HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-13-05 Planning Comm. AgendaAGENDA
CITY OT LITTLE CANADA
PLANNING COiVIMISSION
TIiURSDAY, JANUARY 1.3, 2005
1. Call To Order - 7:30 P.M.
2. Roll Call
3. Election of Officers
4. Approval of Minutes -December 9, 2004
PRESENTATIONS:
4. Amendment to Zoning Code
- Amending the .I-1 Zoning District to allow motor vehicle and recreation
equipment sales (indoor) and garages accessory thereto by Conditional
Use Permit
- xAmending the I-1 Zoning District to add Motor Vehicles Sales Lot by
CUP as outlined iu Section 911.040.H.
Amending the B-2 District, Section 911.040.H.8. eliminating the reference
to "B-W".
Correspondence Page 1,
Conditional Use Permit allowing motor vehicle and recreation equipment sales (indoor)
and garages accessory thereto - 3 ] 77 Spruce Street - Ricl< Igo
Correspondence Pages 2 through 4.
6. Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance to establish pipeline setback requirements
for new subdivisions
Correspondence Page 5.
Amendment to the Zoning Code relative to the issuance of temporary sign permits for
multi-tenant properties
Correspondence Pages 6 t7~rough 18.
8. Other Business
Adjourn
~~~
e r~±
°L:
~~ ~i~l~ C~/~~2C~~~
MAYOR
Michael L Fahey
COUNCIL
Jirzi LaValle
Niatt (luderson
Rick Montour
t9ilt 6lesener
815 hiCne Canada Road, Litlaa Canada, MN 55117-1600
(651) 966-4029 /FAX: (651) 766-404$
www. ci.litfle-ctuiada, mn. us
CITY OF LIT'CL>1 CANADA
NOTICE O~ PUBLIC 11GARING
AN1 NDiI!(L'NT TO'GONING CODL
PROPOSAL,:
The City of Little Canada is proposing the following amendments to its Toning Code;
ADMINIS'1'12.ATOR
Joel R. I-Janson
Amendment to the Light Industrial District (I-I) to allow motor vehicle and recreation
equipment sales (indoor) and garages accessory thereto by Conditional Use Permit;
Amendment to the Light Industrial District (l-I) to add Motor Vehicles Sales Lot by
Conditional Use Permit as outlined iu Section 91].040.I~.;
- Amendment to the AutaOriented Business District (B-~), Section 97 'L040.H.8. eliminating the
reference to "B-W";
PLANNING CO1VI~~IISSION:
The Little Canada. Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting
scheduled for Thursday, January t 3, 2005 meeting. The meeting begins at 7: ;0 p.m. and will be held
in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City.
CITY COUNCIL:
Notice is hereby given that a public Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at
their regular meeting to be held on \Nednesday, January 26; 2005 at 7:30 p.nt, or as soon thereafter as
pal-Cies may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada'Road in
said City.
All persons wiHi reference to this matter ~~~i(I be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on
Thursday, January l3, 2005 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, January 26, 2005.
Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request.
The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours iu advance. Please call to make the
necessary arrangements.
Joel R Hanson
City Administrator
n9AI'012
Nlichaet I. P.ahev
°p
COUNCIL
Jim LaValle
Matt Anderson
Rict: ~lontow~
Lull fficsencr
515 Little Canada Road. Little Canada, MN 55 1 17-1600 ADMINIS'lRA'lOR
(G51) 766-4029 / TA3;; (651) 766-4048 Joel R. Hanson
w~~na~. ci.litlle-canada.mn.ns
CI`fY OI' LITTLE CANADA
NO'1'[CE OP 1'UI3LIC III~ARING
CONDITIONAL iISE PERMIT
PROPOSAL:
A request fa' approval of a Conditional Use Permit allowing motor vehicle and recreation equipment
sales (indoor) and garages accessory thereto. The property in question is zoned Light Industrial (I-1 ).
APPLICANT ~ PROPERTY O\\'NEi2:
Rick Igo
Empire Holdings LLC
3177 Spruce Street
Little Canada, MN 551 17
PROPERTY T,OCATION:
3177 Spruce Street
Little Canada, MN 55117
PLANNING COi\7NIISSION:
The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting
scheduled for Thursday, January 13, 2005 meetin~~. The meeting begins at 7:>0 p.m. and will be held
in the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in said City.
CITY COUNCIL:
Notice is hereby given that a 1?ublic Hearing will be held by the City Council to review this request at
their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
parties may be heard, iu the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in
said City.
All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during t9ie Planning Commission meeting on
Thursday, January 13, 200 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, January 26, 2005.
Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request.
The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call Co make the
necessary arrangements.
