Council tables sign ordinance revision
By Gray Hughes
The Hill City Common Council met on Tuesday, Nov. 12 — a day later due to the Veterans Day holiday.
The big topic on the agenda was the discussion and possible approving of the first reading of amendment to the new sign ordinance changes.
“The (Hill City Planning and Zoning Commission) has discussed and debated the current sign ordinance at 15 separate meetings from Jan. 23 through Oct. 21,” said Dani Schade, development service coordinator for Hill City. “Three of those meetings were heavily advertised to engage with the public on proposed changes.”
While considering Hill City’s sign ordinance revision, the planning and zoning commission considered sign ordinances from Grand Prairie, Texas, Wisconsin Dells, Wis., South Bend, Ind., Spearfish, the American Planning Association, Sign Research Foundation, the proposed Hill City sign ordinance (led by a committee that met back in the 1990s), South Dakota Codified Law and Pennington County.
The crux of the sign ordinance revision focused on signs such as animated signs, electronic reader board signs, off-premise signs, extending the business transition zone in town and which signs should be banned.
In the proposed ordinance change, prohibited signs would include air puppets, signs that exhibit statements, words or pictures of obscene or pornographic subjects as determined by the code official and animated and digital signs.
Electronic reader board signs — such as the ones at Krull’s Market and at the schools — would be permitted.
From the start, the council had some reservations regarding the sign ordinance revision.
“What was broken with the last one?” asked alderman John Johnson. “This has been beat to death for years, and we finally had something we agreed upon.”
Alderman Jim Peterson was concerned with what he saw was a lack of opportunities for businesses to have input. He said the last time public comment was advertised was in August, and he wanted to know if the final copy has been advertised.
The final copy has been on the website, Schade said.
“To me, it seems logical to have this advertised well to the public,” Peterson countered. “We have a final version being discussed…It seems like a logical thing (to have the final copy advertised).”
Hill City mayor Kathy Skorzewski said there were two advertisements that ran in the Hill City Prevailer News on separate occasions along with articles that have been written on the matter.
Peterson said with no offense intended to the Prevailer or this reporter, not everyone reads the newspaper.
“Are we in a hurry to adopt?” Peterson asked.
Peterson wanted to know if it was at all possible to allow for more public comment.
Skorzewski said if that is the case then it is the council’s responsibility to determine if more public comment is needed. She said, though, she believes the due diligence has been done on the revision, but she will look to council for how to proceed.
“I get that,” Peterson said. “We can table or approve. I want the final version to get out there to those who it affects the most.”
Steve Jarvis, alderman and council president, asked why the council was discussing it at the meeting if it was going to table it to another meeting.
Skorzewski said tabling the matter would be a way to deal with it.
“Does planning and zoning believe they’ve exhausted all resources?” Jarvis asked. “As (Peterson) said it’s been since August that the ordinance revision had been advertised.”
A large reason why there should be more public input, Peterson said, is because the proposed ordinance revision started out as three topics but now encompasses many topics.
Jarvis added the the council is not trying to take away from the work the planning and zoning commission did. Peterson said as the legislative body for Hill City, it is the council’s duty to ensure the ordinances it is passing are right for the town.
Jarvis said he agreed with Peterson.
Peterson said that passing the first reading at that meeting would not be enough, and more businesses and people should have a voice into what is being proposed.
Skorzewski said it is at the council’s discretion as to how it wants to proceed.
Jarvis said he recommends holding a couple of meetings to discuss the matter with more people — one during the day and one at night to ensure as many people as possible can attend.
“If we do table, I want to see an appropriate outreach to the business community,” Peterson said. “I don’t see a sense of urgency. We need to make sure the people (the proposed ordinance revision) impacts have a say.”
Ultimately, the council voted 4-0 to table the proposed ordinance revision. Public meetings on the matter will be held on Thursday at 10 a.m. and Wednesday, Dec. 4 at 7 p.m., both at city hall.