06/06/2006 - Window Sign Task Force0
AGENDA
EAGAN WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE
CONFERENCE ROOMS IA&B AT EAGAN CITY HALL
TUESDAY, JUNE 69 2006
4:00 P.M.
-
I. WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER
II. NOTES FROM MAY 16, 2006 MEETING
III. RESOLUTION OF REMAINING ISSUES -GRANDFATHERING
Ste_
IV. COMMUNICATION OF TASK FORCE CONCLUSIONS/AMENDED WINDOW SIGN
CODE
V. INFORMATION AND DIRECTION FOR FUTURE MEETINGS — If necessary
lar tt�'�
VI. FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE — If necessary
VII. ADJOURNMENT c c�
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities will be provided upon advance notice of at least 96 hours. If a
notice of less than 96 hours is received, the City of Eagan will attempt to provide such aid. Please contact
City Administration at 651-675-5001 with requests.
Ah&-
4'r
City of Eagan Nemo
TO: EAGAN WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE MEMBERS
FROM: JON HOHENSTEIN, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
DATE: MAY 31, 2006
SUBJECT: WINDOW SIGN TASK FORCE MEETING OF JUNE 6, 2006
The next meeting of the Eagan Window Sign Task Force will be at 4:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, June 6, 2006 in the Eagan Room at Eagan City Hall. Please note the
earlier starting time. The following items are in order for consideration at that
time.
Review of Notes of May 16, 2006 Meeting
Please review the May 16 meeting notes and let us know if you have any changes.
Resolution of Remaining Issues
At the May 2 and 16 meetings, a consensus was reached on the following
recommendations:
• Removal of 4-6' clear zone restriction — It was concluded that visibility into
and out of businesses could be addressed through the percentage coverage
without a 4-6' clear zone.
• Up to 60% window coverage — The group concluded compromising at 60%
would balance the needs expressed by the participants.
• Window signs would be defined as a sign either applied to the inside surface
of a window or within 18" of the window surface. The group concluded that
a sign on the window or placed inside the business, but clearly visible
through the window, would meet the definition of a sign.
• Method of measurement — Staff provided information about the methods of
measurement of signs — in particular the concept of a shape enclosed by no
more than 12 sides. After this explanation, the consensus was that the
current approach to sign measurement is acceptable.
• Grandfathering — The group agreed that some mechanism for
grandfathering existing signage in excess of the 60% maximum should be
developed. It should be noted that there will be many fewer businesses that
would be out of compliance with a 60% standard that would be the case with
a lower percentage. It was determined that the City Attorney's office should
be consulted on this issue.
On the basis of these points, the City Attorney's office has prepared a draft
ordinance amendment, which is included with the meeting background.
Issues requiring clarification:
• Whether area of window signage will count toward the 20% maximum
signage permitted on a building side — One of the original' reasons the
Council noted for considering window sign regulations was that the
permitted signage on the side of a building is 20% and some businesses use
both large building signs and a substantial amount of window signage, such
that the total signage for the business exceeds 20% of a building side. The
draft amendment presumes that window signs would be included within the
20% calculation.
Issues to be resolved:
• Grandfathering — The concept of grandfathering would permit existing signs
to remain for a period of time, but it also assumes that at a certain time or
upon a certain event, a property will come into conformance with a code
enacted since the sign was installed. The City Attorney is preparing a memo
on this topic that will be distributed separately. The outcome of the
discussion of his memo will help determine whether compliance would best
be done through a permit or by zoning enforcement.
• Other issues of implementation or enforcement — The staff notes indicate
that the issues above were those discussed and outstanding pertaining to
window signs. If Task Force members have additional items relative to the
topic that have not been addressed, it would be in order to raise them at this
time.
Communication of Task Force Conclusions/Amended Window Sign Code
At the May 16 meeting, Task Force members were asked to consider means of
communicating the outcome of their work and the eventual ordinance adopted by
the Council.
In 2005, the City used a variety of tools to communicate the potential changes to
the community at large and the business community. When businesses came
forward this winter regarding the changes, one of the questions was how best to
communicate any additional changes, moving forward.