Joe1R. Hanson
City Administrator
MINNESOTA MOTOR VEHICLE DEALER LICENSE
COMMERCIAL LOCATION CHECKLIST
Dealer Number
Received by _
Date Received
PSOP!I'10-08
D< r Unit
445 Minnesota St Ste 186
St Paul, MN 55101-5186
COMPANYNAME:__ _~-~~'~c_~,~<~.-~',tiG~:_~..~LL --- - ---
ADDRESS ~l`(`f =J.'~'IL~~L'c S~ _~1'Lc c:.l`X7~i~t~a---_- --_-(Own? Lease?) _ (J~T~it~
TYPE OF LICENSE BEING APPLIED FOR: _Limlted Used Vehicle LiCenSe
-New ~_USed -Lessor -Wholesaler Broker ---Auctioneer --Salvage Pool
THIS CHECKLIST DESCRIBES THE PRIMARY SITE X_ ADDITIONAL LOCATION ___- OF THIS LICENSE.
(note: a separate checklist must be submitted for each location operating under this license)
_ CHECK HERE IF RETAIL SALES WILL BE CONDUCTED AT THIS SITE.
CHECK HERE IF THE ADDITIONAL LOCATION IS A DISPLAY LOT ONLY, AND RESPOND TO STATEMENTS 2, 7 & 8.
This is a checklist for dealers required to have commercial euildings WEW, USED, SALVAGE POOL, or AUCTIONEER) or
Commercial Office Space " (LESSOR WHOLESALER, Or BROKER).
,; 4.. 4Nri >:,,~~,,,.,L,n Try ~o/c~l« crarAman4c ranarriina the nPalPrshin site listed at the above address.
rtc awiiu w uic i v~w ~~,,,y '- - - - -
TRUE/FALSE REQUIREMENT
1
~ All booKS and records necessary to conduct business are kept at the main
1C.1.)~
~ location (copies may be kept at Additional Locations).
The above location is owned by the dealer or is leased for a minimum of one-
2
-y--q
w~ Lia.%lTEO year. If leased, Dealer Lease Form must be attached. If owned proof of
I l ownership must be attached.
3 LESSOR, WHOLESALER, There i5 a Separdte and identifiable entrance to the dealership that leads t0 the
~'Q'iTy- BROKER, LIMITED USED OUtd00r5 or t0 a public area. Note: Shared Office Space SUCK a5 a reCeptiOn area
k~
V""" EXEMPT or secretary pool does not qualify as a public area.
y LESSOR, WHOLESALER , The abOVe dealership iS not accessed by entering through any Other bU5ine55 Or
"'~p; .~~ - BROKER, LIMITED USED residence that is located in the building.
1 K~, EXEMPT
S LIMITED USED EXEMPT The above location is enclosed with floor t0 ceiling walls with a door that can be
/ shut and locked to close off the entire entrance and is designated for the
5
~~
~
~
~
' exclusive use of the dealership.
g LESSOR,WHOLESALER, The above IOCatIOn has an address that iS Separate from the address Of any Other
/
n.~tC BROKER, LIMITED USED business in the building (suite number would qualify).
~
~t- EXEMPT
7 WHOLESALER,
LESSOR This dealership has a display area, either indoors or outdoors, large enough to
/
w~~'G ,
BROKER, AUCTIONEER, display at least 5 vehicles and this display area is designated for the exclusive
t LIMITED USED EXEMPT use Of the dealership anq is distinguishable front any other businesses inventory.
8 / LESSOR, WHOLESALER, A sign identifying the dealership is displayed on the outside of a commercial
{
~
`;~~ AUCTIONEER, LIMITED USED, building, in a public area if C0111Iner~ial office space, Or somewhere Oh the
~ %x
1
"
1 EXEMPT prenti5es if tn2 additional IOCatIOn iS a display Ot
g ~ WHOLESALER EXEMPT The normal business hours are con *picuously posted on the dealership and are
....
~J readily viewable by the public.
10 - Personnel or automatic telephone answering service are available during normal
(.~, ~,
~
^~''
- bU5ine55 hoLlr$. (NEW motor vehicle dealers n1USt have perSONte available).
11 ZONING APPROVAL LIMITED The abOVe IOCatIOn meets all local zoning requirements a5 indicated On the
USED EXEMPT Musi BE '-<-' _cFt' cL3' ~[," ca-~ ca° c'r," ci;' «;' c~' C~J'Ct3'.~.,
reverse side of this form. '
i COM~LETEU !3Y THE ZONING OFFlCEB
12 (REQUIRED FOR The dealership has a facility for the repair and service Of motor vehicles and the
-----....._ NM/motorvehicle storage of parts not more than Gen miles distance from the principal place of
dealers only) business.
_._
The above place oP business meets l~LL s ndards as utlined above. 1 understand that any misstatemen
constitutes material misrepresentation''and~subi~//Qts L license to withdrawal
SIGNATURE-OWNER/OFFICER _~~ ~(-C~~.~1_ ~~. -date ~(",~!,~'O`4__
,1..._...-------- _ ..
ZONING: the following must be completed by a zoning official within the city or township where THE DEALERSHIP intends
to do business.
/ 'N: 20NING OFFICIALS -- DO NOT COMPLETE THIS SECTION UNLESS THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN
COMPLETED AND SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT
COMPANY N
ADDRESS
TYPE OF LICENSE BEING APPLIED FOR (maYk one only)
New Used --Lessor --Wholesaler -Broker __AUCtioneer -Salvage Pool
Note New and Used licensees do and Lessor licensees may conduct retail sales.
