Plan Commission where they would have to bring architectural and material samples and renderings at that point only if the conditional use was granted.
Commissioner Correll commented it was important that the Commission’s homework does not include the economic ramifications of the tower or the real estate deal. That is not for this body. Mayor Bolender stated he had told the residents that. The Common Council makes the decision not the Plan Commission.
Mr. Buffington commented it was true that the Plan Commission issued a recommendation to the Common Council. Commissioner Siira commented they made that recommendation at the November 28, 2006 meeting. This meeting was just for the conditions and restrictions. Mr. Buffington commented it was at the November meeting that they were not invited to if they were not within 300 feet. Mr. Fortin stated the notice area was expanded after the first meeting at the request of the Alderman and a neighborhood meeting was also held. The same people will be notified again of the public hearing.
Commissioner St. John questioned if there was a date certain for the Common Council meeting. Mr. Fortin stated they did not a public hearing needed to be set and the lease needs to be done. It most likely would happen the first meeting in March.
Mr. Pierce wanted to know who was notified because nobody at the meeting was notified. Mr. Fortin questioned how he knows about tonight’s meeting. Mr. Pierce stated he was notified for this meeting but not the first meeting. Mr. Fortin stated for the first meeting everybody within 300 feet was notified.
Mr. Glen Kulas, 420 W. Trillium Terrace, commented most of the people at this meeting were not at the first meeting and wondered why the Commission would make a recommendation for the eye sore tower. Was this the only place the tower could go? Mayor Bolender stated that was about it. That was the location that was recommended.
A resident commented they have been fighting the City for seven or eight years. The City wanted to put a hurricane siren in the middle of the subdivision and they worked with the Council and they moved it over across the street back in the woods and everyone was happy. We were at the last meeting and we were looking for Mayor Bolender and we would have got that over with then. Mr. Weinmann said it doesn’t have to be there, it can be within a quarter or half mile of that. There are plenty of spaces over by the farms that it can be put.
Mr. John Zawikowski, 195 Farifield Court, was confused as to whether the City needed the tower or did U.S. Cellular need the tower. The City has one that works just fine. Mayor Bolender stated there are some other things involved and it doesn’t work fine. Mr. Zawikowski requested to know why the City had to have this tower. Mayor Bolender stated he was not going tell him why they (the City) needed to move their communications. It was not top secret but the discussion would have to be closed at this time. The City communications need that tower.
Mr. Buffington questioned if the information could be accessed under the freedom of information act request. Mayor Bolender told him he could do whatever he wanted.
Commissioner Dickmann stated they were on the color of the tower and questioned if the Commission wanted to stay with the grey color or did they want to make it some other color. Commissioner Peterson suggested white or off-white may not be appropriate and would like the color to be approved by the Plan Commission. Mr. Fortin suggested wording 6d as the following: The monopole structure is painted a neutral color to be approved by the Plan Commission.
First and second concur.
Roll call, Dickmann; aye, St. John; aye, Sokol; aye, Siira; aye, Kopplin; aye, Bolender; aye, Grabowski; nay; Correll, aye, Peterson; aye. The motion carries.
Certified Survey Map – Anthony Sanfelippo
3280 and 3310 E. Kendor Lane
Tax Key No.: 870-9041 & 870-9038
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the applicant was requesting a certified survey map for the properties at 3280 and 3210 E. Kender Lane for three lots and two outlots be approved. The lot width of Lot 1 was increased to 80 feet, which is the current minimum lot width in the Rs-3 zoning district. All required public improvements have been installed and certified as complete by the Water and Sewer Utility and Engineering Department.
Commissioner St. John questioned if the line by the outlot was moved. Mr. Fortin stated the line to make the lot 80 feet was moved. Commissioner St. John questioned if there was any indication by the County that they would except that outlot 1. Mr. Fortin stated there was not but in previous discussions as long as it was stated who would maintain the outlot they are usually okay.
Commissioner Grabowski questioned how and when the improvements would be done. Mr. Fortin explained the improvements were done at this time.
Commissioner Correll moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that the certified survey map for the properties at 3280 and 3310 E. Kender Lane be approved, subject to all technical corrections being made prior to recording.
Commissioner Grabowski seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The motion to approve carries.
