Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for Tuesday, January 3, 2017

Members present: Brenda Reynolds, Bill Yoes, Charlotte Carnes; Lee Guthrie

1. Election of positions: Reynolds motion to postpone to next month Guthrie 2nd; ; Pass 4-0

2. Plat Review: Reynolds motion to postpone until next month 2nd Yoes; Pass 4-0

3. Continue Sign Code Discussion:

A. Picking up at Page 140.1:

1. 140.1—140.6 (zones)—all okay; no changes

2. Pg 140.8: Sec 5.01(C):

a. If we end up doing the triangulated area (Bentonville sample 801-7), the wording in this current paragraph will not be needed; will need to be changed.

b. Take out “no sign taller than two feet in height is allowed in clear view zone”; replace with the Sight Triangle reference (Bentonville sample)

c. Also need to verify Ord 294 Sec 5 reference

3. Section 6.01: Sign Applications:

a. The P.C. has not been reviewing any of the sign applications (only when variances are requested); however this section says “permit issued by clerk…following design review and approval of the P.C.”

b. The P.C. needs to be reviewing all permanent sign applications, per our Code.

c. When there are sign applications being reviewed, it is requested that the Sign Administrator be present at those meetings.

4. 140.9—“permanent sign”—

a. if this is going to be part of the “plat review” for development, then we need the plat review to reference Section 6.02 Application for Permit

b. What about review for businesses going into existing structures? Need to add Section “K”: “For applicants using existing signs for new businesses, all of the above provisions shall be supplied in the sign application to the P.C.”

c. Where does our landscape code fall into this? It has not been utilized; purpose is to update/ beautify existing buildings as new businesses come into those.

d. P.C. members need a hard copy of the Landscape Code and Building Designs Standards Pattern Book

e. Pg 140.10—Section 6.06 paragraph 3…change “no less than 30 working days” to “no less than 15 days”

f. Section 6.07—Violations. Are violations being addressed? (i.e., plywood sign). Section 6.07 Violations: when a violation of the sign code exists, SIgn Administrator shall issue a written order…shall have 60 days to correct or appeal to council. This needs to be enforced…equally to all signs in city.

g. Definitions:

1. “animated”—last sentence ”prohibited”: Remove next-to-last sentence “animated signs visible from street right of way….”

2. Subsection A—need to have sentence added “this shall fall under the temporary sign definition”

3. Subsection B—Mechanically Energized: remove definition and replace with “Signs manifesting a repetitious pre-programmed flashing or strobing movement are prohibited.”

4. Subsection C, “a” and “b”—add sentence “any redundant flashing or strobing pattern is prohibited.”

5. P.133 “E”, animated sign, we discussed change to that, need to look at previous minutes

6. P.140.15: Clear-view zone; remove and replace with Bentonville sample 801-7(c)

7. “identification sign”, “nameplate”, “subdivision identification”—no problem with these as definitions or use of these signs; P.C. is okay with these remaining

8. “political sign”, “real estate sign”—need to remove

Motion by Guthrie motioned to read minutes; 2nd Carnes; Approved 4-0 Carnes motion to approve minutes; Yoes 2nd ;Pass 4-0

Reynolds Motion to adjourn; 2nd Carnes; pass 4-0

Post-Script Note: Mentioned during the meeting regarding lighting (Design Standards Pattern Book discussion)—a street light needs to be put in place by the Dollar General Store; the entrance there is very dark at night and hard to see. Failed to be put this in the actual Minutes.