THIS STATEMENT DESCRIBES THE PRIMARY SITE ~ ADDITIONAL LOCATION __ OF THIS LICENSE.
The dealership at the address named above is a permitted /conditional use within the Zoning District for
the type of business indicated above and no Zoning complaints or enforcement actions are pending at this time.
_ no sales allowed no signs on _ property/-building
office only ~C no display _ indoors /,~ outdoors
SIGNATURE OF ZONING AUTHORITY
Signed and sworn before me by
this day of ._
_ 20
(Notary Public)
ji 5/) 7GL - 50'10
PHONE NUMBER
My Commission expires -
* COMMERCIAL BUILDING
MS 168.27 Subd. 1 (6). "Commercial Building" means a permanent, enclosed building that is on a permanent foundation and
connected to local sewer and water facilities or otherwise complying with local sanitary codes, is adapted to commercia
use and conforms to local government zoning requirements ... Inay include strip office malls or garages ..."
* * COMMERCIAL OFFICE SPACE
MS 168.27 Subd 1 (71. "Commercial office space" means office space occupying all or part of a commercial building."
**' The dealer may maintain other entrances to the dealership. If any of the other entrances leads from commercial or
residential space in the same building, there must be a door that can be shut and locked to close off the entire entrance.
*** * The sign must be in letters that contrast sharply in color with the background on which the letters are placed. If the
sign is on a commercial building or a display area, it must be readily legible during daylight hours from the nearest road o
street. If the sign is on a commercial office space, the sign must be readily legible in the lighting commonly used in the
area of the sign from the nearest access to the sign. If the dealer's display area is not adjacent to the dealer's commercia
building, the sign at the display area must also indicate where the commercial building is located.
DATE
* * Normal business Hours refers to the hours that you will normally be conducting business.
Ple~,e Note: Per Minnesota statute 968A.99 subdivision 3, Vou must ensure Chat your records will Ue available during
reasonable business hours.
NIAY02
Michael I. rahc~~
COUNCIL
~t Jim La Valle
~~ „p (~~l (~~~~~ ~(~~G~ /~, MattAUClerson
~~ ~` °e.e' t~P P.idc Montour
6111 Blesener
515 Liedc Canada Road, Little Canada, MN 55117-1 G00 ADMIMS'lRliT012
(651) 766-4029 / F.4X: (651) 966-4048 Joel R. Hansom
wunv. ci.li tLle-canada. n~n.us
crr>> or rJr~rrl,~ cAN,~~n.a
NOT7CE OF P[J13LIC IIEAItING
AM~NDNI.~NT TO SUBbIVISION ORDINANCI?
PROPOSAL:
The City of Little Canada is proposing an amendment Yo its Subdivision Ordinance establishing
pipeline setback requirements for ne~a~ subdivisions.
PLANNING COAIMI'SSlON:
The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at their regular meeting
scheduled for Thursday, January 13, 2005 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p.m. and will be held
in the Council Chambers of the City Center located ar 515 Little Canada Road in said City.
CTTY COUNC'l:L:
Notice is hereby given that a Public Hearing will be held by the City Cowlcil to review this request aC
their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter es
parties may be heard, iu the Council Chambers of the City Center located at 51.5 Little Canada Road in
said City.
All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the Planning Commission meeting on
Tlwrsday, January Li, 2005 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, January 26, 2005.
Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request.
The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the
necessary arrangements.
Ioel R. Hanson
City Administrator
NIAPOR
Michael I. whey
~~p./ ~ `J
COUNCIT.
Jim ha Valle
Nlatt Anderson
Rich Montour
1'3ill l3tesener
515 Lihtle Canada Road. LiL[le Canada, MN 55117-1600 r1DNllN15lRATOR
(661) 766-4026 / FA.Y: (651) 766-4068 Joel R. Hanson
e~nu.ci.litTle-canada.mn.us
C1TY Ol: LITTIIT'; CANADA
NO'I"I:CG OI? I'UBI,IC HEARING
AA/tiNDNIGNT TO 'I,ONING CODL
PROPOSAL:
The City of LiClle Canada is proposing an amendment to Section 903.ll0.C.4.a.1 its Zoning Code
relative to temporary signs for multi-tenant properties.
PLANNING COMA9ISSION:
The Little Canada Planning Commission will be reviewing this matter at d~eir regular meeting
scheduled for Thursday, January 13, 2005 meeting. The meeting begins at 7:30 p. m. and will be held
in the Council Chambers of the City Center located u' 515 Little Canada Road iu said City.
CITY COUNCIL:
Notice is hereby given that aPublic 1-Tearing will be held by Che Cit}~ Council to review this request at
their regular meeting to be held on Wednesday, January 26, 2005 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
parties may be heard, in the Council Chambers of the Cit}~ Center located at 515 Little Canada Road in
said City.
All persons with reference to this matter will be heard during the ~Plam~ing Commission meeting on
Thursday, January 13, 2005 and the City Council meeting on Wednesday, Januai y 26, 2005.
