By Mari Radtke
The November 20, 2023 agenda for the City of Paullina held a first reading to amend Article 15 of the city’s zoning ordinance. The agenda specifically addressed “restrictions for digital signs.”
The discussion opened with Mayor Brenda Ebel Kruse explaining that at least one sign was erected without a permit and “is not technically allowed.” She went on to say this ordinance amendment proposal was “a way to resolve it without them losing a $20,000 investment.” She had described it as “a unique situation.” She spoke of two of the churches either have already or are in the process of changing their outdoor signs from “letterboard” to “digital.” She explained this amendment was the city’s way to address the residential prohibition against lighted signs without creating problems.
She addressed the failure of the zoning ordinance to address separate zoning categories for churches, which are within residential zoning districts. Residential zoning restrictions do not allow a “giant digital billboard on your own yard or house,” Ebel Kruse stated. In an effort to allow churches to have lighted signs Ordinance 36 amending Article 15 of the zoning ordinance was introduced. Ebel Kruse characterized the amendment as setting brightness, size and hours of operation rules and allowing the church (Zion Lutheran) to obtain a permit and keep the sign. Later it came out that the First Presbyterian Church applied for a permit but was not granted one because of the current ordinance.
Councilman Steve Heeren expressed frustration that he had not been made aware of any problem prior to the amendment appearing on agenda. He received the agenda and support documents after 5:30pm on Friday evening. He said he had a lot of questions about the proposed amendment and suggested a work session to address those questions. He offered a wide range of examples of questions he has about the proposed amendment.
Ebel Kruse responded by citing, “the only changes is the bold segment there.” She went on to refer to the existence of the ordinance since 2018. She went on to defend the changes but did not give specific answers to specific questions.
Council members began asking about specific signs. The responses did not refer to the ordinance or give precise explanations to answer the questions.
Existing code clearly defines a “sign,” an “animated sign,” a “flashing sign,” a “freestanding sign” a “governmental sign,” and an “illuminated sign.” There is no definition for a digital sign in the current zoning code. A digital sign, however does meet the definition of an illuminated sign. A section in the existing ordinance regulates “electronic messaging boards” and expressly exempts them as a sign. The Zion Church sign meets those specified standards.
The proposed amendment addresses flashing, internally illuminated or audible sign types in residential districts by limiting quantity; 2 permanent per development with only 1 freestanding sign per development: imaging; fixed images – no illumination shall be intermittent, flashing, revolving, or animated: size; limited to 16 square feet for churches and governmental entities and 21 square feet for schools; and brightness measured in NIT units at different times during the day: 7:00am to 6:00pm, 6:00pm to 9:30pm and off completely from 9:30pm to 7:00am.
Properties in commercial, industrial and agricultural districts that are “adjacent to or across the street from property zoned as residential must comply with similar limits: just 1 freestanding sign per development; fixed images only, 16 square feet only, and the same brightness levels and hours as residential.
Zoning permits are required for all of the above signs.
The current ordinance provides for some exemptions. Government signs enjoy two unique exemptions. Based on the language currently in the definitions, the city sign on Main Street does not qualify as a governmental sign because it is used for commercial purposes,
Casey’s Convenience Store could be in violation. The convenience store has residential property on up to 3 sides, adjacent. Its store identity and its gas price signs are illuminated. The new amendments would require their signs to be turned off at 9:30pm each night. One section of the current code that does address gas station signs only regulates the size.
Mayor Ebel Kruse and Councilperson Jay Jones excused Casey’s by claiming the sign is just internally illuminated, not moving. And the “directly across the street” was determined to not apply because of the facing of the residences. The proposed amendment states, “…commercial properties adjacent to or directly across the street from a residential district….”
Downtown Paullina is fortunate to have second floor residences. Those residences reside in a commercial district. The Iowa State Bank electronic messaging board is directly across the street from non-conforming (?) property. Would its sign have to be turned down at 6:00pm and off at 9:30pm? Is an electronic messaging board the same as a sign? According to existing ordinance, no.
The brightness measurements cannot be determined. Specialized tooling can measure brightness. Enforcement becomes an issue.
Some inherent conflicts develop between the proposed amendment and the existing ordinance. Electronic messaging boards can scroll “if they do not flash rapidly,” according to the current ordinance. Neither the current code nor the proposed amendment gives a definition for an electronic message board, however it does state flashing signs that show general information such as date, time or temperature are not considered a flashing sign.
Councilman Jay Jones, after lengthy discussion with many of Heeren’s concerns discussed, interrupted the discussion and motioned to approve Ordinance 36 with Councilperson Jean Unrau supporting the first reading. Heeren dissented against the others’ support for the wobbly proposal.