The following communication tools were used in 2005:
• Chamber of Commerce Weekly Email Updates
• Eagan Business Council Meetings
• Mayor's Breakfast
• Eagan Business News Newsletter
• City Newsletter
• City Website
• Direct mailings to businesses that had been the subject of enforcement
actions in the past
• Press Release — Stories were published in the Eagan Sun Current and
Pioneer Press
• Planning Commission Workshops and Regular Meetings
• Conversations with Businesses
It will be important to define which of these resources should be used again, which
may not be effective and what resources may be added that were not used at that
time. The Task Force will be invited to discuss this item as part of its conclusions.
Future Meetinq Schedule and Tonics — If Necessary
The group indicated a desire to wrap up its work at this meeting if possible. If it is
necessary to schedule a future meeting to address any outstanding issues related
to the task force's work, it would be appropriate to do so at this time.
As always, if you have any questions regarding the task force meeting or
background, please contact City Planner Mike Ridley or me.
WINDOW SIGAGE TASK FORCE MEETING
MAY 16, 2006
In attendance: Councilmembers Maguire and Fields, Jack Johnson, Dave Perrier, John
Curlee, Buzz Anderson, APC Members Gladhill and Hansen, City Administrator
Hedges, Community Development Director Hohenstein, City Planner Ridley, Senior
Code Enforcement Technician Mary Granley, and audience member representing Cliff
Road Holiday.
➢ Mike Maguire opened the meeting by commenting that the,next possible date for the
Task Force to meet (if it is before a City Council meeting) would be June 6th and he
would like to conclude the Task Force business today. ;if at all :possible.
➢ Cyndee Field suggested the following standards:
a. Window signage not to exceed 60%; and fall within, the 20% totaf:wall signage
allowed
b. Glass doors retain the clear zone in the 4-6, -foot area; does not pertain to
windows.
c. Grandfather existing businesses Arid businesses that relocate.
d. No permitting in a way that a latter detailing the new Code would be sent to
businesses explaining the new Code, and informing them if they are
grandfathered or not. If no response .within 4:5 ,da:ys, a second letter would be
sent. If still no response, staff woullo'contact the° business owner. She clarified
that the grandfathering .provision for ;relocation would apply only to businesses
forced to relocate„ i.e. Cedar Grove businesses.
➢ Mike Maguire questiiened' why.: grandfathering would apply to a business that
relocates
➢ There...was general discussion but no conclusion about the 60% being within the
overall ,20% sign standard.
11
➢ Ted Gladhi'1 explained' that he didn't think grandfathering an overage in signage
based on a .move was, consistent with earlier concerns expressed regarding the
expense of having.to',temove signage that currently exceeded the required amount.
If a business is moving, there is no expense in that they would have to pay for new
signage to be installed and at that point it should meet Code requirements.
➢ Dave Perrier questioned if an existing 100% coverage under this grandfathering
clause would get to keep that 100% indefinitely. If the language outlined by
Councilmember Fields were adopted, it would be.
➢ John Curlee stated that as signs change, compliance should be required.
➢ Dave Perrier asked, "If a business is just touching up an existing sign, would that
constitute a change that would require compliance?"
➢ Mike Maguire stated he thinks as long as the content remains the same, there would
be no trigger to come into compliance because grandfathering applies to the sign,
not the business. He asked about the measurement of signs.
➢ Jon Hohenstein summarized the consensus points to date:
a. 4-6 foot clear zone would not apply
b. 60% would be the maximum
c. Definition of signage appeared to be agreed to at the lastmeeting.
d. Grandfathering needed some clarification, as well. as the distance.
e. Signage located within a certain distance insid6a window`waul.d be defined as a
window sign.
➢ John Curlee stated he would be comfortable with an .1&=36" distance.
➢ Mike Maguire stated he preferred 36" from the discussion last time where if one
could walk between the sign/display and the window, it would be considered a
display and not a sign.
➢ Cyndee Fields stated she would be comfortable with 18".
➢ Jon Hohenstein comfinehted briefly on the issue discussed on May 2nd, display vs
signage.
➢ Wes from Cliff Road'' Holiday, commented: on a particular signage issue with the
Woodbury store.
➢ John Curlee stated.. 8" would suffice for him.
➢ Mike:Maguire stated, " If sounds. like 18" is "the consensus".