Sign language interpreters for hearing-impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request.
The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call to make the
necessary arrangements.
Joel R. Hanson
City Administrator
nrni~orl
Nridtael L rahev
515 Little Canada Road. Little Canada MN 55117-1600
(G51) 766-4029 /FLAX: (651) 7G6-4048
www.ci.little-canada.nvi.ns
M~MORANDUA~I
TO: Members of the Planning Commission
FROM.: Kathy Glanzer, City Cleri<
DATE: 3anuary 6, 2005
RE: Temporary Sign Ordinance - Multi= Cenant Properties
COUNCIL
Jim LaVatle
MaC[ Anderso~~
Rick Nlonrour
6i11 I3lesener
ADI~IINISTRf1TOR
Joel R. 1-Ianso~~
In 2003 die City's "i'emporary Sign Ordinance was amended addressing temporary signs
allowed for both single-tenant and multi-tenant properties. The issues of mnnber of
temporary signs and total number of days temporary suns can be displayed were
discussed and amended. (See minutes attached.)
In reviewing this section of the Code, staff has noted that the amendment was worded
somewhat uncleanly, and is recommending vA additional phrase be added to the ordinance
to clarify the intent. (See amendment attached.) The addition of the phrase suggested
would clarify that the 60 day limitation on total days of temporary signage allowed
applies to the tenants of single tenant buildings as well as each tenant of mufti-tenant
properties.
Staff reconnnends adoption of the ordinance amendment as presented.
ti[INtiTtiS
CITY CO~NCII~
J~~N1i:~RY 22. 3003
RESOLL'TIONNO. '003-Z-3d-DENYLVG 1'HF_ CONCF_PT
REZONING OF TIIE SLVCLAIR ST=ITION 4t~17XCH YYOULD
_9Z.ZOWFOR 473EADDITIO%V OFA U-H,IULTRUCKRENT,=1.L
BD.SINESS A.S ANACCESSORY U.SB AT TFIIS 13USLti1S.S
The fore~7oing resolution wits duly seconded by Montour.
Ayes (4) Blesener, Montour, Fahey, r~iderson.
Nays (])LaValle. Resolution declared adopted.
CONSDNT Mr. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
AGDNDA
RF_SOL UTION tVO. 302?-7-35 - APPRO DING 1'I-IL' CONSENT
:4CiENDA WHICH CONT4INS THE FOL,LOWNG:
`dPPROC~IL OF T013A000 LICEN,S'F. FOR PETRO rYLARKET AT
2653 RICF. STREET FOR I ICEN.SE PERIOD TI~ROUGH.IUNE 30,
2003;
*.4PPROY;~L 1)F,11V INCR.~9SE IN~D~LIINl.ST1~4TIY'E FEE FOTc
DEVELOPER DEPOSIT.S:4S RECONIIYIENDED 13Y THE CITY
ST,4FF;
*,dDOPTION OF THE,ST'AFF'S RECOMMENDATION ItELdTIVE
TO RE7AINLVG TILE RF_D COI OR OF L I"TTLE C,9NADA ROAD
730LL.=II2D 73RACIfET.5I3ASED ON THE RESULTS OF THE N'E73
SURVEI,.
~,~liY/ENDING THE DEVELOP:~IENT.IGREE,IIENT FOR 1'IIE
LODGE,-1T LITTLF_ C,4N.~iD~I .-95 RECOiYI[YIE.NDED BY'THE CITY
ADrYIINLST2iTOR
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Anderson.
Ayes (5) LaValle, Anderson, Montour, Fahey, Blesener.
J
~ay5 ~~). ROSGlii iiGn deCiured ud Gpicu.
T'EVIPOR~1i2Y titavor Fahey indicated Chat he has reviewed the recommendations of
SIGNS City staff relative co iemuorarv si<rns and oonunented that he does not
agree wish those recommendations.
LaValle pointed out that the reason the Council indicated its willirn~ness Co
loi~i< at temuorarv si~,ns was nt the request of Perry Lind. owner of
~ood~~ear. rind eie chat the ten~porarv si!*!t ordinance ;>rovided an
tirltit~~r~s
crr~ cor:vclr
~AVti_~rz5~ z~, coos
(n egrli tabiC: SITU atlOn fOr Lilo St' bll$ineS525 that arF. tEna!Ii5 Of strip Celt l'.CS.
LaValte felt that star went beyond the direction of the Council.
Fahey indicated his recollection that the Council did not limit the scope of
the analysis that the staff was to do. While he does not agreed with the
recommendations made by staff, Fahey indicated that staff did meee his
expectations. Fahey felt that the City has become overly restrictive with
regard to temporary signs. He pointed out, as an example, the
recommendation to require anon-profit organization to submit written
approval firom the owner of the property on which a temporary sign is to
be placed. Fahey indicated that verbal agreement by the property owner
was sut~icient as far as he was concerned.