Street Vacation – W. Lois Lane
9970 & 10020 S. 20th Street (Southeast ¼ of Section 30)
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission the owner of the properties at 9970 and 10020 S. 20th Street were requesting that the existing right-of-way for W. Lois Lane west of Interstate 94 be vacated to facilitate anticipated development in this area.
Commissioner Grabowski moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council the right-of-way for W. Lois Lane be vacated as shown, after a public hearing.
Commissioner Peterson seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The motion to approve carries.
Moratorium on Electronic Messageboard Signs
Mr. Fortin explained to the Commission over the past year or two staff has noticed a significant increase in the number of electron messageboard signs throughout the City. The City’s sign ordinance does not have any specific limitation on electronic messageboard signs except for Section 17.0711, which prohibits flashing or animated signs. Staff feels that it is in the best interest of the City that no additional permits for theses types of signs be issued until we can look at what other communities are doing and formulate a new set of regulations.
Mayor Bolender questioned why they needed six months on the moratorium. Mr. Fortin stated they could do a shorter time period or they could do six months with the understanding if a sign ordinance is approved by the Common Council prior to that six months that the moratorium would automatically lapse.
Commissioner Grabowski moved that the Plan Commission recommend to the Common Council that a six-month moratorium be enacted on any electronic messageboard and changeable copy signs within the City of Oak Creek with a provision for businesses to seek special exceptions to the moratorium through the Plan Commission and Common Council.
Commissioner Dickmann seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The motion to approve carries.
Plan Commission Discussion on the Temporary Sign Ordinance
Mr. Wagner reminded the Commission at the October 24, 2006 meeting they had a discussion regarding concerns and problems with temporary signage. He presented the Commission with a draft ordinance proposal. The proposal would make the temporary sign a permitted process giving a business three temporary signs within a calendar year with a maximum of 15 days each. This would be an increase to the old ordinance which allowed one sign for 30 days per year. There would be no fee for the permit process. Mr. Wagner also gave a brief presentation on what other communities are doing with temporary signs.
Mayor Bolender suggested four times a year may be a better idea to give them a sign for each season. Commissioner Peterson who also worked on the temporary sign ordinance with Commissioner Dickmann did not have a problem with four times a year. The point of the ordinance is to have control over what temporary signs go up and know when they go up. The other part that was insisted on that the Commission should be aware of is that there is a tentative time line, which is Pete’s communication plan to local businesses.
There is also a section that covers charitable non-profit events. They could have a sign up thirty days prior to the event. There is no limit on the number of signs but they may only have one per property.
Commissioner Correll suggested the City be careful and educate the businesses and expressed concern for giving the non-profit 30 days and businesses only 15 days on a temporary sign. He questioned why a non-profit would be allowed to have a sign up twice as long as a business. Commissioner Sokol stated there was a clear reason. Non-profit organizations were funding things such as schools and community services that businesses don’t tend to provide. Commissioner Correll stated they needed the businesses in the community. Commissioner Sokol understood but the reason was clear. Commissioner Correll questioned the rational to limit the temporary sign to 15 days when none of the examples show 15 days. Mr. Wagner commented Greenfield had 14 days for banners and for portable signs.
Commissioner St. John commented St. Matthews was not in the business of fish boils and did not have a big advertising budget so they need to get the word out by banners. Most banners are for unique sales or change of services for the business community.
Commissioner Grabowski was more inclined to agree to the four times a year for 15 days for the businesses.
Commissioner Dickmann commented banner signs are not maintained and the City needs the opportunity to regulate the banners.
Commissioner Peterson again was agreeable to the four times a year to try and be business friendly.
Commissioner St. John commented if this comes at no cost are they really telling the community how important this is to the City. He was not saying to charge fifty dollars but they need to charge something. Mayor Bolender stated there would be no cost for the permit because they should extend and open hand to businesses.
Commissioner Peterson questioned if they were changing number 2 to four times a year and then questioned if they wanted to change number 3 to four times and be consistent. Mr. Wagner explained staff had some ideas to limit the number of temporary signs at a multi-tenant parcel. The multi-tenant parcels would be issued on additional permit for each unit and they would be issued at the discretion of the property owner. Commissioner Peterson felt that would create an undo burden on the property owner. The tenants operate as independent businesses.
Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the Temporary Sign Ordinance as submitted with the exception of the following changes after a public hearing:
Commissioner Dickmann seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The motion carries.
Commissioner Grabowski motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Peterson seconds. Roll call, all voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50p.m.