➢ Jon Hohenstein explained the 12 -line measurement graphic produced by Mary
Granley. The ,group was pleased with the Mary's graphic explanation and
clarification.
➢ A question about a portion of a window signage change if that would trigger
compliance. Cyndee Fields questioned if windows broken, for example during a
hailstorm, would that require compliance?
➢ Jon Hohenstein stated that a typical non -conforming ordinance says that if the non-
conformity is destroyed, the non -conformity would not exist when the structure is
rebuilt when the window is replaced.
2
➢ Dave Perrier asked whether existing sign square footage would be allowed to
remain even though the signage itself was changed out over time, or weekly.
➢ Ted Gladhill stated that he doesn't think its fair, for example, that any new liquor
store coming into town would have to meet Code requirements where existing liquor
stores that exceed allowable window signage would be allowed to keep that
percentage in excess in perpetuity.
➢ Mike Maguire commented that he appreciated Ted's comments, but was not
concerned with the competitive advantage angle; his concern; was that the City
needs a code that is reasonable and reasonably enforceable.
➢ John Curlee stated he doesn't see competitive advantage .as_,an issue for a new
business owner because they would be aware of rules they would be subject to.
➢ Mike Maguire stated that a liquor store having beer signs and two Aeon, signs would
constitute a sign plan and maybe those with signage over 60% would need to apply
for a grandfather exemption and provide that sign plana
➢ Mike Ridley suggested that a permit, whether it is fee. driven or not, would be the
most beneficial and efficient to track, signage and h6lp determine the baseline
situations.
➢ John Curlee stated that a letter with a"clear'explanatidn of the Sign Ordinance would
be necessary and that, he understood staff's desire.for a permitting process from a
tracking and code -"enforcement standpoint-.
➢ Ted Gladhill again commented..on his concern with the perpetuity of the grandfather
clause.
➢ Mike Maguire commented that with a 60% allotment, the percentage of those
exceeding that would be minimal.-
➢ Jon Hobehstein commented that staff would need to work with the City Attorneys to
discuss issu6s and parameters regarding grandfathering.
➢ Mike Maguire stated he was in favor of an "'opt in' program for grandfathering" in
order to get that exemption.
➢ John Curlee stated he supported the approach for existing businesses to apply for
an exemption for existing signage exceeding 60%. Cyndee Fields seconded that.
➢ Jack Johnson asked, "What about those businesses that may try to beat the
ordinances and increase their signage prior to the 60% going into effect?"
➢ Buzz Anderson stated that the ordinance can be pre -dated.
ii
➢ Mike Ridley stated that the current ordinance caps the window signage at 25% and,
while not being enforced presently, is still in effect.
➢ Ted Gladhill stated that he is still a little concerned that the 60% coverage may not
be a consensus of across -section of the 65,000 Eagan residents.
➢ Mike Maguire stated he understood Ted's concerns, but explained that the goal of
the Task Force was to get to where the group is today, realizing there would most
likely not be 100% agreement. His concern going in was ;hot so. much the existing
signs covering a high percentage of the windows, but.the possibility that others
would follow suit. He sees that the group effort is to stave offluture businesses from
attempting to cover their windows with more than 60'%0 signage" ,
➢ Mary Granley shared her concerns with the: issue of enforcement and baseline
window percentages in response to a question asked.,
➢ Jon Hohenstein provided a wrap-up of the meeting .0nd' suggested that staff gather
the notes made and work with the City Attorney"s Office to determine allowed
parameters for grandfathering and. asked Task Force business owners to consider
notification methods to comprehensively .get the word out. to all business owners.
➢ Mike Maguire suggested a next meeting date. of June 6„ 2006 at 4:00 p.m. for the
purposes of reviewing , the City Attorney's .,draft ordinance amendment. The group
concurred.
4
CD/Jon Hohenstein/Signage/Meeting Notes/Meeting of 5-16-06
E
ORDINANCE NO. 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA, AMENDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER ELEVEN ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" BY
AMENDING SECTION 11.70, SUBD. 28 REGARDING SIGN REGULATIONS; AND BY
ADOPTING BY REFERENCE EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 and 11.99.