Fahey also felt that the current ordinance was unfair in that a single
property owner is allowed three temporary signs per year under the
ordinance, while a strip mall is also allowed three temporary signs per
year that must be shared among all the tenants in the building. Fahey felt
that the same number of temporary signs should be allowed for each
business regardless of location,
The City Administrator pointed out the code enforcement issues Che City
is faced with relative to temporary signs. He fhrther noted that staff is
recommending a procedure to allow ofl=premises temporary signs for
community-based organizations. Currently these signs are not allowed at
all.
Patrick Nicholson, .A & yV, reported on the importance of temporary signs
to businesses. I3e also noted that many businesses provide community
support in a variety of ways, and these businesses are now looking for
support from the Council.
Zid Hanson, Rocco's Pizza, reported that businesses are looking for a
broadening of die City's temporary sign ordinance.
Dave Cossack, Crordies', indicated that he has been using temporary si~7ns
for many years, aid they are an impa7ant way tc advertising the forming
of various sports lea~~ues, as an example, which in turn help his business.
Cossack reported that limiting the display of a temporary siun to 10 days
duration would do his business no ~__>ood.
Fahey agreed with the need io broaden the temporary sixn ordinance to
help ~6e Ciry~s businesses. but pointed out that the clip side is that
numerous poi table signs desrnde tho appearance oi'rhe Ciry.
ivrT~L~rEs
cTTx co~r~cn,
J;1rII.~RY 22. 2003
Ricl:.Boss. representing both LCRA and 'Tiernev's. indicated that
temporary suns are very important to the LCRA in promoting their fund-
raising activities. He noted that the money raised is prat back into the
community. from Tieruey's perspective, banners are an important part of
their advertising and they have been using monthly banners for many
years.
Vicho(son pointed out that businesses spend a lot of money on their
signage, and he felt temporary signa<~e should be allowed as loner as it is
done in a tasteful way. Fahey pointed out that the City cannot dictate
taste, but can regulate number of signs and size. Fahey noted that some
businesses put up temporary signs and Lhey never come down.
Fahey stated that he was not in favor of any part of stags proposal that is
more restrictive than the current ordinance. IIe also felt that business
should be allowed the same number of temporary signs regardless of
whether they are located in a strip mall or not. Blesener indicated that he
did not feel limiting the display of temporary signs to ten days was a long
enough duration.
Montour asked what is considered to be a temporary sign. The City
Administrator reviewed the listing of temporary signs included in the
ordinance, He further noted that over 33% of window coverage with signs
is considered to be temporary signage. The City has not enforced this
provision of the ordinance.
LaValle felt that banners should be dealt with separately from the rest of
the Cemporary signs. LaValte also expressed concern with allowing
businesses in strip malls the same number of temporary, portable suns as
sin~~le-occupant properties. LaValle envisioned a strip mall having
numerous portable temporary suns on display at one time.
Fahey felt that the portable temporary sums were more offensive than
banners. Blesener a<rreed. IIe also pointed out that businesses are
spending a lot of money for the a eation of a banner, therefore, will want
to dis,~~~, it for merA tl:a:; ten da}'s.
f,..., ..
Anderson su~rsested that the ordinance distinguish portable temporary
liens from banners in some way. The City Administrator pointed out that
there are also balloons, pennants, atc. ~~uhicii must be addressed.
TLe City :administrator reviewed piotures of temporary signage at several
businesses in the Cin+.
~IIN (:TES
crr~ cor ~lcr>,
J.1N[;ARY 22. ?003
~Eahe}~° felt it w-as tha temporai~% portable signs that ~~ere most problelvatic.
Fahev asked if other cities distinguished between portable suns and
banners. I-Ie noted from the sur~~ey done by staffthat it appears the City of
1~'[aplewood does not re<xulate nor require a permit for banners. Fahey
suggested that banners that are physically attached to the building be
allowed. Anderson agreed. Layral(e suggested broadening that to allow
banners to be attached to existing signs. Fahey agreed; but suggested that
onl}% one banner per business be allowed.
Anderson asked about one banner per building or one banner per tenant.
Anderson stated that he would not be opposed to allowing one banner per
tenant. Fahey agreed. He felt this would create signage options for
businesses, while decreasing enforcement issues for City stafT~.
Montour pointed ouC the Cit}%'s redevelopment efforts on Rice Street, and
expressed concern with the impact that liberalizing the temporary sign
ordinance will have. Fahey suggested Chat there is an inequity in file
temporary sip>n ordinance as relates Co businesses located within a strip
mall He felt that if the City changes the ordinance and there is a problem
with the cumber of portable signs, the City could tape another look at the
ordinance. He also noted that other cities have made a distinction between
temporary portable signs and banners. Fahey asked if there was consensus
on the issue of allowing banners as a permitted signs, not more than one
banner per business, regulating the size ofbamlers in some fashion, and
restricting the banner to the building or to the pylon sign. Anderson,
LaValle, and Bleseuer agreed.
