HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning and Zoning 02-22-07 NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2007 7:00 P.M.
ST CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, COMMUNITY ROOM
1101 CARMICHAEL ROAD, HUDSON, WI
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
OLD AND NEW BUSINESS
Information Meeting:
1) Public information meeting regarding the proposed amendments to the County's Nonmetallic Mining
ordinance, Chapter 14, to bring it into compliance with changes to Chapter NR 135, Wisconsin
Administrative Code, adopted in December 2006 by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The committee and staff will discuss the proposed changes.
2) Public information meeting to gather public opinion regarding type, size, and location for signs before
drafting new regulations.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE:
POSSIBLE AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING:
ADJOURNMENT (Agenda not necessarily presented in this order)
SUBMITTED BY: St. Croix County Planning and Zoning Department
DATE: February 8, 2007
COPIES TO: County Board Office Committee Members County Clerk
News Media/Notice Board
*CANCELLATIONS/ CHANGES /ADDITIONS
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE
ST. CROIX COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, HUDSON WI
February 22, 2007
Present:
Committee: Supervisors Lois Burri, Stan Krueger, Ron Troyer
Excused: Wally Habhegger, Gene Ruetz
Staff: Dave Fodroczi, Jennifer Shillcox, Kevin Grabau, Ellen Denzer, Steve Olson, Judy Olson
Guests:
Call to Order: Vice Chair Burri called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Approval of Previous Minutes: none
Date of Next Meeting: Tuesday, February 27, 8:30 a.m.
Old and New Business:
Information Meeting:
Dave Fodroczi reviewed the evening's order of business and the timeline for completion of
ordinance changes. He encouraged attendees to use the comment cards for response to the
nonmetallic mining ordinance proposed changes or recommendations for the sign ordinance.
He listed the reasons for updating the nonmetallic mining ordinances. The moratorium on
signs will be in place through June. Both ordinances will be presented to the County Board
for adoption on June 19.
Jenny Shillcox presented an overview of the nonmetallic mining ordinance amendments
including a summary of NR 135 updates plus additional considerations.
Questions and comments on nonmetallic mining ordinance:
Benny Stenner representing the Kraemer Company commented that some counties have
changed from one year to five year renewal. With such a change, staff time would be better
used in the field and less time on paperwork. Stan Krueger asked for names of counties that
now do that. Stenner stated that there are various permit processes in place throughout the
state.
Stenner stated that a stormwater management permit is required from the DNR. He
questioned the five foot buffer between a limestone quarry and groundwater. Kraemer has
quarries close to water where water is pumped into a sediment box. He asked about financial
assurance requirements. Shillcox stated that more options will be available for financial
assurance and will be included in our ordinance.
Robin Anderson of Anderson Excavating questioned if current permits will need to come into
compliance with NR 35. Shillcox responded that we will address that when we come into the
five year renewal.
There were no other comments on the nonmetallic mining ordinance.
Ellen Denzer presented an overview of the St. Croix County sign regulation approval
authority and explained on- premise and off - premise signs. She reviewed the additional
considerations including public input from residents, local officials and sign industry.
Amendment drafts will be reviewed for legal issues regarding sign content. She then
reviewed the timeline for adoption of the ordinance amendments.
Questions and comments on the sign ordinance:
Paul Radermacher, representing Sign Me Up, questioned the reasons for the moratorium. He
asked how many sign applications approved in 2006 were for on- premise signs for new
businesses. He questioned if there were specific issues with on- and off - premise signs.
Fodroczi explained the problems with the present ordinance that is 40 years old and the
process now required. Having a more specific ordinance will lessen the special exceptions
needed.
Matthew Rolli, representing Adcraft, questioned the need for a moratorium. He stated
concern because the moratorium is preventing him from doing business now. A sign business
cannot sell signs during this time. He asked what a new business or a business that takes over
an existing space can do other than a temporary sign. Denzer responded that the moratorium
is in place and the meeting is not about whether or not to have a moratorium. Radermacher
asked what specifics we are looking for. Denzer stated that the meeting is for getting
suggestions on types, sizes, number, location & duration of signs for revisions to the
ordinance. Fodroczi stated that the lack of guidelines on permitting new signs under the
current ordinance is what prompted the revisions.