The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter Eleven is hereby amended by changing Subd. 28(E)(8)
to read as follows:
8. Sign area. No signs or combination of signs mounted upon a building shall cover in
excess of ten percent of the gross area of a side in the RD and BP zoning districts,
and 20 percent of the gross area of a side in all other zoning districts, where business
signs are allowed.
A sign displayed on or in any window shall not occupy more than 2-560 percent of
the area of the windows and/or doors on the side of the building on which the
window sign is displayed. The area of a window/door sign shall be included in the
calculation of the sign area allowed for building -mounted signs provided herein and
shall not exceed the applicable sign area permitted. Window/door signs shall be
allowed only on the building facade that has building -mounted signage. No dem
9r- eek -Sign, in whole or- in paz,, shrrpm^`pccriir-cxxe area -orthe
door that ;s higher than f „« f of and loss than six feet, measured yeftie ll.. f.,.ffl
the finished ;n4er-ie . floor- elevat: ,., Any sign not exceeding a two square feet area
that depicts Open/Closed or hours of operation shall be exempt from permit and
permit fee requirements. A_ sign or display inside the building which is located more
than 18 inches from the face of the window glass is not deemed a "window sign" for
purposes of this Section. The permit fee for a window or door sign shall be required
only with the first window or door sign displayed by the applicant unless additional
signs or signs in new locations are displayed.
Section 2. Eagan City Code Chapter 1 entitled "General Provisions and Definitions
Applicable to the Entire City Code Including 'Penalty for Violation"' is hereby adopted in its
entirety by reference as though repeated verbatim.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and publication
according to law.
ATTEST:
By: Maria Petersen
Its: City Clerk
Date Ordinance Adopted:
Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper:
Date of Advisory Planning Commission Hearing:
2
CITY OF EAGAN
City Council
By: Pat Geagan
Its: Mayor
Gentlepersons,
Tom Hedges
From: Jon Hohenstein
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:53 AM
To: Mike Ridley; Tom Hedges; Mary Granley
Cc: 'Dougherty, Mike'
Subject: Window Sign Task Force
Gentlepersons,
Page 1 of 2
Along with the other work that we are doing for the Task Force, I wanted to float an idea for feedback. If it is
reasonable enough, maybe we could plant the seed with Mike and Cyndee and reinforce the idea through the
MGD background.
50-60% Implementation Scheme — While the permit is the best way to manage everyone, there may be a
compromise approach that at least one other City is doing. The idea would be that anyone who is under
50% of the windows (and 20% of the building side) would not require a permit. We would do a baseline
photo inventory at a specific time for all retail establishments to help us ID those that we think are over and
under that number. Between 50% and 60%, you would need a permit, because you would be close
enough to the upper limit that we should have something on file that confirms the standards for the permit.
To go over 60%, you would need a permit and a variance or an interim use permit for a fixed period (most
likely for the quasi permanent signs like Piccolo's or Baker's). The upsides to this are that 50% is easier to
eyeball than some other percentage and there would be many fewer people who would need to do
paperwork or specific calculations (thus avoiding the idea of getting a sign off or permit from every
business). We could address the specific situations on a case by case basis — professionally applied
appliques could stay until there are business or maintenance reasons to replace them, painted windows
may have an amortization schedule or timeline, but placards and banners that change frequently would
need to come into compliance with the next change.
• Grace Period — Since we are dealing with fewer businesses that would need to come into compliance and
get permits, we could offer a grace period of up to one year to pursue your options — comply with less than
50%, apply for a permit at no cost to go to 60% or apply for the variance or IUP at no cost. After the grace
period, new applications would require payment of regular costs.
• Communications Step — Unless the Task Force comes down strongly on the notion of a requirement for
multi -tenant property owners to provide a list of tenants on a regular basis to permit direct City to business
communication, we could make it an option in future mailings to the property owners. When we send
update letters, a paragraph could say not only that we encourage them to pass the information on, but offer
them the option of providing us a list of their tenants and we will forward them copies directly.
What are your thoughts?
I am also going to send an email to the Task Force telling them that vacation and holiday schedules will mean that
we need to send them the draft amendment and background on Wednesday, the 31St, instead of Tuesday, the
30tH
Jon
Jon Hohenstein
Community Development Director
City of Eagan
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
651-675-5660
Fax 651-675-5694
5/25/2006