Cossack asked for clarification on the banner location. The consensus was
that the banner would have to be on the building or on the pylon sign. The
banner could not be strwig from the pylon sign to the building or to
another post. Fahey indicated that City staff would come back with a
specific recommendation based on the CounciPs consensus. Size was
discussed and Cossack and Nicholson felt that a 10-foot by 4-toot or a 10-
foot by 3-toot banner size would be acceptable.
iiie ~~., iiV .~iiiliiiilSiratur aisG iivicd iiiai teiiip Graiy Sigi1S CanilOt i7i; l>lit iii
the right-ot=way. Fahey felt this restriction was necessary Prom a safety
standpoint. Fahey su<~gested that a bawler be allowed on either the
building or on the p}%lon. ~~ry banner not attached in this manner should
be considered a temporary sign.
~I'ontour stated that rather than allowing banners as permitted signs, Ile
would rather see the ordinance change to inerense the size of reader
boards.
~4INU'CL:S
CITY COCtiCIL
J,1VL~:~RY 22. 2003
T~7e ~.ItV Piailnel' i1hilCated tflat Yenlp OraN Sl ~ynage !S alwaVS a pCOblem fOr
conununities. "Ihe Planner su~2ested that ii'the City wants to allow more
sip*ns, his recommendation would b~ to allo~~c more penr~anent si~na~e.
"I'he Planner recommended that all temporary signage be eliminated, and
agreed with biontour's recommendation for increasing the size of reader
boards. The Planner indicated that when a business makes a decision to
locate in a city, that decision is not based on the particular city's sign
ordinance. It is only after the business has moved in that it approaches the
city with si_ntage requests. The Planner stated that he can appreciate the
need for suns, but suggested that if more si~xnage is important, then it
should be permanent si~naee. Temporary si«nage is always an
enforcement issue.
Anderson pointed out the banners that currently are displayed on some of
the City's businesses. Anderson stated that if he were a business owner,
he would not have thought a permit was needed to display a banner.
Anderson also pointed out the enforcement issue that temporary signs are
for the City. Anderson pointed out that the City only has a given amount
time and resources the City wants to devote to code enforcement, and
suggested that those resources be directed to outdoor storage rather than
banners.
,Fahey suggested that the amendments discussed be adopted by the
Council. Should there be continuing issues that need fin-ther attention, the
Council can take another look at the matter in the {uture. Council clarified
that the issues are:
permitting banners, one per business, attached to either the
building or a pylon sign (completely attached Co the pylon, cannot be
attached at one end to the pylon and at the other to some other structure,
such as the building or a pole);
o no temporary signage in the right-of--way;
o temporary signage allowances based on individual
iiti SiiicSScS rc°_ardlBSS Oi location Wlthin mnltl-tellant
buildin!>s;
~p~ .~- e each business allowed three temporary permits per year, for
~I ~ 6U days total:
o for multi-tenant buildin:rs. no more than two teny~orary
si*ns on display at any one time:
it9INUTI:S
CITY COUNCIL
JANUAi2Y 22. 2003
e~~empt oi'_>2.nizatiocs allowed up to four of~?-pre,~~ise
temporary sisn locations per event with display time
limited to 14 davs, and no requirement for ~wrirten
permission.
GOALS
SITTING
SESSION
SALARY
SCALE
~1DJUSTI~CINTS
ividiolson asked if at the A & W he ~,vould be allowed to lease his sign out
to other businesses during the ofl~-season. It was the consensus of the
Council that this would not be allowed. The City Administrator noted that
otl=premises signage would only be allowed for non-profit organizations
operating within the City. Fahey pointed out that the non-profit
organizations have to be located in the City for a minimum of three years
and they are not in competition with any of the City's businesses.
Temporary signage for the non-profits are related to fund-raising activities
the profits from ~,vhich benefit the community.
Anderson suggested that temporary signage for grand opening events be
al]owed fora 21-day period. Pahey suggested 30 days pointing out that
Urand openings bring recognition to newly established businesses in the
city.
The Council also indicated that pennants should continue to be considered
as temporary signage. The Council further noted that the ordinance
provisions relative to window si_ma~~e should remain as is and that the
City's current enforcement practices with regard to window sienage
should also continue as is.
Council suggested that staff also lool: at special events signage and bring
back a recommendation along with the other changes discussed this
evenin<_>.
It was the consensus of the Council that a goal setting session be
scheduled for Wednesday, i~[arch ~'~', be~~innin, at 4 p.m. A format
similar what has been used for the past couple of years is to be followed.
Mr. Pahea introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RE.SOhUTIONNO. ?00.4-1-'h-~PPROf/ItVGTKES~IL.=IRYSC;Il_E
II~.ILLST.l~IENTS'.-tS OUTLItVED I[A%THE CITY.1DtYIIiVI,STR,dTOR'S
REPORTO:-1TEZ).I~1,V~~ifZi'17. '003
~,
~I:INliTL:S
PLANNING COl1~II5SION
I'EB12liARY 1.3. 2003
NIr. Z3arracloug~h recommended approval oP C(ie rezoning of 75 i,ittle
Canada Road from ]3-3 to PL`D to allowing the permitted uses in the 13-3
Zonin, District as well as allowing electrical contracting shops as a
permitted use subject to submission of an acceptable site plan as well as
signage, and denying the PliD Permit for outdoor storage.