Neil Boltik of Adcraft stated that the sign professionals can address many of the questions
specific to the customers and their needs. Regarding the type, size, number and location,
many counties and cities limit that by the linear footage of the sign. He stated his concern on
scenic beauty and what is defined as scenic beauty. Denzer replied that letters have already
been received requesting that signs not detract from the scenic beauty of the countryside along
roadways in St. Croix County. Boltik referred to an editorial in the Hudson Star Observer
with photos of billboards along Highway I94 indicating signs placed every 120 feet — the
photo altered to show an extreme use of billboards.
Jim Lund of K -Lund Angus Farm commented that he should be able to have a sign on his
own premises to advertise his farm.
Rich Reinart, representing Lamar Outdoor Advertising, stated that there is confusion
regarding on- and off - premise signs. He covers 36 different counties. Outdoor signs are now
heavy regulated. He commented on the 100 -foot setback. Current sign regulations are very
restrictive. He asked that the County regulations not be more restrictive.
Les Berg, resident of North Hudson, stated that he respects the business of sign makers and
business owners on needing on- premise signs. He stated his concern regarding scenic
2
obstruction. We are already looking at more advertising than needed. In areas where signs
are restricted to just information, we enjoy beautiful clear views. An extreme example of
such obstruction is in the Wisconsin Dells area. He encouraged the County to maintain its
countryside as much as possible. There is no need for 40 -foot signs. He recommended very
restrictive on- and off - premise sign regulations.
Steve Willock, representing St. Croix National Golf Course, asked if any of this has to do
with directional signs on highways. Denzer answered yes, the sign regulations would regulate
directional signs. One of the inadequacies of the present ordinance is that small directional
signs are lumped together with other off - premise signs. Willock stated that the State will not
allow directional signs on the new STH 35/64 to his business.
Ann Wachter, representing Fireworks Forever, said they have been turned down for
directional signs. She asked what happens to current signs. Denzer stated that existing signs
not meeting the new criteria would become non - conforming signs.
Rolli urged the County to keep in mind that small businesses do not have budgets for
marketing, and signs are their best way of advertising
Fodroczi emphasized that, though some existing signs would become non - conforming, the
vast number of existing signs would be conforming to the new ordinance. Shillcox asked for
input on what would be an appropriate time allowed for replacement of signs when there is a
change of business.
The question was asked if political signs and realtor signs fit under these regulations. Denzer
responded that political signs are regulated and we are not trying to regulate messages, only
the kind, size, whether lit or unlit, height and whether appropriate for type of sign.
Neil Boltik asked that we define which signs need a permit and which signs do not require
permits. Denzer replied that we have looked at model ordinances and examples from national
agencies. We want to have complete sign regulations with reduced permitting requirements
and make sure small temporary signs are allowed, but guidelines will be needed.
Ann Wachter stated that she has been researching directional signs for Fireworks Forever to
get assistance in clarifying the new rules and finds there is nowhere to go for information on
these types of signs.
Radermacher stated that he has helped write ordinances for many cities and offered assistance
on writing this ordinance.
Rolli asked if anything in the present ordinance would be recommended for deletion.
Fodroczi explained that the need for revisions is more because of what is not in the present
ordinance rather that what is in the ordinance. The present ordinance is 40 years old and all
sign applications must go through the special exception process.
3
Boltik did not think the moratorium was needed. Stan Krueger stated that this is the best time
of year for a moratorium when, because of frozen ground, few new signs are being erected.
Berg agreed to the need for updating the regulations of on- and off - premise signs and that off -
premise signs must be looked at primarily for attractiveness. We must keep our county non -
cluttered. Businesses can advertise in many ways. Variable signing such as those with
electronic moving messages definitely create traffic problems.
David Wachter suggested that it would be good if several businesses could go together on a
single sign.
Fodroczi emphasized that the six -month moratorium goes through June. The ordinance
changes will be complete by June 30. He reminded attendees of the additional public
information meeting on April 19 and other dates listed on the timeline. He urged attendees to
submit comment sheets.
Meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
A6
1
Judy OlignL Recording Secretary Stan Krueger, Secretary
02 -22 -07
4