Motion seconded by Roycraft.
Iviotion failed 3 to 3. I{nudsen, Duray, and Weihe voting against.
Knudsen indicated that he was extremely impressed with Stehon's
business. It was his feeling, however, that the business just did not tit in
this particular location.
CU.P - The City Planner reported that a Conditional Use Permit for a
iVIARIfET PUCE comprehensive sign plan for multi-tenant buildings. The Planner noted
SI30PPING that given recent changes to the Sinn package at the Market Place
CENTER Shopping Center, the City Administrator felt that a comprehensive sign
plan should be reviewed and acted upon at this time. This tiuould allow ibr
the issuance of building permits for all sienage changes provided that
those changes were in conformance with the approved comprehensive sign
plan. The City Planner recommended approval of the comprehensive sign
plan for the Marl.et Place Shopping Center.
Mr. Barraclough recommended approval of die Conditional Use Permit for
comprehensive sign plan for the Market Place Shopping Center based on
the reconnnendation of the City Planner.
Motion seconded by ~Vojcil:.
Motion carried 6 - 0.
A1~IENDING The City Planner reviewed the reconuuendation of the Code Enforcement
ZvNiNG Ct'ivE - Gti~cer relative to Zoning Code amendments for reguiaiiou of temporary
TE-NII'ORARY suns tiwithin the City as well as the Council's discussion and direction in
SIGNS this regard. The Planner indicated that the changes being proposed also
reflect input ti~om the business community of the need to loosen the Cit_v's
temporary sign ordinance.
The Planner noted That the proposed Zoning Code amendments as directed
by the Couneit calls for exemption of banners from the reuiporai}~ sign
ordinance and would allow for one banner per business to 6e affixed ,o
elthel till iUlldm$ Jr 1 fAVO-IeYEed pA'IOn SIF11. LIiZ :Inl~lldlll0m aISO
i`IlNtiTLS
PL.~~tiISCx COit[11:ISSlON
FEI3Rt SKY 13, ?003
~~ould address teinl?ora~ti si~r,a_c at ir.ulti-tenant buiidin~rs xliowin~> up to
three temporary signs, total maximum of 60 days, per business per year.
;.-'~ ~ I1~e amendment also proeided that only one temporary sign can be
displayed at one time. The amendment also addresses temporary si~sns
community-based organizations such as LCI~ or Canadian Days.
The Commission discussed grand opening balloons and it the definition of
grand opens was reviewed. It was noted that grand opening events are
applicable to new businesses only.
Knudsen suggested that the Language of the ordinance should be darif ed
to reed "one banner at a time".
Duray recommended that community based organizations be exempt from
paying temporary sign permit fees.
Duray indicated ghat the business owners will appreciate the ability to
display banners, although he would have preferred being allowed to have
two banners on display at one time.
Roycraft stated that he did not agree ~.vith loosening the temporary sign
ordinance.
Roycraft asked if Duray should abstain from voting on this issue given
that it would impact his business. The City Planner felt there was no
conflict of interest in Chis situation- A conflict would exist, for example, if
one of the Commissioners was the owner of abanner-making company.
N[r. Duray recommended approval of the amendment to the Zoning Code
relative to the re«ulation of temporary signs as recommended by the City
Planner with the clarification of langua~se to read "one banner at a time"
and with the condition that community or~~anizations are exempt from
temporary sign hermit tees.
lotion seconded by Barraclou~xh.
Iviotion carried > - ]. Roycraft voted against.
AD.fOC?:RN There bein<r no turther business, the meeting was adjourned.
~I:INI~ rLs
crr~~ col~NCIL
ItEI3RI CRY 26. 2003
Fahey noted that the Council just received the diagrams dais evening, and
it was the consensus of the Council to table action on this matter so that
they had tune to review the information and to allo~.v the City Planner to
review the diagrams and comment.
~1i. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RBSOI_ UTT2~V NO. ? 003-2-42 - Za13LING :4 CTION ON THE PUD
PERbIIT ;1PP7_IC4 TIO,N FOR COI'pIPREIIEN<SI G'E .SIGN PLAN
UNTIL THE tLl,4RCH12, ?003 ~IIEETING PENDING,4 12lPORT
FROM TFIE CIT I' PI_A_NNER AND CITY AD~tiIINIS'TR4 TOR
REI_~ 1 TIVE TO THE Pl AN
The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by LaValle.
ayes (5) Fahey, T.,ay%alle, Nloatour, Blesener, Anderson.
Nays (0), Resolution declared adopted.
A\~CENDIV[ENT NJ:ayor Fahey opened the public hearing to consider the proposed
1 O ZGNING amendment to the Zoning Code relative to temporary signs. It was noted
COllE - that the Planning Conunission has recommended approval of the
TEiVTPORARY amendment as proposed. Fahey further noted drat information relative to
SIGNS temporary outdoor sales events will be presented by staff at a later date.
"there was no one present from the genera( public wishing to comment on
this matter.
Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Ntontour, the public hearing was
closed.
Blesener noted the provision for multi-tenant buildings limiting temporary
signs to no moi ~ than two tenants at a time. Blesener suggested that this
provision limit to "no more than t~~uo tenants or 50;'0 of the tenants at one
time" in order to address multi-tenant buildings having only two tenants.
?il~derson questioned die deletion of the language relative to spotlights.
"the consensus was to retain the five-dav limitation for spotlights as stated
in the ordinance.
_lderson questioned the wordin<~ relating to temporary si;nage For non-
protit orb>anizntiuns and the wav tf~e I-4-dav period is measured. The
Council egreed that the ! ,-dav period should be measured 6achwnrd ti~om
the date or ;he event. !gut agreed that the ~.vording ::ould be made c;earer.
~~IINUTrs
CITY COUNCIL
PEBRL?~I2Y 2G. 2003
Montour fe!C rhtat non-regulatio^ of banners would be a bis mistake for dle
City. He felt that Chew banners would cause additional clutter in the City;
and noted [he Code LnYOrcement Officer's recent success in <<_>ettin2
banners removed. Montour suggested that banners be addressed as a
temporary Sinn for special sales or events.
Blesener indicated Chat iu touring Che City and looking at the various
businesses, he did not Chink there would be many businesses that would
display banners. LaValle suggested that the City allow banners as
permitted si~_>nage. Should they becorne a problem, the Council can revisit
the issue.
NIr. Anderson introduced the following ordinance and moved its adoption:
ORDGV,q_NCE N0. 54? - r1DOPTING ,-1 N ORDCN. INCE _A~YIENDING
THE ZONLVG CODE OF THE CITY OF LITTLE C4N~~IDA
RELATIVE TO TE~1I1'OR,dRI'SIGN>S~1S,IrYtENDED
'Che fore,oin~ ordinance was duly seconded by LaValle.
Ayes (4) Anderson, LaValle, Pahey, Blesener.
Nays (~I) N.[ontour. Ordinance declared adopted.
CONSENT Nl.r. LaValle introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
AGENDA
RESOJ_UTIONNO. ?003-~-=1~ -,4PPlZOVING THE CONSENT
AGENDA WHICH CONT,dItYS THE FO7LO[~Y'ING:
';4PPRO I!47, OF RIGHT OF ENTR I' FOR SHERiYL~3N
,ASS`OC74TIONS TO ALI_Oit'ENVIRON[LlENT47 TESTING FOR
CONIb1ERCIAL DEL'ELOP,NlENTAND AUTI3ORIZING THE
~YL~YOR AND CITPADdlI_NbS'TRdTOR TO E~l'ECtITE ON 13EH=ILF
OF TIIE CITY;
"APPROI~ING THE S,=ITISF-ICTIONS OF DEVELOP,YLENT
AGREEdIENT ON THE FORMER DEI_ONALS PROPERTY.4ND
AUTHOR77ING THE;~IdYOR.-IND CITY,-ID~YZINLSTRATOR TO
E.YECUTE ON 13EH~1LF OF THE CITI;•
' C.ILI ING .~1 4J~ORK.SHOP ,itEETIN'G TO DLSCL:SS .YIARIfLT
P!_AC'E DRII'E STRF_ET.SC;1 PE Id IP12O f/EYIEN'T.S FOR _YI,-IRCH IZ,
_'U//.i .1T 6:30 P..l'I.
City of Little Canada, Minnesota
Ordinance No.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 903.110 OF THE LITTLE CANADA CITY
CODE KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, RELATIVE TO THE REGULATION OF
TEMPORARY SIGNS
The City Council of the City of Little Canada hereby ordains:
Section 1.
Section 903.110.c.4.A.1. is hereby amended to read as follows:
Temporary use of portable signs, banners not meeting the
provisions of B.1.i., pennants, window signs in excess of that
established below, and similar devices shall require a permit
pursuant to Section 903.110.F. of this ordinance. In the case of
single tenant buildings, a permit shall not be issued for more
than thirty (30) days nor shall a permit be issued within thirty
(30) days from the termination date of a prior permit. In no
case shall permits exceed three (3) in a calendar year or a total
of sixty (GO) days in a calendar year. In the case of multi-
tenant properties, a permit shall not be issued for more than
thirty (30) days. In no case shall permits exceed three (3) in a
calendar year per tenant, or a_total of_ sixty (60) days in a
calendar year per tenant. Further, no more than two (2) tenants,
or 50% of the tenants at one time, may possess temporary sign
permits at the same time. If spotlights are used in conjunction
with temporary signs, such lights shall not be operated during
more than five (5) days in conjunction with a single permit and
shall be placed in such a manner as to not constitute a traffic
hazard. Temporary signs shall be removed from display
immediately upon lapse of permit. Said signs shall be at least
five (5) feet from the property line. It is hereby noted that
sign permits for multiple tenant buildings may not be reallocated
from one tenant to another to increase the allowable number of
signs in any calendar year.
Section 2.
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and
after its passage and publication.
Adopted this 12th day of January, 2005.
William Blesener, Mayor
ATTEST: