Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-12-08 PZM
ar LAKE City of Lake Elmo EL M O 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Www.LakeElmo.Ora NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, May 12, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. March 24, 2008 b. April 14, 2008 4. Public Hearings a. NO PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Old Business a. Accessory Building Setbacks 6. New Business 7. City Council/Staff Updates a. May 6th - Community Growth Options Grant Application b. Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 8. Adjourn APPROVED AS PRESENTED 5-28-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Deziel, Fliflet, Hall, Helwig, McGinnis, Ptacek, Roth, and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt. Agenda There was a motion and a second to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Vote: 9:0. Minutes — March 24, 2008 Hall noted that he did not make a comment attributed to him on page two of the minutes. Klatt stated that he would review the meeting notes and make any appropriate corrections. Minutes — April 14, 2008 M/S/P, Hall/Anderson move to approve the minutes as presented. Vote 6:0 with three abstentions. Accessory Building Setbacks Planning Director Klatt reviewed the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission concerning recornmended updates to the Accessory Building provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. The changes proposed included: general district setbacks, the calculation of building height, language concerning the parking of passenger automobiles, and the calculation for attached and detached accessory structures. Hall questioned why averaging of the roof line and building elevation line was used for determining building height. Klatt responded that hipped -type roofs were generally allowed to extend higher than flat roofs since the overall massing for this type of roof is much less the same elevation compared to a flat roof Averaging is also used to help recognize that there is typically not usable space above the roof line of these structures. The Commission generally discussed how roof height is calculated. Klatt noted that the change proposed would not make a significant difference in the height of buildings that are built, but it would allow a consistent methodology be used for determining the maximum height of accessory buildings. Ptzacek commented that the City should not be concerned with what is going on inside of accessory buildings as long as the use is permitted in the underlying zoning district. Van Zandt responded that this statement was especially pertinent given the large numbers of recreation vehicles, boats, and other equipment found throughout Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-12-08 1 APPROVED AS PRESENTED 5-28-08 There was a general discussion concerning existing limits on the size of accessory buildings, and the specific restriction on the size of buildings used for automobile parking. The Commission reached a consensus to strike the existing Ordinance language specific to the parking of passenger automobiles. After reviewing the maximum size requirements for detached and attached structures, Ptacek expressed concern about treating all properties the same. Deziel indicated that he did not view the current size limits in the R-1 zone in particular as being too restrictive. The general consensus of the Commission was to leave the existing language concerning attached garage sizes alone, and to specifically not limit the size of attached garages in most zones, and to also keep the requirements that limit detached garage sizes on smaller residential parcels. The reasons for this decision included the following: allowing storage inside buildings was preferable to exterior storage and members of the Commission indicated that larger attached buildings would be better than larger detached structures. Ptacek stated that there should be some credit given for the vertical stacking of garage spaces in order to minimize the overall impact on a site. The Commission recommended measuring the size of a detached accessory building by footprint instead of gross floor area, and further suggested that no accessory building in residential districts be allowed to exceed the size of a principal structure. Klatt suggested that the accessory building standards either be incorporated into a master table or clearly identified as part of each zoning district's standards. After further discussion concerning the measurement of accessory building sizes, Klatt noted that he could provide the Commission with additional examples regarding the size and placement of detached buildings on lots. Other direction provided by the Commission included the following: to make the RE District accessory building setbacks the same as principal buildings in this district, to keep the Open Space district setbacks the same as well, to research the zoning for community centers within Open Space developments, and to set a height limit in agricultural zones for residential accessory buildings. The Commission asked to have a draft Ordinance brought back for review in draft form. Informational Items Klatt stated that the City Council had authorized an application for a Community Growth Options Grant. He noted that this grant opportunity could help provide funding for the Village Area planning work. Klatt informed the Commission that the meeting schedule had been adjusted to one meeting per month on the second Tuesday of each month. The fourth Tuesday will be available for meetings if needed. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-12-08 2 APPROVED AS PRESENTED 5-28-08 Adornment The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle K1att Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-12-08 3 FiL arm LAKE City of Lake Elmo jitEL M O 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Www.LakeElmo.Orq NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on WEDNESDAY, May 28, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. March 24, 2008 (with corrections) b. May 12, 2008 4. Public Hearings a. Zoning Text Amendments: i. General Administrative Sign Regulations ii. Agricultural Businesses iii. Sign Ordinance Provisions — Temporary Signs 5. Old Business 6. New Business 7. City Council Updates a. May 20 — Acceptance of Hidden Meadows (Rockpoint Church) Phase 1 Improvements 8. Adjourn DRAG' , , 3-24-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Hall, Fliflet, Helwig, McGinnis, Pelletier, Ptacek, and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Senior Planner Gozola. Agenda A motion was made a seconded to approve the agenda with the addition of an new business to appoint a secretary. Motion carried. Vote: 7:0. coda item under Minutes —March 28, 2008 There was a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2008 meeting. The motion carried with a vote of 5:0 with 2 abstentions. Public Hearing: 7934 Hill Trail North Septic System Variance Klatt presented a summary of the Staff report and related information concerning a request by Phil and Michelle Eason for a variance to allow the replacement of an existing septic system and drain field with a new one that does not meet the minimum setback requirements to a principal structure and property lines. He recommended approval of the request with conditions. Ptacek questioned why the septic system could not be moved to an alternative portion of the site. Phil Eason responded that there is a driveway located on the only portion of the site that would meet all setback requirements and that even if it could be moved, the soil in this area would be very compacted. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:19 P.M. No public comments were presented to the Commission. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20 P.M. M/S/P, Fliflet/Hall move to recommend approval of the variance with the conditions presented by Staff and with all as outlined in the review letter from the City Engineer. Vote: 7:0. Sign Code Update Gozola presented information concerning proposed amendments to the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that at this time, a draft ordinance had been assembled for discussion purposes and that this would be a first step towards a complete overhaul of the Lake Elmo Sign Ordinance. He reminded Commissioners of the sign issues brought forward by the Planning Department in the recent past. After reviewing these concerns with the City Council, Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 DRAB -, 3-24-08 the Council directed the Commission to consider certain portions of the code as a priority, including the sections related to off -premise signs for seasonal sales, off -premise signs related to real estate developments, and seasonal sales in rural residential areas. Gozola explained that the ordinance was drafted with a larger rewrite in mind. The City Attorney had also provided an opinion on specific issues associated with sign regulations. Fliflet asked if the current ordinance defined floriculture. Gozola responded that this use does show up in other parts of the code and would not be changed as part of the draft ordinance. The Commission generally discussed the time limits for signs, and suggested that a longer time period was needed for agricultural uses. Pelletier questioned who decides the classification of roadways in Lake Elmo. She suggested that too much signage can distract drivers and is a safety concern for transportation engineers. She asked if the needs of the school and city would be taken into account with the proposed ordinance. Gozola indicated that the current ordinance does not allow signs within any right-of- way and that the Commission could allow signs only along certain corridors. Fliflet did not agree with limiting seasonal sales to one sign, and expressed her preference for regulating development signs based on the size of the development. She suggested allowing more signage on large agricultural operations based on the size of the farm. Hall asked for clarification concerning the viewer reaction times included in the Staff presentation. Gozola replied that these times are calculated by determining how much time it would take drivers to comprehend a certain size message based on a set travel speed. JJelwig commented that he did not see why a developer would need to leavexsite for signage and recommended leaving,the code as presently written. Flifle( uuestioned how a development sign would he processed under the proposed ordinance. Gozola replied that this tvoc of sienage would fall under the category of permanent signs in the Ordinance. Ptacek requested an legal opinion concern the content neutral aspects of the sign code. The Commission debated the merits and drawbacks to allowing off -site advertising for development projects, noting that the benefits include helping get projects built in a timely manner by increasing their visibility and that it would allow all temporary signs to be regulated in a consistent manner. The drawbacks identified included the following: other forms of advertising are available to developers that are just as effective and all business would want equal treatment. The Commission was generally split on this aspect of the proposed ordinance and noted that consistency throughout the code was an important consideration. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 2 LDeleted: Hall J (Deleted: his fDeleted: these signs on site DRAJ• t; 3-24-08 Ptacek recommended that all on -site temporary signs be allowed on a scale based on the size of the parcel. Gozola suggested including language for spacing based on comments from other Commissioners. The Commission generally expressed agreement with the provisions allowing one off -site and one on -site sign for seasonal sales and also agreed that seasonal sales should be permitted in rural residential districts. Chairman Ptacek stated that he had received requests for public comments and asked that those citizens address the Commission at this time. Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue North, discussed the definitions for wayside stand and seasonal sales lot and that she would like to see both uses allowed in the rural residential district. She also requested that each seasonal business be allowed a total of three signs, whether on -site or off -site regardless of size and further explained that these types of signs are not up for a long period of time and that most farms have been using them for while. Ziertman suggested that signs be permitted based on products and growing seasons, noting that some seasonal businesses have three or more growing seasons to manage. Needing permission from property owners should also help limit the number of signs that will be installed. Gary Johnson of Bittersweet Farms addressed the Commission and stated that if cute, rural - wayside stands are desired in the community, than the City needs to allow signage for these - businesses. He explained that the most effective signs for agricultural businesses are along the roadside, and that it is necessary to direct customers to sales sites. He supported regulating the size of signs but not the number allowed. Johnson noted that new businesses in particular need a lot of signage to attract attention to their site. Gozola indicated that the next steps will be to update the City Council regarding the proposed ordinance revisions and then to come back to the Planning Commission with the formal ordinance changes, - Appointment of Secretary Ptacek asked for nominations for secretary since the current position was vacant. M/S/P. Pelletier/McGinnis, move to nominate Julie PliFlet for Planning Commission Secretary. Vote: 6:0. Informational Items Klatt explained that the Conditional Use Permit request by the Oakdale Gun Club had been withdrawn and that the City Council had reviewed and approved the Park Plan. Adornment Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 3 DRA1 , 3-24-08 The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Ptacek. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Klatt Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 4 DRAFT; 5-12-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 12, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Deziel, Fliflet, Hall, Helwig, McGinnis, Ptacek, Roth, and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt. Agenda There was a motion and a second to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Vote: 9:0. Minutes — March 24, 2008 Hall noted that he did not make a comment attributed to him on page two of the minutes. Klatt stated that he would review the meeting notes and make any appropriate corrections. Minutes — April 14, 2008 M/S/P, Hall/Anderson move to approve the minutes as presented. Vote 6:0 with three abstentions. Accessory Building Setbacks Planning Director Klatt reviewed the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission concerning recommended updates to the Accessory Building provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. The changes proposed included: general district setbacks, the calculation of building height, language concerning the parking of passenger automobiles, and the calculation for attached and detached accessory structures. Hall questioned why averaging of the roof line and building elevation line was used for determining building height. Klatt responded that hipped -type roofs were generally allowed to extend higher than flat roofs since the overall massing for this type of roof is much less the same elevation compared to a flat roof. Averaging is also used to help recognize that there is typically not usable space above the roof line of these structures. The Commission generally discussed how roof height is calculated. Klatt noted that the change proposed would not make a significant difference in the height of buildings that are built, but it would allow a consistent methodology be used for determining the maximum height of accessory buildings. Ptzacek commented that the City should not be concerned with what is going on inside of accessory buildings as long as the use is permitted in the underlying zoning district. Van Zandt responded that this statement was especially pertinent given the large numbers of recreation vehicles, boats, and other equipment found throughout Lake Elmo. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-12-08 1 DRAFT; 5-12-08 There was a general discussion concerning existing limits on the size of accessory buildings, and the specific restriction on the size of buildings used for automobile parking. The Commission reached a consensus to strike the existing Ordinance language specific to the parking of passenger automobiles. After reviewing the maximum size requirements for detached and attached structures, Ptacek expressed concern about treating all properties the same. Deziel indicated that he did not view the current size limits in the R-1 zone in particular as being too restrictive. The general consensus of the Commission was to leave the existing language concerning attached garage sizes alone, and to specifically not limit the size of attached garages in most zones, and to also keep the requirements that limit detached garage sizes on smaller residential parcels. The reasons for this decision included the following: allowing storage inside buildings was preferable to exterior storage and members of the Commission indicated that larger attached buildings would be better than larger detached structures. Ptacek stated that there should be some credit given for the vertical stacking of garage spaces in order to minimize the overall impact on a site. The Commission recommended measuring the size of a detached accessory building by footprint instead of gross floor area, and further suggested that no accessory building in residential districts be allowed to exceed the size of a principal structure. Klatt suggested that the accessory building standards either be incorporated into a master table or clearly identified as part of each zoning district's standards. After further discussion concerning the measurement of accessory building sizes, Klatt noted that he could provide the Commission with additional examples regarding the size and placement of detached buildings on lots. Other direction provided by the Commission included the following: to make the RE District accessory building setbacks the same as principal buildings in this district, to keep the Open Space district setbacks the same as well, to research the zoning for community centers within Open Space developments, and to set a height limit in agricultural zones for residential accessory buildings. The Commission asked to have a draft Ordinance brought back for review in draft form. Informational Items Klatt stated that the City Council had authorized an application for a Community Growth Options Grant. He noted that this grant opportunity could help provide funding for the Village Area planning work. Klatt informed the Commission that the meeting schedule had been adjusted to one meeting per month on the second Tuesday of each month. The fourth Tuesday will be available for meetings if needed. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-12-08 2 DRAFT; 5-12-08 Adornment The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Klatt Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 5-12-08 3 ITEM: REQUESTED BY: SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: Planning Commission Date: 5-28-08 Public Hearings Item: 4A Consideration of three separate ordinances to address all sign related issues currently before the City City Council Ben Gozola, Senior Planner Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Jerry Fills, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: At the 4-14-08 Planning Commission meeting, staff introduced a revised set of ordinances to address a number of immediate concerns regarding the existing sign code and seasonal sales businesses. The main issues Council wants immediately addressed include: 1) Amending the sign code to allow off -premises signs for seasonal sales businesses; 2) Amending the sign code to allow off -premises advertising signs for land developments; 3) Amending code to ensure seasonal sales are a permitted use in the RR district. Once all three issues have been successfully addressed, Council then authorizes staff to complete further work on revising the entire sign code. Timeline / Issues to Keep in Mind: To assist the commission in its review, the following is a summary of the major questions that were asked which resulted in the three ordinances now being considered. • What is the status of the current Lake Elmo sign code? The current Lake Elmo sign code follows a classic format for municipal sign regulation that can be found in many communities today. Different types of signs are identified (i.e. real estate signs, advertising signs, nameplate signs, etc) and various specific regulations are established for each type of permitted sign. Unfortunately, this ordinance structure has been declared unconstitutional by the courts in numerous instances when challenged by an applicant. Regulating signs based on content (i.e. having different requirements for real estate signs than you do for nameplate signs) is unacceptable under the first amendment as municipalities cannot favor one form of speech over another. In other words, what the sign says cannot not be relevant to whether the sign is allowed. Because it was believed that the current code is vulnerable to a First Amendment challenge, staff initially recommended addressing the city's three main concerns within the context of overall changes to the entire ordinance. • Can the existing ordinance be amended as desired without undergoing a complete overhaul? Minor amendments to address the City's off -premises advertising desires will not lessen the existing concerns about potential First Amendment challenges to code. However, that is not to say the City cannot proceed with the desired amendments now and return to address other issues at a later point in time. Rather, the City just needs to understand how to protect itself in as much as possible if it chooses to allow certain types of off -premises advertising within the current code framework. According to the City Attorney, he would not recommend that off -premises advertising signs be allowed unless all businesses were given the ability to have such signage. However, to address the City Council's immediate concerns, he believes a carefully crafted "purpose" statement could potentially be used as a vehicle to allow the desired off -premises advertising for agricultural sales businesses on the basis that such businesses are essential to the "preservation of rural character," and that such business cannot thrive without advertising allowances. The attorney did not come to the same conclusion regarding off -premises advertising for developments. • Is using a purpose statement to allow certain types of signs legally defensible? According to the City Attorney, the City could be open for a legal challenge to the ordinance, but there was no case law to indicate this couldn't be done in an effort to protect a significant government interest (in this case protecting rural character). While "protecting rural character" can arguably be used to support the allowance of off -premises advertising for the City's agricultural businesses, it is harder to make such a connection for off -site real estate advertising signs. Given that the current best practices on signs would not recommend using a purpose statement to allow off -premises advertising signs for specific business types, it is important for the Planning Commission to continue its assessment of concerns that arise due to this approach including: o Is the commission comfortable that allowing off -site advertising for agricultural businesses is important to preserving the community's rural character? o Why are developments being allowed off -site advertising? What important public interest is being served, and/or how does such signage allow the city to protect its rural character? o If off -premises development signs can be supported as serving a vital public interest, how do we differentiate which rural developments can have signs? For example, can standard 10 and 40 acre subdivisions have signs? OP subdivisions? Cluster developments? Only developments creating a certain number of lots? o Can the city clearly find that the right to have off -site real estate development signs is not linked strictly to providing an economic benefit for developers or landowners? In assessing these questions, staff came to the conclusion that off -premises advertising for developments is difficult to support, so we are recommending that such provisions no longer be considered. Off -premises signs for agricultural sales businesses can be supported provided the City understands the associated risks. • Why the three proposed ordinances instead of an entirely new sign code? In January, the City Council directed staff to address their immediate concerns before undertaking a complete overhaul of the City's sign ordinance. This approach required staff to utilize the City Attorney's recommended option of amending the sign purpose section to support the desired changes. Two working discussions have resulted in the proposed ordinances currently before the Commission. • What are the current best practices for signs codes? The accepted best practices for sign ordinances is to focus regulation on content neutral factors such as number, location, size, illumination and other physical characteristics that need to be regulated to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The ordinance must clearly Indicate that it is not the intent to regulate the message displayed on any sign, and should provide a clear methodology for reviewing and approving signs. Inclusion of a "substitution clause" is also recommended to reinforce that signs are not being regulated based on content. Essentially the substitution clause allows any noncommercial message to be substituted for any other message type on a sign allowed by the ordinance. Staff has done everything possible to ensure changes currently being proposed can be integrated into a complete sign code overhaul in the future using current best practices. For example, the ordinance focusing on sign administration includes the recommended "substitution clause" as well as a "severability clause." The severability clause would ensure that if a portion of the sign ordinance were declared unconstitutional, that the remainder of the ordinance would maintain its legal standing. The second ordinance proposes many clarifications to existing definitions and terms that are badly needed independent of the work currently being done on the sign ordinance. The only work that may not transfer to the future ordinance will be the changes proposed by the third ordinance which deals with off -premises advertising. Future work on the new sign code will determine how and if such signs can continue to be allowed. Current Status: Staff has considered comments from the public and the commission gathered as a result of the previous two working meetings, has prepared a revised set of three ordinances for consideration. The three ordinances separate the main issues being considered into the following categories: 1. An ordinance to amend general sign regulations; 2. An ordinance to amend agricultural sales uses; 3. An ordinance regulating off -site advertising signs The three proposed ordinances do not address all of the issues that would be examined with a complete sign code overhaul. For example, we did not analyze proper size restrictions for signs, impact on administrative and enforcement staff time, new lighting requirements or design standards for signs in general. However, the ordinances propose specific restrictions relating to the issues we are addressing. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission is asked to review the three attached executive summaries and ordinances, hold public hearings for each ordinance, and make recommendations for approval or denial for City Council consideration. ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction Ben Gozola, Senior Planner Report by staff Ben Gozola, Senior Planner - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members Open the Public Hearing for ordinance #1 (4a) Chair Facilitates Close the Public Hearing Chair Open the Public Hearing for ordinance #2 (4b) Chair Facilitates Close the Public Hearing Chair Open the Public Hearing for ordinance #3 (4c) Chair Facilitates - Close the Public Hearing Chair - Call for motions Chair Facilitates Discussion by the Commission on the motions Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS (9): 1. Updated legal opinion from Jerry Filla on off -premises advertising signs 2. Initial legal opinion from Jerry Filla on sign questions posed by staff 3. (4a): Executive Summary explaining the ordinance to amend general sign administration; 4. Ordinance # 1 An ordinance to amend general sign administration; 5. (4b): Executive Summary explaining the ordinance to amend agricultural sales uses; 6. Ordinance # 2 An ordinance to amend agricultural sales uses; 7. (4c): Executive Summary explaining the draft ordinance to regulate off -site advertising signs; 8. Ordinance # 3 (option A) An ordinance to regulate off -site advertising signs (does not allow for off -premises real estate development signs) 9. Ordinance # 3 (option B) An ordinance to regulate off -site advertising signs (maintains the previously considered language to allow for off -premises real estate development signs) Warren E. Peterson Jerome P. FiJla Daniel Witt Pram Glenn A. Bergman John Michael Miller Michael T. Obelle Steven H, Bruns* Paul W. Fahningt Sonia R, Ortiz Amy K. L. Schmidt Ben I. Rust Jonathan R, Cuskey tared M. Goerlitz P ERE,..A.v, FRAM BERGMAN LII Lill I:I a"I Isl h ',�ill.l LL� IUIV iedEl. S.IKI, 5 tl 'itlltl''aid �liJ ,, May 21, 2008 Susan Hoyt City Administrator City of Lake Elmo 3800 Laverne Ave. North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Lake Elmo Sign Regulations Our File No.: 11135.08-1 Susan: Suite 800 55 Leer Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101-1718 16511 291-8955 1660 728-1754 Fat:Wmfie www.ptb•pa.com (651)290.6907 Ifllla(pofp-oa cQ,lp You have inquired regarding the ability of the City to regulate and possibly differentiate between off premises temporary seasonal sales signs and other types of off premises advertising signs. Advertising signs contains messages about products or services that are offered for sale at locations other than the premises on which the sign is located, Advertising signs are a form of commercial speech. Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment from unwarranted governmental regulation. The U.S. Supreme Court has developed a four point test to determine if a governmental regulation of commercial speech is constitutional: 1. Does the speech concern a lawful activity and is it not misleading? 2. Is the regulation justified by a substantial government interest? 3. Does the regulation advance the government interest? 4. Is the regulation more extensive than necessary to serve the government interest? Clearly the City has the authority to regulate off premises advertising signs. The protection of public safety and the elimination of unnecessary visual clutter are recognized as substantial government interests. The main question becomes: Can the City define a substantial government interest in a way that allows It to permit temporary off premises seasonal sales signs, but prohibit other types of off premises advertising signs? 'ALSO ADMITTED IN Vt iE CONSa\ Susan Hoyt May 21, 2008 Page 2 In order to support different treatment of these types of off premises advertising signs, the City might rely on its goal of maintaining a rural character in the face of pending development, and argue that it allows off premises seasonal sales signs in order to further this goal. Unfortunately I can find no existing case law which identifies the goal of maintaining a rural character as a substantial government interest. However, the argument could be made if the City is challenged on this type of regulation. Based upon current case law, my specific recommendation is not to differentiate between types of off premises advertising signs, but to prohibit all of them. If the City chooses to allow temporary off site seasonal sales signs, the regulation should be specific as to time, placement and sign dimensions, and should be supported by a statement in the purpose section of the sign code. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very my yours, JPF/jmt BOO N89127'53"E J64 55 VICINITY MAP (Nor T SCALE) 114 Nrc its v. SIM sea21-I29N-R211V MIDWEST Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc. 1 & C't 81 'I I L 589'36'04"W TORRE PINES 2ND ADDITION II ToRREJ w 7 44L24 11 `-Sou/: lino of Lot 15, Block 1, TORRE PINES 10 a GRAPHIC SCALE D w fro ..I..l IS TREE NORTH g N89127'53"E 349.56 1067.35 zoo MI MI IN MIN SCALE N 66L 1 inch =100 feet NOTES: ORIENTATION OF N115 BEARING SYSTEM l5 RASED UPON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY COORDINATE SYSTEM, NAO 83. O - DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON PIPE SET, arc A PLASTIC CAP INSCRIBER BIS 10947",, WHICH HAS BEEN SET OR BILL BE SET IN ACCORDANCE WITH MR 505.021. 5000. 10. • - BENBIES I/2 INCH IRON PIPE FOUND, MARK(➢ RLS I➢947 $ -comas WASHINGr0N COUNTY MONUMENT -I -R 218BJ re NET LAND 25556 N6 60 75 0 !.1 1 bath I/4 corner Soc21-L2/N-R.2IW Washington County Cosi Iron Monument DRAINAGE AND UTILITY CASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS. r12 b L___ I I DE/NC 6 FEET IN WIDTH. UNLESS OTHERWISE (NOWWATEO. AND ADJOINING 5/0£ LOT LINES AND 12 FEET IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING RIGHT -OE -WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON WE PUT. MOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: Thal Meehan Focally. LW. a Minnesota limited liability company. lee owner, of /M1e following 4.04E4 properly :/mated in the County Washmpron, Stale of Minnesota. la wl/, Lot I5, Block I, TORRE PINES pc/i/o =dr/iff a bllo un Iorew�he d emameolsdma/ 1 bE LM0ESI l % r drol nog antld of16/M1ereb5 danolel red dedicate to the pu pu Y P c Pe on Y Purpeaas nY. in witness whereof sold Meehan Family, LLC, o Mlnnesal llmlled flabbily .ampany hos caused These presenb /c be signed by Rs proper of Meer this day of MEEHAN FAMILY, LLa m,. Palrlcla Ann Meehan - STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged be/ore me MTh _ day f 200 . by POWmo Ann Meehan as of Meehan Family, I1C. a Minnesota thrilled IIcbil//y company, on bebol/ al the company Notary Pubec Count'. Mlnnesalo. My commission expires I hereby Redly Mal I have surveyed and plaited or dneolly supervised IM1e survey and platting al Me pmpmhy described on t6 plat as MIRE PINES 2N0 ADDITION; Mai this plot is a correct representation of the boundary survey. Mot all mathematical dab and labels ore correctly designated on the plat; Thal all monuments depicted on the plat have Mean will be oily se/ wNAin a year as Indicated an the plat; p Mal all water boundaries and I lands v defined In M.S. 505.01, Sabel, S existing as of date of this cem0calbn are shown and laeled an the plat and mat allpublic ways an shown and labeled on the plat. Rodney H. Halvorson, Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 10947 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing surveyor's cerNRoale wax acknowledged be/are me Ih/s _der of by Rodney N. Halvorson, Land Surveyor, Minnesota License Na. 10947. Notary Pu61/c County, Minnesota. My commission expire" 20o CITY OF LAKE £(M0, MINNC50TA rM1ls cm was approved and 2000 pled and hereby the by certifies C,ouncllacoraplla5n f Me Cityawllh all £requirements las set forth In Ml neaal0 Slalulee, Secllon 505.03, Subd. 2. By , Mayor By: . Clerk WASHINGTON COUNTY SURVEYOR Pursuant le Chapter 820, Laws of Mlnneacla. 1971, this plot has been approved this day of , 200 . I/O 6; Washington County Surveyor WASIIINCIDN COUNTY AUMTOR/IREASU£R There o o delinquent loxes, the e/ loxes due and payable for the year 20 been entered lids day of moment 200_ By, Br WasM1inglon County Avdlb /I-receaer Depuy WASHINGTON COUNTY RECORDER have been poll,, and transfer hos Document Number I hereby certify IM1a0 this Instrument was recorded In the Office of the County Recorder for remand an lhfs day of ,200 at o'clock .M. and wos duly recorded /n Washington County Records. By Washington County Recorder BY. Deputy DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF TORRE PINES 2ND ADDITION for Scale: 1 " = 100' — The orientation of this Bearing System Is based upon the recorded plat of TORRE PINES. — Total area Is 10.00 acres or 435,803 S.F. - The property Is zoned Residential Estates (RE) I I`1 2.5k ACRES ROSITA MEEHAN 740 Marshall Ave. St. Paul, MN 55104 651-292-1305 2.50 ACRES I 2 1 S T — 1 14 2.50 ACRES r�t 1 / Bove c •.; 4' 4, ''.'17• �4,64 * 4' 4' *• * J - t W .••••b°•••• • 4 W ° ' W 4, W • • *IN • • k tt lb 1 6.3 . 60 f Ioo I re) 1 i_o _ / I o I r --I Z `� Vco IN i to / n 2.50 ACRES / / / \ \�\ ::ONE PE // el � (;,JIL _.— STREET—'--- _-- , 0 IL S89'27'53"W 513.34 36.E —1 I— / / \ / 1 1002 \I i 2.50 ACRES FBSWO I(108,900 S.F.) 999 L 1� JI \\ \ ,• 364.55 ,- - MID1EST Lend Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc. 710 East River Rood Anoka, Mn. 55303 Ph. 763-712-9099 Fax: 763-712-9055 Job No. 05-234 Book —Page DCF N00'32'07"W 298.28 Acad FAe 05-234a2 ©2008 — Midwest Land Surveyors & Ci41 Engineers, Inc. — All Rights Reserved. J L ( .54 ACRES i A 1J 21ST STREET S89'27153"W 349.56 r gat a 0 i\ �\ z \ \ /n \ \ 4 N : 148.79 \ \ ( \ \ \ w / / / \ \ / �1.' \50.4.aM 7 996 2 \ \ 5o.7y \ 2.50 Acres"� N 1 13 FWO rp (109,085 S.F.) 1 cal O 989 2.50 ACRES 5y,5 I \ 2.00 Acres m (108,900ACRESS.F.) 1 RM - \\ (87,198 S.F.) `� Z 0 1.8. ACRES DUILDA LEC ' \ �\ II \ (78,999 S.F.) F /r WATER 1\ \\ — —) / - P, / POND \� DRAINAGE \ / N•••••_ • \\ � `T EASEMENT �. \` •' ** ' ft ® Z 75 \�= I-- o7-Y i 447.24 1067.35 N89'36404"E .••.•q•y.y. W 4, •y ••'• -_.•v 4' W W %•••. ZONE La, ..••V•' • .................... • • y y• DESCRIPTION Lot 15, Block 1, TORRE PINES, Washington County, Minnesota. 7 / I Qi? co t0 , t °' 1 N 2.50 Acres :lei \\ \\ \ I(108,918 S.F.) `�j \? \\ \ / � / \6\\ \'�/ \ To be \ .� removed '1 2, 218.8 16tJ •�' , WZONE A+ . N V C 48" M P ••''o•+ WETL4NEY W ""'— _� c, LL W W W W W W W I20 • v •iY y W W W I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 12th day of June , 2008. By , /.Gnici 2 F'� " Registration No. 25343 Jame/,✓ E Napier — Minnesota Licensed Land Surveyor .OTES I hereby certify that this survey, pion ar report was prepared by me Cr under my direct oupemalon and that I an duly registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stole of Mlnnasoto Reg No 10947 Date S-ZS-95 1 0 f l I `---= " Jii "A 7 < f < TYPICAL CONFIGURATION OF LOT DETAIL LOTS MUST BE CONFIGURED TO CONTAIN A CIRCLE WITH A DIAMETER Di 250 FEET MINIMUM TORRE PINES PRELIMINARY PLAT .703 )IbryCTH 1NE q fF 11E SOUTH ), 2 OFFpfE: 5W 1/4" tvt-Me yq� _'i_,W ,-mom_-.�.�-_038ii1 its- " _T • .16 <--1 rla,., . 2 x,wa s___ctiiPa,r NV. I r-L i--7-_ ij _ II II x.m ACRES : \,, I Ili I0 SOUTH LINE OFT E SEC, 21. T. 29, R.21 2.50 .ACRES TOTAL ACRES OE LOT (1.97 ACRE!) TOTAL ACRCC ES OW or EX IS b,6;:r/ski\ 71 1. '�. IrOFND ________ E%TINO CONTOUR 2' INTERVALS ENL0TIN0 CONTOUR 10' INTERVALS owe. x IXISIIIW SPOT ELEVATOR 9 POWER POLE CMIm110 TREE E1NE STORM SEWER WETUND AS DELINEATED ByyABUO ENVIRONMENTAL. INC. 4-05 STANDARD STREET Mend. mai Bo. SCALE IN FEET LioLac 1 Inch 100 ft = .. MINIMUM LOT SIZE 2.5 ACRES (1.25 EXCLUDING DRAINAGE EASEMENTS) MINIMUM FRONTAGE STREET 150 FEET CUL-DE-SAD 70 FEET BUILDING SETBACKS 100 FOOT STREET 50 FOOT 510E YARD 80 FOOT SIDE STREET 100 FOOT REAR YARD 150 FOOT COLLECTOR STREET PRESENT ZONNING: R.R. (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) PROPOSED ZONNING: R.E. (RESIDENTIAL ESTATES) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE SOUTH HALF OF THE S\W 1\4 OF SECTION 21, T. 29 N., R. 21 W. WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNE50TA. TOTAL AREA = 78.43 ACRES WATERSHED DISTRICT: VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS = 24 TOPO BY MARKHURD TOPOGRAPHY BY PHOTOGRAMMETRIC METHODS. PHOTOS TAKEN APRIL, 1991. i_REPLACE is- CAP IB'RCP SEC90N r' N 6 4`N VICINITY MAP SECTION 21. T29N, R21W NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL LOT DETAIL 1 1 STREET J r DEVELOPER: ROYAL OAKS REALTY 4196 LEXINGTON AVE. SHOREVIEW, MN. 55126 (612) 463-5518 MIDWEST Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc. I00nCoon Rapids Bird Ede, Yn 66493 P0. 012-T00-0PoO 01E-200-0200 Job No. 144-1 B M-6a 1u-1 A a lr ESIa:A31ER170412210E 2 IHpA A2 4AMitt ME MOWN IX1120. PLAT) • STRIP TOP E4 b. GRADE SITE ▪ TONNE 010041ED AREAS 3. sEs3 mo NSW 0SIUMED ARMS (NM 14 DAYS FROM 6MNE1a101 Gomm) 4. 1T4TYCp15MUDTW e STREET ax5TRD211R /' EM MD Mlaal HEAPrR6WME.9 / '6, "., 1:12R 14 DAR 4RCY CLWREEAI E a100D) 41 1 \4 S WMa1AL WM1aPS pFW.7IE E0E a1D90R CDNIKI •P \AM r®Sg l EP;Noio Ca1E1RUCGMI 1 hereby certify that this plan. specification of report was prepared by me or under my direct SUpervMlon that am a nd red ProfesoionalaEn9neer hinder thel laws ofethe State of Minnesota. Dote S-2E-05 Regiotratlon No. I8153 iHit ions ANTE TH_"r TORRE PINES GRADING PLAN DIa < \ LANDSCAPING DETAILS TYPICAL TREE BOULEVARD DETAIL G'(TYPa -1 man or %AY UNE i-� 9 EETEO MN Of ROAD l a' 9 Q RIME OF WAY ME NOT TO SCALE \02 0 6 00LN�ax00MIS.) TREES SHALL BE PLACED EVERY 50 FEET EACH SIDE OE THE ROAD. THE WILL BE B' MADE NE RIGHT OF WAY. APPROXIMATELY 170 TREE 10 BE POURED i LEGEND ___________ EMIBIIXD EDIFIES/II 2' INERVAIE --P00--- EKISTIHE CONTOUR IV IHTER4ALS EISWIN SPGT EIEV41o1 O POWER POLE •vti`M EMMEN TREE UNE >-- —4 STORM SEWER ..n...........w. WNMP BOUNDARY e I AS DEUHEAIE➢ BY AAIb EK11201111ENTAL. RIO. 4-95 • 040400W TEST AREA SCALE IN FEET LJ J.� 1 laeh - 100IL / ROES: 1: DNAl161EW TEST AREAS SHOWN ARE As LOCATED BY DARE EHUH, PER 00 REPORT DATED 7-I9-45 PREPARED BY DALE LRUN, MPCA CERTIPIGTION /695 $: DRAIHFIEW AREAS SHALL BE MARKED OFF IN 11E FLEW PR10R 10 COMMENCING SITE 011A01110. MINIMUM LOT SIZE A5 M. (1.15 EKCWMNO 06*400E EASEMENT) MINIMVM FENIIAOE STREET 150ECF CUL-OE-SAC 70 PEET WIIDIHD SETBACKS 50 FOOT SIDE YARD M FOOT RIDE STREET 100 FOOT REAR YARD 100 FOOT FRONT YARD 150 TOOT COLLECTOR STREET WATERSHED 0111111411 VEND (VALLEY BRANCH WATERSHED DISTRICT) TOTAL SNGIE FAMILY LOIN 20 IN FIRE PHASE TOTAL ,111 SEODNO PHASE 4..:<N T.el SECTION 16 VICINITY MAP SECTION 21. T29N, R21W NOT TO SCALE TYPICAL LOT DETAIL 1 ^�-��� inewse melt - SP FB SMV FNO FBMO FBSWO MEBSN0 1Fe*40 Nun 1REEf_ BUILDING TYPE LEGEND EPUT LOT PULL OASt0EK1 SPUT wALKpIT PULL BASEURI1 w4AKBUT u BASNENr Loon WT NLL BASEMENT SPOT WA1(WT NWlflm NLL BASEMENT SPLIT WALKOUT FULL BASEMENT FLEA WALKOUT MCOIFIW NLL B/SNNT LOOM OW DEVELOPER: ROYAL OAKS REALTY 4196 LEXINGTON AVE. SHOREVIEW, MN. 55126 (612) 483-5518 MIDWEST Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc. OW Coon RAPE, Blvd Pide. Ma. 5664333 Ph. B12-Y09-BWR 612-7BB-9200 !oh No. 144-T 2 k-Pas 113T1 An d m 144-7 March 24, 2008 Susan Hoyt Lake Elmo City Administrator 3800 Luverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, MN 55042 RE: Sign Regulations Dear Susan: Direct DIaI #(651) 290-6907 )fllla@pfb-pa.com VIA EMAIL This correspondence should be read in conjunction with Mr. Gozola's email dated March 18, 2008: 1 Content Neutral. AContent neutral@ generally means that a regulation seeks to exact a control that is completely separate from the actual message that is conveyed. The focus of the regulation is on the time (when a message may be displayed), place (where a message may be displayed) and manner (how a message may be displayed, or the type of display structure) of the message. When a court reviews a content neutral sign regulation for constitutionality it applies an intermediate scrutiny standard, which looks at whether the regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. Conversely, if a sign regulation is not content neutral, a reviewing court would apply a strict scrutiny standard. Under this test, to survive a constitutional challenge, a sign regulation must be justified by a compelling government interest; be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest; and be the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. Mr. Gozola illustrates three signs and asks whether they can be legally distinguished. At the present time, I don't think they are legally distinguishable. A regulation that applies to one will probably have to be applied to all of the illustrated sign types. 2. Temporary Sian Interpretation. The following provisions of the Lake Elmo City Code need to be reconciled when considering where temporary signs can be located: Susan Hoyt March 20, 2008 Page 2 ® Advertisina Sian. A sign that directs attention to a business or a profession or to a commodity, service or entertainment not sold or offered upon the premises, where the sign is located or to which it is attached (Lake Elmo Code Section 11.01). ■ Off Premises Advertisina Sians. Off premises advertising signs except as regulated in Sections 151.115 et. seq. (these types of signs are prohibited in all zoning districts of the City -Lake Elmo Code 151.120(6)(3)). ■ Temporary Sians. Temporary signs may be allowed for special business events, such as business openings and closings, change in management, district -wide shopping events or other special occasions for fifteen (15) days maximum, by permit from the City Planner. The City may grant a permit to locate signs or decorations on, over or within the right-of-way for a specified period of time. (Lake Elmo Code Section 151.118(B)(5)). A reviewing court would attempt to interpret the above City Code Sections in a manner that makes sense of all of the provisions. When I attempt to reconcile the above City Code Sections, I conclude: A. A temporary sign located off the premises of the entity identified on the face of the sign is an off premises advertising sign and is prohibited. B. Since the City clearly did not intend to prohibit temporary signs, it must have intended that the temporary sign would be located only on the premises of the business identified on the face of the sign. A person can obtain a temporary permit for a`maximum of fifteen (15) days. Unfortunately, the City Code does not indicate whether Ws fifteen (15) consecutive days; or fifteen (15) days per month; or fifteen (15) days per year. Obviously, this part of the code needs to be clarified. ( D. I have no idea as to what was intended by the phrase "district wide shopping event". E. The last sentence of Section 151.118 (B) (5) could be construed to apply to city, county, and state roads. However, I would interpret it to mean city roads because the city does not the have the authority to regulate the use of county or state roads. Susan Hoyt March 20, 2008 Page 3 3. Impact of chanaina code to allow off -site advertisina sians for seasonal sales or real estate developments. If the City allows temporary off -site advertising signs for seasonal sales and real estate development but, does not allow other businesses to use off -site temporary advertising signs, its regulation could be challenged by other businesses as being unconstitutional because they would be denied equal protection of the law. I n regard to seasonal sales signs, the City might try to expand the purpose section of the Sign Code to illustrate why seasonal sales of agricultural and horticultural products help the City maintain its image of rural character and to indicate why the use of temporary seasonal sale signs is important to support this concept but it would still be subject to some risk of litigation. However, I could find no case law to support the view that maintaining the rural character of a city is a significant government interest but, the argument could be made if the purpose sections are carefully tailored. If you have any questions, please contact me. Very truly yours, Jerome P. Filla JPF:as c: Ben Gozola Kyle Klatt Planning Commission Date: 5-28-08 Public Hearing Item: 4A (i) ITEM: Consideration of an ordinance to amend the administrative language governing signs in Lake Elmo REQUESTED BY: City Council SUBMITTED BY: Ben Gozola, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Jerry Filla, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is asked to review an ordinance to update the administrative language governing signs in Lake Elmo. The main issues addressed by this ordinance include: 1. The application process for permanent signs vs. temporary signs. During a prior discussion on signs, the planning commission recognized a need to create a less intensive application process for temporary signs given their nature and to make the application/review process for temporary signs less formidable. As proposed, applications for permanent signs will require detailed engineering plans showing location and structural integrity. Applications for temporary signs primarily require general site plans to show location and sign dimensions. 2. Determination of sign "area" measurement. Current city code does not define how the size of a sign is to be calculated. This new section ensures all signs will be measured in a uniform manner. 3. Determination of sign "height" measurement. Like sign area, the current city code is silent on how to calculate sign height. This new section ensures the height of all signs will be measured in a uniform manner. 4. Severability clause. The proposed "severability clause" will ensure that if a portion of the sign ordinance was ever struck down, that the remainder of the ordinance would still remain legally in place. 5. Substitution clause. The proposed "substitution clause" gives any property owner the right to substitute non-commercial speech in lieu of permitted commercial signage if desired. The substitution clause is an important component in modern sign codes to ensure the ordinance is constitutional, and to reinforce that the city is not regulating signs based on content. What chanaes resulted from the 4-14-08 meetina_ ? As requested, staff has made the following changes to the latest ordinance draft: 1. Definitions for "Permanent Sign" and "Temporary Sign" have been added. 2. "Applicant Certification" was removed from required application materials. Staff borrowed this provision from another ordinance used as a template for application materials. After the 4-14-08 discussion, we would agree that this language is unnecessary given that staff will ultimately determine if an application is complete or incomplete. 3. Temporary sign permit application now requires specific timeframes. The main reason for requiring a temporary sign permit is to allow the City to track when such signs are allowed to be erected. This minor change simply requires that the four 45-day periods for such signs be denoted on the permit application. 4. Application requirements for temporary sign permit renewals has been added. Given that the city will have the information It needs on permitted temporary signs in its files, the application requirements for a renewal can be relaxed. This separate process would also provide a distinction in code that can be linked to the fee schedule differentiation between a new temporary sign permit and a renewal. Whv are these chanaes beina made? All of the changes proposed by this ordinance will be integrated into the major sign code overhaul being completed in the coming months. Incorporating these changes into the existing ordinance at this time adds needed clarification to the interim code, and adds additional defensibility against legal challenges at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed ordinance, conduct a public hearing, and make a recommendation on any needed changes for consideration by the City Council. If consensus cannot be reached on a proposed ordinance, the item can be tabled for further consideration at a future meeting. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction Ben Gozola, Senior Planner Report by staff Ben Gozola, Senior Planner - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members Open the Public Hearing Chair Close the Public Hearing Chair - Call for a motion Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS (1): 1. Draft ordinance to amend the administrative language governing signs in Lake Elmo. (;) CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND GENERAL SIGN REGULATIONS Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lalce Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definitions: "Permanent Sign" - A sign constructed of durable materials designed tv exist far_1he duration of time that the use or occupant is located on the urenaises. "Temporary Sian" Any slim intended for display over a short period of time. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.116 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 151.116 PERMIT REQUIRED (A) A-h-sig , .i-t-asset-;iwth :n ; ] 51.1 15 A'seg.No sign shall be erected, altered. reconstructed, maintained or moved in the city without first_securinga_perniit fmtn the aity_The_conten„t-ui the pressage_ar speech, displayed on the sign shall not he reviewed or considered in determining whether to annrove or deny a slim hermit. (B) Permanent Signs. A sign pertrrn a l eati orriaini infonnation .hull be filed with the-- 4y4htnHeeTo amply fora permanent sign nerrnit. a complete application shall be submitted to the City containing the Col lowing_ -1-.-A-dfHiuirtt*,-ef-the-preposed-sigu;<-rr iges; shewtn-g-dimensien&tad deseribiag mate ials;--letter+rrbreole-r-s411- trninatienrancl-support--system-st IP-Ireteg'aphs-efthe-but-ldint;thee,atxl-thebrri-ldiing-{'aces-oE-het -adjueeeet htrilthingst -3-d-rctwi-ng-of•the-building face-ctndsite-piaa-showing•the-leoatiee-ef the prepese(1--signks}4f-neeessaryt 4.A cress-seeticn-af-the--huilding fateihowing-hte-w-the-sign-wilt-be-auitehedl end -he a�ill-ex-ieriel r. em-the-bpildingt Page 1 of 5 5-Any #sic car-ittl-prto'f-or-other-i-n rmafiion t#n4{4he-s•'rtn-is ef-histerieal oenee-et a -cep a.,eMewef-enhistor' s-a re- mite_-anei siI-i' ��n to-si�tt-a p»' 1'r" , f} fl-l3tai lE#rn�sigt}plan-ti�F++-liatic#it}g--wi{k� nroro-tlt+,nrl-�e�>t= business; showing--all-sign s.• 1. Names and addresses of the applicant, owners of the sian, and lot; 2. The address at which the sign(slareto be erected 3. 'fhe leeal description of the property on which the sian(s) are to be erected and the street on which they are to front: 4. A complete set of scaled plans showinu the sian dimensions, area, heieht, ground eleyafions,_applicable setbacks, and other details to fitlly and clearly represent the safe construction and placement of the proposed sign(s); 5. Tyne of sien(s) beinu requested (i.e. wall sian, monument sien, etc.): _fhe_permit feel and 7. The following.ifapplicable: a__ Written authorization .corn the rpperty owner upon who's land the sian is to he erected. b=_,A permit from either MnDOT or Washineton County if the proposed sian is alone a state hiehwav or countyroad. A sin elan showine signs for all businesses if the sian is located on a building with more than one business. dd. Photographs of the buildiva face and the building lacesof both adiacent hrtildines if the sian is beine placed on an esistine structure.. e. If replacina a historical shut pictorial proof or other information that the sian is of historical siunificance or is a reproduction of a historic sign. c. (C) Temporary Siens. To apply for a hermit to allow a temporary shin, a complete application shall he submitted to the City containine the Col lowinu: I. Names and addresses of the applicant, owners ofthe sign, and lot: 2. The address at which the sign(sjare to be erected Agenerali7_edplan setshowine the sian dimensions and heieht, and a notation of the materials to he used. Page 2 of 5 4. A scaled site elan which clearly renresents the placement of the proposed si>li(s)on ihe_apPlicable_properly 5. The uronosed timeframc(s) over which the sien(s) will be.posted; 6. The permit fee: and 7. The following if applicable: a. Written authorization from the nropey owner upon who's ]and the sign is to be erected. b. A hermit from either MnDOT or Washington County if the uronosed sign is along a state highway or county road. (1)) Temporary Sian Renewal. A temporary sign permit issued by the City may be renewed provided the sign design. size. location, or other previously approved details are not proposed to change. A sign renewal application shall includpthe following_ l,,_Names and addressesofthe applicant,pwners of tilesign andlot; 2, 1'he address at which the sign(s) are to he erected: 3. The date of issuance ol'the permit being renewed: ;_The proposed timeframejsjover which the sign(s) will be posted; 5. Written authorization from the pronertv owner unon who's land the sign is to he erected (if applicable): and 6. The permit renewal fee. (El Review. The planning department shall approve or deny complete sign permit annlications upon receipt of a com.nlete annlication. lithe permit is denied. the planning department will send a written notice of denial to the applicant. The written notice will indicate the reason(s) for denial and a description of the applicant's anneal rights. Page 3 of 5 Section 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.118 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 151.118 SIGNS; GENERALLY. (A) The following provisions apply to signs located in all zoning districts. Current Section 151.118. subdivision (B)(1) through (12) and its subdivisions are restated and incorporated herein without change. (131 Cornaulutiens. Dimensions of signs shall be calculated in the following manner; a. Sian Area Measurement. The area of a sign shall be computed by_means of the smallest rectangle within which a single sign face can be enclosed. When a sign has two back-to-back sien faces containing lien CODV. thesign area for lust one face is counted toward the allowed sie n area. Poles. bases. and other supports shall not be included in the sign area calculation. b. Sign Heieht Measurement The height of the sign shall he computed as the vertical distance measured front the average tirade at the base of the sien to the ton of the highest attached component of the sien. Figure 2: Sian Height Measurement SIGN I 1 Height of dgn from aver grade to the sign top Page 4 of 5 lure 1: Sian Area Measurement zlFHANNEL L LETTERS Width ♦-- midpoint of average grade Section 4. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.125 is hereby added to read as follows: Section 151.125 SUBSTITUTION CLAUSE. The owner of am/ sign which is otherwise allowed by this sign ordinance may substitute non-commercial sneech signs in lieu of am/ other commercial speech sign or other non-commercial speech sign. The purpose of this provision is to prevent any inadvertent favoring of commercial speech over non-commercial speech, or favoring of any particular non-commercial speech over any other non-commercial speech. This provision prevails over any more specific provision to the contrary. Section 5. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.126 is hereby added to read as follows Section 151.126 SEVERABILITY. 1f any section, subsection, sentence, clauseu2r.phrase in sections 151. 115 through 151.125 are for anv reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Sign Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Sign Ordinance in each section, subsection, sentence, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections. subsections. sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. Section 6. Adoption Date This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. This Ordinance No. was adopted on this day of , 20 , by a vote of_ Ayes and Nays. Mayor Dean Johnston ATTEST: Susan Hoyt City Administrator This Ordinance No. was published on the day of , 2008. Page 5 of 5 Planning Commission Date: 5-28-08 Public Hearing Item: 4A (ii) ITEM: Consideration of an ordinance to amend agricultural business definitions and regulations REQUESTED BY: City Council SUBMITTED BY: Ben Gozola, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Jerry Filla, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is asked to review an ordinance to clarify allowed agricultural sales uses in the City of Lake Elmo. Current city code contains references to numerous land uses that allow sales of agricultural goods. _Unfortunately, some of these uses are defined while others are not, and each use is typically only allowed in one zoning district (even though the operations can typically be found throughout the City). This effort is intended to simplify the existing agricultural sales uses into three categories, and to ensure those uses are allowed or conditionally permitted in the proper zoning districts. These clarifications, in turn, will then be used to complete the requested interim changes to the sign ordinance. What are the current land uses that allow for the sale of agricultural goods? The terms in code that staff identified as allowing the sale of agricultural goods (or having an impact on such sales) include: • "Agriculture" - The production or sale of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, fur - bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock, fruits of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees, and apiary products. • "Common Gardens" - Land used by residents of a development for the production of trees, vegetables, fruits, and flowers. • "Community Service Agriculture" - Horticulture and floriculture that serves the local area. • "Farm, Rural" - The portion of a 10 or more acre parcel of land in the Rural Residential Zoning District which is devoted to agriculture by the property owner or by a lessee of the property owner. • "Farm, Suburban" - A suburban farm is a non-commercial, food -producing use primarily intended for the use of the residents, and usually on less than 10 contiguous acres. Suburban agricultural uses may include production of crops such as fruit trees, shrubs, plants, flowers, vegetables, and domestic pets. • "Floriculture" - The cultivation and management of ornamental and flowering plants for sale on site from a wayside stand. • "Horticulture" - The cultivation and management of trees, plants, grasses, vegetables, and fruits for sale on site from a wayside stand. «open Sales Lots" — Lands devoted to the display of goods for sale, rent, lease, or trade, where the goods are not enclosed within a building. "seasonal Open Sales Lot' — currently has no definition in code. Under permitted uses in • the "A" district, seasonal open sales lots are described as being for "sales [ot] agricultural and horticultural products produced on the premises." When read with the definition of "open sales lots," one concludes that agricultural and horticultural products must be sold from an open lot and not within a structure. • "Wayside Stand" — A structure used for the seasonal retail sale of agricultural goods, floriculture, and horticulture produced by the operator of the wayside stand on site or on other property in Lake Elmo. How are these terms currentiv used in city code? The following table illustrates the zoning district in which each of the uses can be established, restates what the use allows, and Indicates if the use is permitted or conditionally permitted. ai o P. y�Ug QUO Co4nercial AgriVVure or A, RR, OP Holure:, on ens Co pity 'ice A re Unlisted Unlisted A, RR Subur A, RR, OP Flo OP Hon A, RR, OP The use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental, or trade of products, goods, and services Common use of land for the production of trees, vegetables, fruits, and flowers. Defined as horticulture and floriculture that serves the local area. Produce or sell livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, fur -bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock, fruits of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees, and apiary products..,.. Non commercial production of crops such as fruit trees, shrubs, plants, flowers, vegetables, and domestic pets. Cultivation and management of ornamental andflowering,plants_ Cultivation and management of trees, plants, grasses, vegetables, and fruits Permitted' Unlisted Unlisted Permitted Permitted Conditionally Permitted Permitted' 1 Agricuently permitted in the A, RR, and OP zoning districts. However, in OP, horticultural servic current definitions are part of Agriculture) is a conditionally permitted use. This ordinaose a fix to this conflict. 2 Hortic ntly allowed in the "RR" zoning district via the terms "agriculture" and/or "rural farm." "Floricy allowed in OP as the term does not appear in the definitions for "agriculture" or "rural farm:' (listed as a permitted use in the OP district. This will also be addressed with this ordine d ! vo o let Sell, rent, lease or trade goods from an open lot. No goods may be enclosed within a As ? building. g ten Sell agricultural and horticultural products .ot A j produced on the premises in an open field (no goods within a building). Sell goods produced by the operator of the U1d OP stand on -site or on other property in LE. Goods must be sold from a structure. GB I Conditionally Permitted . hoerations currently exist (or have historically been used) in Lake Elmo? Given ells late and staff's research on the history of these uses, we suggest the following are the ertinent to Lake Elmo: mercial agricultural operations —farms operated for the growing and selling of cultural products. -commercial agriculture — the non-commercial production of crops such as fruit shrubs, plants, flowers, and vegetables (essentially the definition of "suburban 3" less the provision for breeding domestic pets), tonal Sales Businesses — a permanent operation for the on -site sale of .ultural products produced on the site. Such businesses can be focused arily on the sale of products produced on -site, while others tend to branch out to de commercial entertainment ventures (hay rides, corn mazes, haunted barns, Side Stands — temporary sales of agricultural products on private property tiHly from the back of a truck (Le. sweet corn sales). Givefformation and the discussion on 4-14-08. what chances are recommended? Staffiding code be clarified in the following ways: ed definitions should be eliminated. "Common Gardens" and "Community e Agriculture" define uses that are not listed anywhere within the current city Additionally, both uses are arguably already defined under other terms. ring unneeded definitions will increase clarity of the current code. :ions for agriculture, horticulture, and floriculture should simply describe rcfice and not whether sales can occur. All three terms should refer to the ton of certain goods and nothing more. Separate terms can define how ure, horticulture, and floricultureproducts can be sold; and those terms can ied as permitted or conditionally permitted to determine where sales can and occur. (`Agricultural Sales" definition should be added. This new definition can e permanent yearly businesses that sell agricultural, horticultural, or tiral from the same location year in and year out during the various of the year depending upon the products being produced on the site (typical . are summer flowers, fall pumpkins, and winter Christmas trees). 4. A new "Agricultural Entertainment Business" definition should be added. This new definition is needed to define those agricultural sales businesses that —due to the nature of their activities —are more akin to a large commercial/entertainment operation than a traditional roadside stand for the selling of fruits, vegetables, and flowers. Examples of activities typically associated with an "agricultural entertainment business" include active farm tours, hay rides, petting farms, haunted barns, pick -your -own operations, etc. 5. "Agricultural Sales" should be classified as a permitted use, while "Agricultural Entertainment" should be conditionally permitted. In the "A" and "RR" zoning districts, agricultural sales are now proposed to be permitted while agricultural entertainment is conditionally permitted. Performance standards for agricultural sales businesses have been added to section 154.110 to give the city a level of assurance that such businesses will not impact surrounding properties. Likewise, a number of conditions must also be met in order to gain approval for new agricultural entertainment businesses. The definition for Wayside Stand should be adjusted, and no time -frame should be established for such uses. Our background research on this subject indicates a "wayside stand" is envisioned to be the small stand or truck which offers the sale of a small number of fruits or vegetables for no more that a few days at a time. If we are correct in our understanding, the definition should reflect that intent and the use should be allowed in all proper zoning districts (not just OP which is scattered throughout the City). Additionally, the commission was against placing any time limitations per week on these types of facilities, so all such requirements have been eliminated. The term "Seasonal Open Sales Lot" should be eliminated. This term would nstead be replaced by the new terms "agricultural sales" and "agricultural entertainment business." RECObATION: plannirmission is asked to review the proposed ordinance, conduct a public hearing, and make emendation on any needed changes for consideration by the City Council. If consen,not be reached on a proposed ordinance, the item can be tabled for further consid4t a future meeting. ORREFSINESS: eduction Ben Gozola, Senior Planner ort by staff Ben Gozola, Senior Planner stions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members the Public Hearing Chair : the Public Hearing Chair )r a motion .. Chair Facilitates >sion of Commission on the motion Chair Facilitates by the Planning Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS (1): 1. Draft ordinance to amend agricultural business definitions and regulations. 1 tiA �fl� CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS DEFINITIONS AND REGULATIONS Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 (Definitions) is hereby amended to add the following definition: "Agricultural Entertaimnent Busbies au" — An agricultural sales business that combines the elements and characteristics of agriculture and tourism, which is not necessarily located in an existing building and may have more than one CI ) full-time equivalent employee. Examples of agricultural entertainment include: corn mazes, hay rides, sleigh rides,pettin farms pn farm tuu ggicultural,_celated museums,__ demonstrations of fanningpractices, techniques and methods, pick-vour-own operations, fee based fishing and hunting, horseback riding, nature trails, haunted barns and similar activities which are related to agriculture, "Agricultural_ Sales Business" — The retail sale of fresh -fruits, yezetables, flowers herbs, trees. or other agricultural. floricultural, or horticultural products produced on the premises. The operation may he indoors or outdoors, and may involve accessory sales of unprocessed _t_oodstuff'sthomeprocessed food_,products such as _jams, ietlies,pickles, sailcesknl baked_goods grid. home_madc;.handicrafts_-t he hoot area devoted to the sale of accessory items shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. No commercially packaged handicrafts or commercially processed or packaged foodstuffs shall he sold as accessory items._ No activities other than the sale of goods as outlined above shall be allowed as hart of the auricnLitural sales business. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 (Definitions) is hereby changed to amend or eliminate the following definitions as shown: "Agriculture"— The production or -sale -of livestock, dairy animals, dairy products, fur - bearing animals, horticultural and _floricultural nursery stock, fruits of all kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees, and apiary products. "ieen111-1 ens"-----band-ttsed-by-residente-ot=tadeveIoptriert--f©r-i-he-prectuetion of 4Uits, eed-glebe:. "C.<>rrunttnity-Set=vice-A-gr-iculttue"---i-hartiettitureand-lk>}ioulture-fiat-sew s4Ile-login area: Page 1 of 7 "F!" - The portion of a 10 or more acre parcel of land ha-4he-Ifura}-Rcesideritia} Zmaet-which is devoted to agriculture by the property owner or by a lessee of thzowner, - The cultivation and management of ornamental and flowering plants -for - The cultivation and management of trees, plants, grasses, vegetables, an idle -on -site -from e waysido-stand. " Wo-d" - A temporary structure or vehicle used for the seasonal retail sale of agr ods produced by the operator of the wayside stand on -site or on other pro ce Elmo. Sec_ City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 154lultural Use Regulations) subsections (A) and (B) are hereby amended as ti (A)Id uses and structures. . suburban or rural_ Commercial .griuusltufe-.and-hertieultu 'ltry facilities meeting state and federal regulations; In buildings; in drainage and irrigation systems; 'stry meeting state and federal regulations; ,farm dwelling per farm (also see §§ 154.091 and 154.105); ion -farm dwelling per each 40 acres, or part of a dwelling on a prorated not already containing a faun or non -faun dwelling, provided: e dwelling unit is located on a separate parcel of record in the office f the County Recorder and/or County Auditor, which shall be at Least 1- 12 acres in size; !to parcel on which the dwelling unit is located must have at least 125 't of frontage along a public street, be rectangular in shape and no pension to be greater than 3 times the other; and e dwelling is separated by at least 300 feet from the nearest farm Iding. Page 2 of 7 (8) Wayside stands Sean l-eren-sales-fiats-forugiieuitural--and--lxertietillur-al products-produeedon-tote-premises; (9) Asricultu al sales businesses subieet to performance slat}lords otttlin section 154,110; and -Rick -your :air•.:>, eat pre8uets-grown-on-The-pretenses;-and (10) Joint ownership of property or ownership by association or rental for the purpose of providing private gardens or forest plots to its members or lessees. (B) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. (1) Greenhouses; (2) Kennels; (3) Stables; (4) Commercial recreation of a rural nature, including outdoor target ranges; (5) Agricultural service establishments primarily engaged in performing agricultural animal husbandry or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including sorting, grading, and packing fruits and vegetables for the owner, lessee, or sublessee; agricultural produce milling and processing for the owner, lessee, or sublessee; horticultural services; fruit picking; grain cleaning; veterinary services; boarding and training of horses; (6) Open space development projects, as regulated by §§ 150.175 et seq.; (7) Non-agricultural low impact uses pursuant to the standards described in division (F) of this section; and (8) __Agricultural Entertainment businesses subject to the followinu requirements: a. The nropertv proposed to be used for agricultural entertainment must be located with direct access to a collector or arterial street as identified in the comprehensive plan; h. The property owner may be required to improve the traffic intersection located nearest to the property with additional turning lanes, street lights, traffic controls. traffic signs and such other measures as the city deems necessary to safely control traffic traveiinu to and from the property; c. The nronertV must have at least two points of unobstructed emergency vehicle access to each building or permanent or temporary structure; Page 3 of 7 d. Minimum lot size and building setbacks for "other uses" in the A -agriculture zoning district must be met; e. All narking must occur on -site. be on a primary surface such as class five gravel or pavement; and must be set hack at least 30 feet from all nronerty lines; f. No more than 25 percent of the site may he covered with impervious surface and the remainder shall he suitably landscaped; Q. All signs shall be in conformance with applicable code provisions; h. Exterior lighting gust he designed and installed so that the light source is recessed and enclosed on all sides exeent the bottom so that no light is cast directly or indirectly on mother property and so that the light source cannot be scan from adiacent property; i. Roof ton or outside mechanical equipment and ;my exterior storage must be screened from view from adiacent properties and rights -of -way with an opaque material architecturally compatible with the building -Xs): i. Trash containers must be located inside or screened in an acceptable manner; k. No outdoor speakers may be used. 1. All requirements of the fire code and. fire marshal must be met; m. Discharge of firearms, including blanks, shall not be allowed on the property: n, The hours ol'operation and the nurnber of permitted employees will be determined by the city council alter consideration of the impact on adjacent ro ernes: o. The city may require inspections of the nronerty in order to investigate complaints; p. Food consumed on site must be nrenared in accordance with all applicable state and county codes and regulations; o. The nronenv owner must take reasonable stens to prevent trespassing on adiacent properties by employees. contractors or patrons; There must be identified and acceptableprimary and alternate well and septic sites on the property which are sized for the maximum anticipated usaae of the nronerty; s. All animal feed and bedding must be stored within an enclosed building; Page 4 of 7 1 Manure ntusi be_prcjperly stored while on site. Manure must be disposed of at an off --site location at least every six months by means of a method approved by the city and thc Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and The city council may require compliance with_any__other conditions, restrictions. or limitations it deems to be reasonably necessary toprotect the health. safety or welfare of the surroundiim pronenics and the community and may renuire the applicant to enter into an agreement to ensure compliance with the conditions. Section 4. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 154.036 (Rural Residential Use Regulations) subsections (A), (B) and (C) are hereby amended as follows: (A) Permitted uses and structures. (al) One -family residential dwellings (also see § § 154.091 and 154.105); and (b2) Farm, suburban or rural within the limits defined in the performance standards for livestock. (3) Wayside stands; and (4) Aerieuliural sales businesses subject to performance standards outlined in section 154.1 10 (B) Accessory uses and structures (also see §§ 154.092 and 154.093). Uses and structures which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to allowed uses and structures; accessory structures cannot exceed the size of the principal building. (C) Conditionally permitted uses. Kennels; Open space development as regulated by §§ 150.175 et seq.; and Home occupations. (4) Agricultural Entertainment businesses subject to thc rcouirements outlined in section 154.033 (1-))(8). Page 5 of 7 Section 5. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 150.178 (OP Use Regulations) subsections (A), (B) and (C) are hereby amended as follows: (A) Permitted uses. (1) Single-family, detached; (2) Preserved open space; (3) Conservation easements; (4) AerieullureAgrieultural; (5) Suburb.. Tam.s6eoperative-garden-ttg; ..(6)-=14-e+4ie-rtk+ a nd k +cak rsiocs; (q6) Private stables; (87) Single-family, attached; (9) Townhouses (no more than 25% in any development); and (1-09) Wayside stands (B) Accessory uses. Uses that are typically found accessory to a permitted use. (C) Prohibited uses. All other uses are hereby prohibited. Section 6. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that the City's Design and Performance Standards arc hereby amended to incorporate the following additions and changes: Current Sections 154.090 through 154.109 and their subdivisions are restated and incorporated herein without change. Current Section 154.110 and its subdivisions are restated and incorporated herein as section 154.111 154.110 Agricultural Sales l3tisinesses Agricultural Sales Businesses shall be subiecl to the following performance standards; 1. Agricultural Sales Business can only operate if listed as a permitted use in the underlving coning district. Page 6 of 7 1 2. Activities shall be limited to the sale of fresh fruits, veuetahles, flowers, herbs, trees, or other agricultural, floricultural, or horticultural products produced on the premises. Agricultural Sales Business shall be located on land owned or, leasedby the producer or the operator of the business. and not within or on any public riyhi-of ways or easements. 4. The operator must he able to demonstrate at all times to the Citv that there is sufficient access, narking and maneuverirw space, that the location and adeauacy of approaches are sufficient, that there is suitable and safe access tbr pedestrians, yid that customerparkingis away__frogl,the tragel wayandin close_proximity,.to She Aericultural Sales Business. 5__Front, rev and„sidese_tbacks for strucuues,a_ndparkingareas shall_confort to those of the undcrlvine zoningdistrict. G_... Agricultural Sales Business Signs: Signsfor such businesses must conform to the City of Lake Elmo sin ordinance, 7, Noise Level:: No loud speakers or any unnecessary site. SAll waste materials shalt be enclosed in containers provided at the site immediatelyadjacent to the,Aaricultural Sales Business. 9. All sidewalksjoadwaysjand other public and rivate spaces adjacent to,the_sile_ shall be kept free from dust which may be generated bv the operation of the business. be_alldwed on the Section 7. Adoption Date This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. This Ordinance No. was adopted on this day of , 20 , by a vote of Ayes and _Nays. Mayor Dean Johnston ATTEST: Susan Hoyt City Administrator This Ordinance No. was published on the day of , 2008. Page 7 of 7 Planning Commission Date: 5-28-08 Not a public hearing Item: 4A (iii) ITEM: Consideration of an ordinance to amend sign regulations REQUESTED BY: City Council SUBMITTED BY: Ben Gozola, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Susan Hoyt, City Administrator Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Jerry Fills, City Attorney SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is asked to review an ordinance to amend sign regulations to achieve the following goals established at the 3-24-08 & 4-14-08 Planning Commission meetings: 1) Sign definitions must be updated to accurately reflect the revised agricultural sales uses; 2) Development signs should be defined as a permanent sign subject to removal requirements; 3) The purpose section of the sign code must be updated by the City Attorney to substantiate the allowance of off -site advertising signs for certain real estate developments and Agricultural Sales businesses; 4) Current regulations governing temporary signs should be updated to add restrictions on the location, size and number of such signs, in addition to defining how many permits may be issued per calendar year; 5) Regulations governing on -premises real estate development signs should incorporate the definition requirement that eligible developments are those which create 10 or more new buildable lots; 6) New off -premises regulations need to be created for real estate developments of 10 or more units; 7) The number of off premises signs on any given parcel should be determined by a separation factor rather than a set number of signs per property; 8) Permission must be explicitly required for all off site advertising signs; 9) Removal of off -premises signs for real estate developments should be required once 90% of the development is complete; 10) The number of allowable on -premises signs for seasonal agricultural sales businesses should be regulated based on the amount of land used for production of the agricultural goods; 11) Seasonal agricultural sales businesses should be limited to two off -site advertising signs; 12) Off -site signage for seasonal agricultural sales businesses should be considered temporary, and limited to four periods of 45-days in any calendar year. • Can the existing ordinance be amended as desired without undergoing a complete overhaul? Minor amendments to address the City's off -premises advertising desires will not lessen the existing concerns about potential First Amendment challenges to code. However, that is not to say the City cannot proceed with the desired amendments now and return to address other issues at a later point in time. Rather, the City just needs to understand how to protect itself in as much as possible if it chooses to allow certain types of off -premises advertising within the current code framework. • Is using a purpose statement to allow certain types of signs legally defensible? According to the City Attorney, the City could be open for a legal challenge to the ordinance, but there was no case law to indicate this couldn't be done in an effort to protect a significant government interest (in this case protecting rural character). While "protecting rural character" can arguably be used to support the allowance of off -premises advertising for the City's agricultural businesses, it is harder to make such a connection for off -site real estate advertising signs. Given that the current best practices on signs would not recommend using a purpose statement to allow off -premises advertising signs for specific business types, it is important for the Planning Commission to continue its assessment of concerns that arise due to this approach including: o Is the commission comfortable that allowing off -site advertising for agricultural businesses is important to preserving the community's rural character? o Why are developments being allowed off -site advertising? What important public interest is being served, and/or how does such signage allow the city to protect its rural character? o If off -premises development signs can be supported as serving a vital public interest, how do we differentiate which rural developments can have signs? For example, can standard 10 and 40 acre subdivisions have signs? OP subdivisions? Cluster developments? Only developments creating a certain number of lots? o Can the city clearly find that the right to have off -site real estate development signs is not linked strictly to providing an economic benefit for developers or landowners? In assessing these questions, staff came to the conclusion that off -premises advertising for developments is difficult to support, so we are recommending that such provisions no longer be considered. Off -premises signs for agricultural sales businesses can be supported provided the City understands the associated risks. How will the new purpose statement Protect the City from a claim that its regulating signs based on content? According to the City Attorney, if the City allows temporary off -site advertising signs for some businesses but not others, its regulation could be challenged for being unconstitutional for potentially denying equal protection of the law. To address this issue in the context of the existing code, it was recommended that the City expand the purpose section of the sign code to illustrate why certain types of off -premises advertising signs are critical to ensuring the community can "maintain its rural character." Both staff and the attorney find that such a link can arguably be made for agricultural sales businesses; however, we also find that such a distinction cannot be made for real estate off -premises advertising. As such, we have provided two drafts of ordinance #3 for consideration. The first draft (preferred by staff) does NOT contain provisions for real estate off -premises advertising. The second draft maintains the previously considered language (amended as requested) for real estate off -premises advertising. The second draft should only be used if the commission feels the purpose statement can be amended in a way that explains how off -premises real estate advertising "maintains rural character" or serves some other essential public good. 25 40 55 How does this ordinance chanae regulations aoverning signs for Agricultural Sales? First and foremost, such businesses would now be allowed to have signs under the proposed ordinance (current code does not contain a provision for ANY signs). Second, these types of businesses would be allowed to have one, two, or even three on -premises signs depending upon the amount of acreage devoted to the production of the agricultural good being sold by the business. A maximum gross square footage for all signs would limit the overall size of allowed signage. And finally, each business would be allowed to have up to two off -premises advertising signs provided certain conditions could be met (permission from the other property owner, must meet size and height requirements, could only be up for a specified period of time, etc). How does this ordinance change regulations aovernina signs for developments of ten or more lots? Again, staff has provided two draft ordinances for consideration. Draft #1 (supported by staff) no longer provides an avenue for off premises real estate advertising. 'Draft #2 maintains the language for real estate off -premises advertising that was considered by the commission during past meetings. Either option maintains the existing language allowing for on -site advertising. Does this ordinance now allow wayside stands to have signs?, Yes. Wayside stands, under the proposed ordinance, could have one sign up to 32 square feet in size without a permit. Does this ordinance require off -site advertising be erected only alone certain corridors? No. Staff has not proposed any restrictions on where off -site advertising can be. However, the limit of two signs per business essentially ensures that such signs will only be located along major traffic corridors. Staff sees this as a reasonable approach to avoid having to change code if/when a request comes forward for an off -site advertising sign in a reasonable location that is not identified in code. How did staff arrive at the or000sed sian size restrictions, and what is VRT? The proposed sign size limits for on and off premises signs proposed by this ordinance were intended to be reasonable based an the current code and best available data regarding sign sizes. For example, many signs in residential areas were capped at 32 square feet (political, construction, property sale, etc), so 32 square feet was a logical maximum for an on -premises seasonal sales business sign (which would be located in residential areas). For off -premises signs, staff consulted the latest research on Viewer Reaction Time (VRT) knowing that such signs will be located along the major transportation corridors. A VRT study determines the number of seconds a person can view and comprehend a sign given the sign size and speed limit of a road. For example, a 50 square foot sign can be seen and comprehended by a motorist for five seconds on a 40 mile per hour road. If the sign were increased to 128 square feet in size on that same road, the sign could be viewed and comprehended for 8 seconds (see the following table for a breakdown of viewer reaction times based on speed limits and the size of a sign). MPH I VRT (seconds) Sign Size (ft 4 5.....--_._..._e., .. .......12.5 _.....__ 20 8 50 78 4 32 5 50 8 128 10 200 4 60.5 95 8 242 10 378 Given that most of the major roads in or adjacent to Lake Elmo have speed limits of 55 m.p.h. or greater, staff felt that 32 square feet would be too small for off -site advertising signs. Instead, staff felt that a maximum of 50 square feet was reasonable to provide roughly three seconds of viewing and comprehension time along major corridors. Other than addressing the various issues that arose at the commission meetina on 4-14-08. does this revised ordinance contain anv other maior changes? No. A summary of changes since the last draft is as follows: 1. The attorney's proposed definition for "sign" and the new purpose section have both been added to this latest draft ordinance, 2. Development advertising signs are now required to be removed at 90% build out. As proposed, issuance of a building permit for lots within a development will be the determining factor for "developed" vs. "non -developed" when enforcing this requirement, 3. "Seasonal Agricultural Sales" was simplified to "Agricultural Sales." In revising the ordinance, it was determined the word "seasonal" was unnecessary and made the ordinance harder to read. 4. Off -premises advertising signs for agricultural sales businesses were capped at two instead of one. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed ordinance options, conduct a public hearing, and make a recommendation on any needed changes for consideration by the City Council. Staff is recommending the Planning Commission base their recommendations on the draft that does NOT allow off -premises real estate advertising signs. ORDER OF BUSINESS: Introduction Ben Gozola, Senior Planner Report by staff Ben Gozola, Senior Planner - Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members - Open the Public Hearing Chair Close the Public Hearing Chair - Call for a motion Chair Facilitates - Discussion of Commission on the motion Chair Facilitates Action by the Planning Commission Chair & Commission Members ATTACHMENTS (2): 1. Option 1: Draft ordinance to amend sign regulations (does NOT allow for off - premises real estate advertising signs). 2. Option 2: Draft ordinance to amend sign regulations (allows off -premises real estate advertising signs). ( r vPW�Ry'S cginferePH rrYrA-1'i zy CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND GENERAL SIGN REGULATIONS Section 1. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 is hereby amended to add the following definitions: "Off -premise sign" - a commercial speech sign which directs the attention of the public to a business. activity conducted. or product sold or offered at a location not on the sane lot where such sin is located. A sign located within an easement or other appurtenance to a lot on which a business is located shall be deemed an off-nremises sign, "On -.premise sign" - a sign which identifies or advertises an establishment person, activity. goods. products or services located on the premises where the sign is installed, Section 2. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 is hereby changed to amend the following definitions: "Sign" - Any letter, word or symbol, device, poster, picture, statue, reading matter or representation in the nature of an advertisement, announcement, message, or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, which is displayed for informational or communicative purposes and is visible to the general public,#-4ispley�-11usniat--icon with lcltor-inst-r e' ' i 'ch-dj*eets Eftteliliefl to an objeet,-peedaet phtee-activity,-persex tntitut:ar:, :,rgani24 t'icn, or businesa, The term slrtrl-l-net-i elu aft rntnoptal flag properly disp-layed-i-n-an "Sign, Real Estate Development" - A sign offering for sale, lease, or rent a single-family or multiple -family residential project of 10 or more dwelling units or lots. Real estate development signs shall be administered as permanent signs subieet to all removal requirements outlined in code. "Sign, Agricultural Sales" - A sign placed on a lot or parcel of land advertising an operating and permissible agricultural sales business. for--a-peried-tot to exceed 30 day a rout-ef-any 12 matt#h-pel4ed--Ne sign--permit-.feee-is-requ4red: Off-nremises agricultural sales signs shall be administered as temporary signs subject to all removal requirements outlined in code. "Sian, Wayside Stand" -- A sign located on a temporary structure or vehicle being used to sell agricultural, floricultural, or horticultur l_products, Page 1 of 7 Section 3. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.115 outlining the purpose of the municipal sign code is hereby amended to read as follows: (A) The Lake Elmo Sign Regulations arc intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced system of sign control that acconunodates the need for a well - maintained, sate, and attractive community. and the business community's, need for effective communication and identification, It is not the purpose or intent of these regulations to favor commercial messages or speech over non-commercial messages or speech or to discriminate between tunes of non-commercial speech or the_viewpoims represented therein;_ It is the intent of these res hltionts to promote the health. safety, general welfare, and desirable rural community image through the regulation of stuns with the following objectives in mind: (1) Signs shall demonstrate a high standard of aesthetic character and encourage the use of monument and individual letter -style signs; (2) Permit large enough cony/graphic area to effectively convey the intended message but not so lame astounduly distract the reader and insist, on letterMe larva enough to he easily read to encourage simple, uncluttered messages; (3) Signs shall be proportioned to the size of, and architecturally compatible with, the structures and other siens on the premises: (4) Permanent signs shall only advertise on -premise businesses, services, facilities_tetc; (5) Allow temporary business siuns for urand openings and occasional sales events: allow temnorary signs to advise the public of the seasonal sale of agriculturaL and horticultural_products in lseepine with the City's rural image; and to allow temporary directional siens_nermittine the Public to more easily locate land conservation developments which enhances the Citv's rural image, without creating continuous visual clutter or traffic hwards along Streels_or at_intersections;_and (6) Signs shall be properly maintained, (7) Signs that distract drivers. cyclists and Pedestrians shall not be permitted. Studies conducted by public and private agencies have identified that dynamic signs. including multi -vision signs. electronic slims and video displays can be highly distractinu to drivers, Pedestrians, and evclists and that_distrlactio.l,.is a significant underlying cause of trtffic_accidents, With respect to electronic signs. including video display signs, the City finds that they are highly visible from long distances and at very wide viewing angles both day and night and are designed to catch the eve of nelsons in their vicinity and_hold it for extended periods of time. If left uncontrolled, Page 2 of 7 electronic siurs, including video display signs, constitute a serious traffic safety threat. Studies conducted by the Federal Highway Administration fEliWA), Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction, Sept, 11. 2001, and 'I'he Role of Driver Inattention in Crashes: New Statistics from 1995: the University of North ,_Carolina 1-Iighway,_ Safety Research _C'enter Distractions in Everyday Driving, Mav 2003 and The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes, Mav 2001: the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Synthesis Report of Electronic Billboards and Highway SafeLJune 10, 2003: the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, Sign Control Provisions, Jan. 2006: the Veridan Group, Video Signs in Seattle, Gerald Wachtel., Mav 2001, reveal that electronic signs are highly distracting to drivers and that driver distraction continues to be_a sigriiticant mtierl_y_ing cause of traffic accidents, (13) Findings. The City of Lake Elmo hereby finds that regulation of the construction tyre, location, size, and maintenance of signs is necessary to accomplish the abuve referenced objectives, because:, (1) The presence of permanent and temporary sihnage affects the viral image of the City of Lake Elmo; (2) Properly__regulated _signage can create an atmosphere of prosperity, stimulate commercial activity. and conseouently, lead to increased employment and a healthier tax base; (3) The safety of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians can be threatened by sianage that interferes with necessary sight -distances and/or unduly diverts the attention of such persons. (4) Signs that are too bright, overly illuminated, flash, blink„scroll,_twirl, change messages or color, or imitate movement, including video displays, can distract drivers, cyclists and pedestrians and impact traffic safety, he r r and auelit3-e €'e the Take-14In0. i0u a t affic. T-he-trepeneen4r46- sigw is sf perrieula- rd-unialnoHe-ss—Signs she+tic1 e-kept within jeetiyes atrd-goals-eftheeemmunity to retain its-speeia! _h:.ra to: and Beer +c ad antages thick r rst in part-^n the 'quality <rf itc appeaianee: he -to g-ulttte-signs. Page 3 of 7 Section 4. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 1151.118 subsection B1(5) regarding temporary signs is hereby amended to read as follows: (131 (5) Temporary signs. Temporary signs may be allowed upon issuance of a permit for on -site advertising of special business events such as has -Mess openings and closings, change in management, diaiet-wide-sloping-events, sales events. or other special occasions, for 15-days :raximum No more than four temporary siun hermits may be issued in any calendar year for a given destination, and each temporary siun permit shall run for 15 days. by -permit ft-oni-the-Gi{y-P4annefr-Tl;c ity--ay gfa+ -a-pe1 4t-te4ocate-Sigrtser decorations on, over, or within the right of way for a speci tlzd-period-af Temporary sk ns shall be subject to the following regulations: a. Only one on -premises temporary sign shall be allowed per business or event. orary signs shall. not exceed 32 square feet in area and shall not be tler than 10 feet in height. b. time Section 5. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.119 subdivision (13) is hereby amended to read as follows: current Section 151.119, subdivision j131C1) t rough (8) and its subdivisions are restated and incorporated herein without change. (9) Real estate development project advertising signs. -(e)--.---Feetho-pufpese-of-sell-rag--or p3rernetingY-u.deveepnient-prujeet the •ful-1ewing--signs.-are-per-nmitt e4: On pre_nises real estate development,proiect advertising signs may be used if the following rea irementsare met: 1. Minimum Development Size: 4-4. Projects of 3-eless thanr 25 acres which create ten or more dwelling units are allowed 1 on -premises sign not to exceed 100 square feet of advertising surface en the prejeef site; ii. Projects of 26 through 50 acres which create ten or more dwelling units are allowed 1 or 2 on -premises signs not to exceed 200 aggregate square feet of advertising surface on the project site; and Projects over 50 acres which create ten or more dwelling units are allowed 1, 2, or 3 on -premises signs not to exceed Page4of7 200 aggregate square feet of advertising surface on the project site. Oi_premises sign reuuirements; No dimension shall exceed 25 feet exclusive of supporting structures. The sign shall not remain afler_once 90% of the lots in the development have been issued building permits. 95% of the preject is developed. The permit for the sign must be renewed annually by the Council. signs shall be bordered with a decorative material compatible with the surrounding area. -f:v. Any illuminated sign shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other development are open for conducting business. (101 Agricultural sales crclvertisine signs. a. On -Premises. On -premises agricultural sales advertising signs may be used subject to the following reuuirements:. I . Acreage dedicated to agricultural production: Agricultural sales businesses utilizing less than 10 acres of land specifically for the growiug_pf agrieulturalcropsfor the business are allowed l on premisessign not to exceed 32 gross square feel of advertising surface: Agricultural sales businesses utilizing more than 10 acres c land_ but less titan .40_ficres of land_ specil ijy,,_Ior_the growing of agricultural crops for the business are allowed or 2 on -premises signs not to exceed 48 gross suuare feet of advertising surface (with neither sign exceeding 32 square 1 zet_ in, size); Agriicuhural sales businesses.utilizingmgre than 40 acres of land snecific.alty for the growing of agricultural crops for the business are allowed 1 , 2 or 3 on -premises signs not to exceed 64iross sy,uare feet of advertising siu.face_(with-nu sign exceeding 32 square feet in size); Page 5 of 7 2. On -premises sien reuuiremenls: i,Nodimension of any sign shill exceed 15 feei exeltlsive of supporting_sh uctures. . The permit for the sin must be renewed annually by the Council. _nJ sigassliall bebo_rc_lered.with a decgrtitive mat compatible with the. sun oturdinaarca. Any illuminated sien shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is oven to the public for corductinm business. h. Oft'-nrcmises. An off -premises agricultural_sales advertising, si be used if the following rcouirements arc met: a 1. Maximum Number. Every aaricultural sales business shall have nu„more than two oft -premises signs at any given time tofi re„c_t,the to_the location of the business. 2. Off-nrcmises sign rectuiremenls: An off -site agricultural sales advertising sign shall not exceed 50_5081re teel.in„_area,and„shalinot,be taller„th tn_-1(1_tcel_in heiibt Off-n remises signs shall be a minimum of 25' from all side property lines, and a minimum of 50' from other olf- remises adverlisin si ns; Applicants for off-nremises signs shall acuuire permission from the property owner unon who's hued the sign is to he erected. Tim efia le of use. AnEither one or two off -premises agricultural, sales advertising siun(s) may he erected for, a 45 day_tifneeiiod no more than four times in any given calendar year. The rec;uired yearly oermit shall stipulate the ranee of dates ibr each of the four allowable- time,_perio_ds: (111 Wayside Stand sign. Temporary wayside stands permitted by code may give_,gne_ndn-ilhminate(1..±d 1.%xernpl_born„pornilting,redltitementa),nuc, o. exceed 32 ;rpss souare feet of advertisinLsurface, Page 6 of 7 (120)Window signs. No sign permit is required for window signage that does not cover more than 1/3 of the total area of the window in which the sign is displayed; and (13.1)No trespassing/no hunting signs. No trespassing and no hunting signs shall be no larger than 2 square feet. Section 6. Adoption Date This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo. This Ordinance No. was adopted on this day of , 20 , by a vote of _ Ayes and _ Nays. Mayor Dean Johnston ATTEST: Susan Hoyt City Administrator This Ordinance No. was published on the day of , 2008. Page 7 of 7 CITY OF LAKE ELMO COUNTY OF WASHINGTON STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 08- .iN ORDINANCE TO AMEND GENERAL SIGN REGULATIONS jSection 01l• The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section01 is hereby amended to add the following definitions: «O se sign" - a commercial speech sign which directs the attention of the public toffs. activity conducted, or product sold or offered at a location not on the same lot w hench sign is located. A sign located within an easement or other appurtenance to a lot hick a business is located shall be deemed an off -premises sign. "On- re sign" - a sign which identifies or advertises an establishment, person, actjVit ds, products or services located on the premises where the sign is installed. Sectior!he City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 11.01 iby changed to amend the following definitions: 'Sign"\y letter, word or symbol, device, poster, picture, statue, reading matter or represein the nature of an advertisement, announcement, message, or visual commi, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, which is displa . o, rmational or communicative purposes and is visible to the general public. i � . a t, place, activity, per-stituti xi, ergenization, or business. The team "\Sign; e Development<BG31" - A sign offering for sale, lease, or rent a single- ' farnilyte-family residential project of 10 or more dwelling units or lots. Real estate nt signs shall be administered as permanent signs subject to all removal re uix fined in code., "Sign,al Sales" -A sign placed on a lot or parcel of land advertising an o erat issible agricultural sales business. for a period not to exceed 30 days r. parr t fee is required. Off -premises agricultural sale s s' administered as temporary signs subject to all removal requirements octltl I=°Snd" - A sigi located on a temporary structure or vehicle being used to sell a 'cultural, or horticultural products.. Page 1 of 8 1Seetion *oak The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.115 outlining the purpose of the municipal sign code is hereby amended to read as follows: (A) The Lake Elmo Sign Regulations are intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced system of sign control that accommodates the need for a well - maintained safe, and attractive community, and the business community's, need for effective communication and identification. It is not the purpose or intent of these regulations to favor commercial messages or speech over non-commercial messages or speech or to discriminate between types of non-commercial speech or the viewpoints represented therein. It is the intent of ihese_regulations promote the health, safety, general welfare, and desirable rural community_ image through the regulation of signs with the following obiectives in mind: .0) Signs shall demonstrate a high standard of aesthetic character and encourage the use of monument and individual letter -style signs; (2) Permit large enough copy/graphic area to effectively convey the intended messy but, not. sc_large as, to much ffistract_tlie reader aud_insist_on lettering large enough to be easily read to encourage simple, uncluttered messages: Sns shall be proportioned to the size of, and architecturally compatible with. the structures and other signs on the premises; (4) Permanent signs shalt only advertise on -premise businesses. services, faciliticsyelc; (5) Allow temporary business signs for grand openings and occasional sales events; allow temporary signs to advise the public of the seasonal sale of agricultural and horticultural products in keeping with the City's rural image; and to allow tctnporary directional signs permitting_the public to more easily locate land conservation developments which enhances the Citv's rural image, without creating continuous visual clutter or traffic hazardsalonsstreets or at intersections; and (6) Signs shall he properly maintained. (7) Signs that distract drivers, cyclists and pedestrians shall not be permitted. Studies conducted by public and private agencies have identified that dynamic signs, including multi -vision signs, electronic signs and video displays can be highly distracting to drivers. pedestrians, and cyclists and that distraction is asignificant underlying cause of traffic accidents. With respect to electronic signs, including video displaysigns,_the City finds that they are highly visible from long distances and at very wide viewing angles both day and night and are designed to catch the eve of persons in their vicinity and hold it for extended periods of time. If left uncontrolled, Page 2 of 8 electronic signs, including video display signs, constitute a serious traffic safety threat. Studies conducted by the Federal Highway Administration (FR WA), Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction. Scot. 11, 2001, and The Role of Driver Inattention in Crashes: New Statistics from 1995: the University of North Carolina_ Highway__ Safety Research Center, Distractions in Everyday Driving. May 2003 and The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes, Mav 2001: the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Synthesis Report of Electronic Billboards and Highway Safety, June 10, 2003; the Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington, Sign Control Provisions, Jan. 2006: the Veridan Group. Video Signs in Seattle. Gerald Wachtel, Mav 2001.. reveal that electronic signs are highly distracting to drivers and that driver distraction continues to bz_a significant underlying cause of traffic accidents, (B) Findings. The City of Lake Elmo hereby finds that regulation of the constriction type. location, size, and rnaintentuwe of signs is necessary to accomplish the above referenced nhiectives, became: (1) The presence of permanent and temporary signage affects the rural image of the City of Lake Elmo: (2) Properly regulated signage can create an atmosphere of prosperity, stimulate commercial activity, and consequently, lead to increased employment and a healthier tax base; (3) The safety of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians can be threatened by siu naee that interferes with necessary sight -distances and/or unduly diverts the attention of such persons, (4) Signs that are too bright. overly illuminated, flash, blink, scroll, twirl, change messages or color, or imitate movement, including video displays, can distract drivers. cyclists and pedestrians and impact traffie safety. $ighave-an-impact-ort-the-raral-character-and-yua14ty•ef4he e w nmer1 n I a:c Elmo. Th • el the viewing public are.) afkct tlntraffic. A:, e-Blrno is-usiclue—The-proper genteon-el✓a}gtts4s caf-partieultlf impart:tncc-beeause-ef this -rand -quality d- uniqueness,. 4igus-sheuld-be-kcpt-within d gehe community io retain it on -the -quality of itn to Page 3 of 8 Section 4ktoosl. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.118 subsection (13)(5) regarding temporary signs is hereby amended to read as follows: (B) (5) Temporary signs. Temporary signs may be allowed anon issuance of a p_ermit for on -site adverti sine of special business events such as business openings and closings, change in management, district wade -&homing -everts, sales events, or other special occasions.for 15 days nYaxit-imm- No more than, four temporary sign permits may be issued in any calendar year for a given destination, and each temporary sign permit shall run for 15 days. by -permit from -the City Plant-Qr. T eeity-may grant -a r., ,:t--te-1eeate-signs-er deec�rattens-ort Fw � 4th 1 a right e way-fer• .. e.e) sd-period of time. Temporary signs shall be subiect to the fbllowinu regulations: a._-Qnly one on -premises temporary sign shall be allowed per business or event. h_Temporary signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in area and shall not be taller than 10 feet in height. {Section 5kne61. The City Council of the City of Lake Elmo hereby ordains that Section 151.119 subdivision (13) is hereby amended to read as follows: Current Section 151.1 19, subdivisioin,(131(11 through (8) and its subdivisions are restated and incorporated .herein without change. (9) Real estate development project advertising signs. a, bn-Premises40077. On premises real estate development protect adyertisin signs, may, be used. if the following requirements are met; 1. Minimum Development Size: Projects of 3-4eless than 25 acres which create ten or more dwelling units are allowed 1 on -premises sign not to exceed 100 square feet of advertising surface on the—prejeet-si4e; _Projects of 26 through 50 acres which create_ten or,_more dwelling units are allowed 1 or 2 on-nrernises signs not to exceed 200 aggregate square feet of advertising surface on the project site; and _Projects over 50 acres which create ten or more dwelling units are allowed 1, 2, or 3 on-nremises signs not to exceed 200 aggregate square feet of advertising surface on the project site. Page 4 of 8 ( 2. On -,premises sign requirementsliiaosr b7i. _No dimension shall exceed 25 feet exclusive of supporting structures. erii. The sign shall not remain afteronce 90% of the lots in the development have been issued building permits. 95%-ofthe prejeet-i-s-developed: chiii. The permit for the sign must be renewed annually by the Council. e-iv. All signs shall be bordered with a decorative material compatible with the surrounding area. €v. __Any illuminated sign shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is in operation or when the model homes or other development are open for conducting business. b__bff-uremiscshnosi. Open space preservation developments may be allowed one off -premises real estate development advertising sign if the following requirements are met: 1_Milimum Development Size. Omen spacesreservai_ion developmentproiects creating ten or more dwelling units are allowed to have one off -premises sign to identify the location of the development. 2, Off_premises sign requirements: 11. An off -site real estate development project advertising sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in area and shall not be taller than 10 feet in height: Otl_,premises sigm.shall he aminimum of 25' from all side propertxlings,_and_a nnin mum_of,50' from other off- prelnlSCS advertising signs: iii. Applicants for off -premises signs shall acquire permission from_the_In_cperly owner uJlon_who's land the „sign is to be erected. 3. Timing of Required Removal. An off -premises real estate development advertising sign shall he removed once 90% of the lots in the development have been issued building permits. Page 5 of 8 (10) Awricullural sales aclveriisinc> signs. a. On-Premiseskncsol.,_ Qn_Premises_agricultural ;;fales_adye, may, he lased suiact_to_the following requirements:, gsi J15. 1. Acreage dedicated to agricultural Production: t. Agricultural sales businesses utilizing less than 10 acres of land specifically for the f rowing_of tigricultural crops _for the business arc allowed 1 on-nremises sian not to exceed 32 gross square feet of advertising surface; ii Agricultural sales businesses utilizing more than 10 acres of laird butte„ss than _a0_bergs,_gfland,_speci{ically_fgt_ Vie, growing of a ;ricultural crops for the business are allowed 1 or 2 on-nremises signs not to exceed 48 gross suuare feet of advertising surface (with neither sign exceeding 32 suuare leet,in_size); iii. Agricultural salesbusincsses ni.liningnaac than„4 acres,_of land specifically for the growing of agricultural crops fbr the business are allowed 1 . 2 or 3 on-nremises signs not to exceed_,Ei 4_) rcnss„scLuarc,_foet cnf advertising surface„(whit _rt„o_ sign_51xcecd1,111g32 square teet.,Lasir_e),; 2. Ou-nremises sian reouirements: No dimension of any sign shall exceed 15 feet exclusive of suppoilinW. sU1uccures, The permit for the sign must be re Council. ed annually by the All signs shall he bordered with a decorative material compatible with the surrounding area. iv. Any illuminated sign shall be illuminated only during those hours when business is open to the Public for conducting business. b. Off-premiscsiecaal._ An off piremisesagricultural salesadveilc sing,_sign, maybe used if the_followmg f equirements are met; 1. Maximum Number. Every agricultural sales business shall have no more than two off-nremises signs at any given time to direct the public to the location, of the business._ Page 6 of 8 2. Off -premises sum reau.irements: Anoff silelrl riculturalsalesadvertisings gtl Shall not ex eed 50 „square fees: in area and shall not bctaller Haan l O feet height; ii. Off -premises sins shall be a minimum of 25' from all side prgperty__lines,_ ind a n}n in um of 50'_1'ront,_glher_otf:. premises advert,singsigns; iii. Applicants for off -premises skins shall acquire permission from the property owner upon who's land the sien is to be erected. 3. Timeframc of use. AnEither one or two off -premises auricultural sales advertisine sian(s) rnav be erected for a 45-day time period no more than four times in anv given calendar year. The reuuired yearly_„permit shall stipulate the, range of dates for each of the low allowable hmed�cri_eds, (11) _ jWayside stand siewlmo, z)._Temporo wayside stands n tnutled_hy_ cede. tnav have one non -illuminated s,gn(exempt from,pennittingtcr�iulcprcnts) not to exceed 32 Cross square feet of advcrlisine surface. (12A)Window signs. No sign permit is required for window signage that does not cover more than 1/3 of the total area of the window in which the sign is displayed; and (134)No trespassing/no hunting signs. No trespassing and no hunting signs shall be no larger than 2 square feet. Page 7 of 8 Section 6. Adoption Date This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption and publication in the official newspaper of the City of Lake Elmo, This Ordinance No. was adopted on this day of , 20, by a vote of Ayes and _ Nays. Mayor Dean Johnston ATTEST: Susan Hoyt City Administrator This Ordinance No. was published on the day of , 2008. Page 8 of 8 L CM MI LAKE City of Lake Elmo ji,EL M 0 3800 Laverne Avenue North Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 f' Www.LakeElmo.Orq NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, May 12, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. March 24, 2008 b. April 14, 2008 4. Public Hearings a. NO PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Old Business a. Accessory Building Setbacks 6. New Business 7. City Council/Staff Updates a. May 6th - Community Growth Options Grant Application b. Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 8. Adjourn DRAFT; 3-24-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Hall, Fliflet, Helwig, McGinnis, Pelletier, Ptacek, and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Senior Planner Gozola. Agenda A motion was made a seconded to approve the agenda. Motion carried. Vote: 7:0. Minutes — March 28, 2008 There was a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2008 meeting. The motion carried with a vote of 5:0 with 2 abstentions. Public Hearing: 7934 Hill Trail North Septic System Variance Klatt presented a summary of the Staff report and related information concerning a request by Phil and Michelle Eason for a variance to allow the replacement of an existing septic system and drain field with a new one that does not meet the minimum setback requirements to a principal structure and property lines. He recommended approval of the request with conditions. Ptacek questioned why the septic system could not be moved to an alternative portion of the site. Phil Eason responded that there is a driveway located on the only portion of the site that would meet all setback requirements and that even if it could be moved, the soil in this area would be very compacted. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:19 P.M. No public comments were presented to the Commission. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20 P.M. M/S/P, Fliflet/Hall move to recommend approval of the variance with the conditions presented by Staff and with all as outlined in the review letter from the City Engineer. Vote: 7:0. Sign Code Update Gozola presented information concerning proposed amendments to the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that at this time, a draft ordinance had been assembled for discussion purposes and that this would be a first step towards a complete overhaul of the Lake Elmo Sign Ordinance. He reminded Commissioners of the sign issues brought forward by the Planning Department in the recent past. After reviewing these concerns with the City Council, the Council directed the Commission to consider certain portions of the code as a priority, Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 1 DRAFT; 3-24-08 including the sections related to off -premise signs for seasonal sales, off -premise signs related to real estate developments, and seasonal sales in rural residential areas. Gozola explained that the ordinance was drafted with a larger rewrite in mind. The City Attorney had also provided an opinion on specific issues associated with sign regulations. Fliflet asked if the current ordinance defined floriculture. Gozola responded that this use does show up in other parts of the code and would not be changed as part of the draft ordinance. The Commission generally discussed the time limits for signs, and suggested that a longer time period was needed for agricultural uses. Pelletier questioned who decides the classification of roadways in Lake Elmo. She suggested that too much signage can distract drivers and is a safety concern for transportation engineers. She asked if the needs of the school and city would be taken into account with the proposed ordinance. Gozola indicated that the current ordinance does not allow signs within any right-of- way and that the Commission could allow signs only along certain corridors. Fliflet did not agree with limiting seasonal sales to one sign, and expressed her preference for regulating development signs based on the size of the development. She suggested allowing more signage on large agricultural operations based on the size of the farm. Hall asked for clarification concerning the viewer reaction times included in the Staff presentation. Gozola replied that these times are calculated by determining how much time it would take drivers to comprehend a certain size message based on a set travel speed. Hall commented that he did not see why a developer would need to leave his site for signage and recommended leaving these signs on site. Ptacek requested an legal opinion concern the content neutral aspects of the sign code. The Commission debated the merits and drawbacks to allowing off -site advertising for development projects, noting that the benefits include helping get projects built in a timely manner by increasing their visibility and that it would allow all temporary signs to be regulated in a consistent manner. The drawbacks identified included the following: other forms of advertising are available to developers that are just as effective and all business would want equal treatment. The Commission was generally split on this aspect of the proposed ordinance and noted that consistency throughout the code was an important consideration. Ptacek recommended that all on -site temporary signs be allowed on a scale based on the size of the parcel. Gozola suggested including language for spacing based on comments from other Commissioners. The Commission generally expressed agreement with the provisions allowing one off -site and one on -site sign for seasonal sales and also agreed that seasonal sales should be permitted in rural residential districts. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 2 DRAFT; 3-24-08 Chairman Ptacek stated that he had received requests for public comments and asked that those citizens address the Commission at this time. Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue North, discussed the definitions for wayside stand and seasonal sales lot and that she would like to see both uses allowed in the rural residential district. She also requested that each seasonal business be allowed a total of three signs, whether on -site or off -site regardless of size and further explained that these types of signs are not up for a long period of time and that most farms have been using them for while. Ziertman suggested that signs be permitted based on products and growing seasons, noting that some seasonal businesses have three or more growing seasons to manage. Needing permission from property owners should also help limit the number of signs that will be installed.. Gary Johnson of Bittersweet Farms addressed the Commission and stated that if cute, rural wayside stands are desired in the community, than the City needs to allow signage for these businesses. He explained that the most effective signs for agricultural businesses are along the roadside, and that it is necessary to direct customers to sales sites. He supported regulating the size of signs but not the number allowed. Johnson noted that new businesses in particular need a lot of signage to attract attention to their site. Gozola indicated that the next steps will be to update the City Council regarding the proposed ordinance revisions and then to come back to the Planning Commission with the formal ordinance changes. Appointment of Secretary Ptacek asked for nominations for secretary since the current position was vacant. M/S/P. Pelletier/McGinnis, move to nominate Julie FliFlet for Planning Commission Secretary. Vote: 6:0. Informational Items Klatt explained that the Conditional Use Permit request by the Oakdale Gun Club had been withdrawn and that the City Council had reviewed and approved the Park Plan. Adornment The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Ptacek. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Klatt Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 3 DRAFT; 4-14-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 14, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:01 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Fliflet, Helwig, Ptacek, Roth, and Hall. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Senior Planner Gozola. Agenda M/S/P, Helwig/Roth, to approve the agenda. Vote: 6:0. Minutes — March 28, 2008 Klatt noted that the minutes from March 28, 2008 would be included in the next Planning Commission packet. Sign Ordinance Revisions - Senior Planner Ben Gozola reviewed the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission regarding proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance. The amendments that have been drafted include changes to Sign Administration, Agricultural Business Definitions and Regulations, and Off -site Advertising Signage. Hall asked if the current code contains clear definitions for permanent verses temporary signs. Gozola noted it does not and that these definitions could be added with the draft ordinance. Anderson requested a change to the language pertaining to completed applications. The Commission discussed the requirements for topography, and Gozola stated that such information may be needed depending upon the type of sign and the proposed location. Staff will work with applicants and waive informational requirements if such information isn't needed to demonstrate compliance with code. The Commission further reviewed the organization of the sign administration section. In response to a question from the Commission, Gozola explained that the required permit for a sign would indicate the duration each sign could be displayed. The Commission had no further questions or comments on the first ordinance. Gozola then reviewed the proposed ordinance revisions to the agricultural business regulations. Gozola began by reviewing proposed definition changes and new definitions to be added stating the proposed changes are needed to clarify what these uses are allowed in the various zoning districts. The proposed changes were critical to address the commission concerns surrounding how to categorize different agricultural use types, ensuring that farmers can legally sell their products, and ensuring intensive agricultural uses get City review. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-08 1 DRAFT; 4-14-08 Ptacek agreed with adding a definition for rural farm. Gozola noted that the ordinance as drafted would not prohibit the sales of goods grown on site since seasonal sales businesses and wayside stands would be permitted uses. Roth suggested that seasonal sales should not be conditional on agriculturally zoned property. Gozola explained that it is important to differentiate between a stand and a larger business operation given the potential impacts associated with a more permanent use. The Commission generally recommended developing standards for each of the agricultural businesses proposed, and was in favor of creating different categories for each type of activity. Access was identified as an important component to regulate, but the commission was uncomfortable with making all such uses conditionally permitted. Gozola suggested that access requirements could be included in the code as a performance standard for a permitted use if the Commission wanted to regulate that aspect of a business site. The Commission discussed other potential impacts of agricultural businesses that may need review including parking, traffic, dust, and hours of operation. The Commission provided direction to allow wayside stands, regulate seasonal sales as permitted uses with performance standards, and to require a conditional use permit for larger operations. The requirements for a conditional use will come back to the Commission review, and a third category will be developed for the most intensive uses. The Commission had no further questions or comments on the second ordinance. Gozola concluded the discussion by reviewing the proposed ordinance changes related to temporary signs and temporary off -site signs. He noted that the ordinance addressed the commission's feedback from the previous meeting including an allowance for multiple on -site signs for agricultural businesses based on the acres used for agricultural production. The Commission agreed by consensus to lower the build -out requirements for sign removal from 95% to 90% in open space development projects. Gozola suggested using the issuance of building permits as the determinant for calculating the build out percentage. The Commission further agreed by consensus to revise the draft ordinance to allow two off -site signs for agricultural sales businesses Finally, direction was given to create a renewal process and fee for temporary signs. Informational Items Klatt discussed that the City Council had recently ordered the preparation the AUAR for the Village Area with three development scenarios to be studied. He also noted that the variance for the 7934 Hill Trail septic system had been approved. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-08 2 DRAFT; 4-14-08 Adornment The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Klatt Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-08 3 Planning Commission Date: 5/12/08 Not a public hearing Item: 5a ITEM: Accessory Building Regulations / SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director , REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Senior Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider some minor amendments to the City's Accessory Building regulations to improve consistency and clarity between various sections of the City Code. This issue was raised by Staff after it became apparent that some of the setback and height requirements noted on a departmental handout for accessory buildings did not match the appropriate sections in the Zoning Ordinance or at least seemed somewhat inconsistent. This matter was originally discussed two months ago as part of a Staff report, and at his time, additional direction is sought from the Commission concerning proposed revisions to the code. The attached table attempts to gather all of the accessory building standards into one chart; however, the City Code regulates accessory buildings by both type and zoning district making direct comparisons from one district to the next difficult. The Zoning District provisions also sometimes regulate principal and accessory buildings together and at other times list each of these structure requirements separately. Finally, the requirements also sometimes vary depending on lot size (or principal building size) further complicating a direct comparison between districts. After spending some time reviewing these sections, some minor modifications are being proposed to primarily improve consistency in the code for accessory buildings, including: • Clarifying whether or not the building setbacks in most zoning districts also apply to accessory building. • Adding accessory building setbacks to the RE district provisions or clarifying that the accessory building setbacks are the same as the principal building setbacks. • Defining accessory building height the same as principal building height and revising the regulations to reflect this change. Adding a general height requirement for Agricultural zones, acknowledging that most farm -related buildings are exempt from height requirements. • Eliminating language that restricts buildings used for the parking of passenger automobiles to 1,000 square feet in size. The size of accessory buildings is already limited in residential zones to not much more than 1,000 square feet. In rural residential and agricultural zones, larger accessory structures are already permitted, and it does not seem feasible to limit automobile parking in these larger structures. • Given the change proposed above, additional clarity should be provided for attached garages and how this size is calculated. Accessory Buildings Summary Tables TABLE 1 — SETBACKS/HEIGHT Accessory Bldg Setbacks AG AG RR RR RI R2 R3 R4 RE ate Anini Front 200 30 30 100 30 30 50 50 Side 200 10 10 100 10 10 20 20 Side (Street) 200 25 25 100 25 25 50 50 Rear 200 40 40 100 40 40 50 50 Rear (Garages, Boats, Storage, Tool) 200 10 10 100 10 10 20 20 Arterial Street 200 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 Height Number * Or 10% of lot width, whichever is greater No figures found in the Zoning Ordinance 14 20 14 14 14 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 OP OP Sie} Ta rime 30 30 15* 15* 30 30 15* 15* L 15* 15* 25 20 1 1 TABLE 2 - DETACHED AND ATTACHED GARAGE REGULATIONS AG 0-10 Acres 10-40 Acres 40+ Acres RR 0-10 Acres 10-15 Acres 15 + Acres R1 < 5,000 SF > 5,000 SF and Under 1 Acre 1-2 Acres 2 + Acres R2 R3 R4 RE OP Size of Attached No Limit No Limit No Limit No Limit No Limit No Limit N/A 1,200 SF Combined No Limit No Limit N/A N/A N/A Same as R1 Same as R1 Number and Size of Detached (2) 2,000 SF Total (2) 2,000 SF Each No Limit (unless non-agricultural) (1) 2,000 SF (1) 2,500 SF (1) 3,000 SF N/A (1) 1,200 SF Combined, May not exceed footprint of primary structure (1) 1,200 SF (1) 1,300 SF N/A N/A N/A Same as RI Same as Ri • In all districts, buildings used or intended for the storage of passenger automobiles may not exceed 1,000 SF. • In all districts, detached accessory buildings on lots of less than 20,000 SF may not exceed the size of the principal structure. i LAKE City of Lake Elmo jotELMO 3800 Laverne Avenue North _ 7 Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 (651) 777-5510 Fax: (651) 777-9615 Www.LakeElmo.Ora NOTICE OF MEETING The City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission will conduct a meeting on Monday, May 12, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. AGENDA 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Approve Agenda 3. Approve Minutes a. March 24, 2008 b. April 14, 2008 4. Public Hearings a. NO PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. Old Business a. Accessory Building Setbacks 6. New Business 7. City Council/Staff Updates a. May 6th - Community Growth Options Grant Application b. Planning Commission Meeting Schedule 8. Adjourn DRAFT; 3-24-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Hall, Fliflet, Helwig, McGinnis, Pelletier, Ptacek, and Van Zandt. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Senior Planner Gozola. Agenda A motion was made a seconded to approve the agenda. Motion carried. Vote: 7:0. Minutes — March 28, 2008 There was a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2008 meeting. The motion carried with a vote of 5:0 with 2 abstentions. Public Hearing: 7934 Hill Trail North Septic System Variance Klatt presented a summary of the Staff report and related information concerning a request by Phil and Michelle Eason for a variance to allow the replacement of an existing septic system and drain field with a new one that does not meet the minimum setback requirements to a principal structure and property lines. He recommended approval of the request with conditions. Ptacek questioned why the septic system could not be moved to an alternative portion of the site. Phil Eason responded that there is a driveway located on the only portion of the site that would meet all setback requirements and that even if it could be moved, the soil in this area would be very compacted. THE CHAIRMAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:19 P.M. No public comments were presented to the Commission. THE CHAIRMAN CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:20 P.M. M/S/P, Fliflet/Hall move to recommend approval of the variance with the conditions presented by Staff and with all as outlined in the review letter from the City Engineer. Vote: 7:0. Sign Code Update Gozola presented information concerning proposed amendments to the sign regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that at this time, a draft ordinance had been assembled for discussion purposes and that this would be a first step towards a complete overhaul of the Lake Elmo Sign Ordinance. He reminded Commissioners of the sign issues brought forward by the Planning Department in the recent past. After reviewing these concerns with the City Council, the Council directed the Commission to consider certain portions of the code as a priority, Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 1 DRAFT; 3-24-08 including the sections related to off -premise signs for seasonal sales, off -premise signs related to real estate developments, and seasonal sales in rural residential areas. Gozola explained that the ordinance was drafted with a larger rewrite in mind. The City Attorney had also provided an opinion on specific issues associated with sign regulations. Fliflet asked if the current ordinance defined floriculture. Gozola responded that this use does show up in other parts of the code and would not be changed as part of the draft ordinance. The Commission generally discussed the time limits for signs, and suggested that a longer time period was needed for agricultural uses. Pelletier questioned who decides the classification of roadways in Lake Elmo. She suggested that too much signage can distract drivers and is a safety concern for transportation engineers. She asked if the needs of the school and city would be taken into account with the proposed ordinance. Gozola indicated that the current ordinance does not allow signs within any right-of- way and that the Commission could allow signs only along certain corridors. Fliflet did not agree with limiting seasonal sales to one sign, and expressed her preference for regulating development signs based on the size of the development. She suggested allowing more signage on large agricultural operations based on the size of the farm. Hall asked for clarification concerning the viewer reaction times included in the Staff presentation. Gozola replied that these times are calculated by determining how much time it would take drivers to comprehend a certain size message based on a set travel speed. Hall commented that he did not see why a developer would need to leave his site for signage and recommended leaving these signs on site. Ptacek requested an legal opinion concern the content neutral aspects of the sign code. The Commission debated the merits and drawbacks to allowing off -site advertising for development projects, noting that the benefits include helping get projects built in a timely manner by increasing their visibility and that it would allow all temporary signs to be regulated in a consistent manner. The drawbacks identified included the following: other forms of advertising are available to developers that are just as effective and all business would want equal treatment. The Commission was generally split on this aspect of the proposed ordinance and noted that consistency throughout the code was an important consideration. Ptacek recommended that all on -site temporary signs be allowed on a scale based on the size of the parcel. Gozola suggested including language for spacing based on comments from other Commissioners. The Commission generally expressed agreement with the provisions allowing one off -site and one on -site sign for seasonal sales and also agreed that seasonal sales should be permitted in rural residential districts. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 2 DRAFT; 3-24-08 Chairman Ptacek stated that he had received requests for public comments and asked that those citizens address the Commission at this time. Joan Ziertman, 5761 Keats Avenue North, discussed the definitions for wayside stand and seasonal sales lot and that she would like to see both uses allowed in the rural residential district. She also requested that each seasonal business be allowed a total of three signs, whether on -site or off -site regardless of size and further explained that these types of signs are not up for a long period of time and that most farms have been using them for while. Ziertman suggested that signs be permitted based on products and growing seasons, noting that some seasonal businesses have three or more growing seasons to manage. Needing permission from property owners should also help limit the number of signs that will be installed. Gary Johnson of Bittersweet Farms addressed the Commission and stated that if cute, rural wayside stands are desired in the community, than the City needs to allow signage for these businesses. He explained that the most effective signs for agricultural businesses are along the roadside, and that it is necessary to direct customers to sales sites. He supported regulating the size of signs but not the number allowed. Johnson noted that new businesses in particular need a lot of signage to attract attention to their site. Gozola indicated that the next steps will be to update the City Council regarding the proposed ordinance revisions and then to come back to the Planning Commission with the formal ordinance changes. Appointment of Secretary Ptacek asked for nominations for secretary since the current position was vacant. M/S/P. Pelletier/McGinnis, move to nominate Julie FliFlet for Planning Commission Secretary. Vote: 6:0. Informational Items Klatt explained that the Conditional Use Permit request by the Oakdale Gun Club had been withdrawn and that the City Council had reviewed and approved the Park Plan. Adornment The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Ptacek. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Klatt Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 3-24-08 3 DRAFT; 4-14-08 City of Lake Elmo Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 14, 2008 Chairman Ptacek called to order the meeting of the Lake Elmo Planning Commission at 7:01 p.m. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Anderson, Fliflet, Helwig, Ptacek, Roth, and Hall. STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Klatt and Senior Planner Gozola. Agenda M/S/P, Helwig/Roth, to approve the agenda. Vote: 6:0. Minutes — March 28, 2008 Klatt noted that the minutes from March 28, 2008 would be included in the next Planning Commission packet. Sign Ordinance Revisions Senior Planner Ben Gozola reviewed the staff memorandum to the Planning Commission regarding proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance. The amendments that have been drafted include changes to Sign Administration, Agricultural Business Definitions and Regulations, and Off -site Advertising Signage. Hall asked if the current code contains clear definitions for permanent verses temporary signs. Gozola noted it does not and that these definitions could be added with the draft ordinance. Anderson requested a change to the language pertaining to completed applications. The Commission discussed the requirements for topography, and Gozola stated that such information may be needed depending upon the type of sign and the proposed location. Staff will work with applicants and waive informational requirements if such information isn't needed to demonstrate compliance with code. The Commission further reviewed the organization of the sign administration section. In response to a question from the Commission, Gozola explained that the required permit for a sign would indicate the duration each sign could be displayed. The Commission had no further questions or comments on the first ordinance. Gozola then reviewed the proposed ordinance revisions to the agricultural business regulations. Gozola began by reviewing proposed definition changes and new definitions to be added stating the proposed changes are needed to clarify what these uses are allowed in the various zoning districts. The proposed changes were critical to address the commission concerns surrounding how to categorize different agricultural use types, ensuring that farmers can legally sell their products, and ensuring intensive agricultural uses get City review. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-08 1 DRAFT; 4-14-08 Ptacek agreed with adding a definition for rural farm. Gozola noted that the ordinance as drafted would not prohibit the sales of goods grown on site since seasonal sales businesses and wayside stands would be permitted uses. Roth suggested that seasonal sales should not be conditional on agriculturally zoned property. Gozola explained that it is important to differentiate between a stand and a larger business operation given the potential impacts associated with a more permanent use. The Commission generally recommended developing standards for each of the agricultural businesses proposed, and was in favor of creating different categories for each type of activity. Access was identified as an important component to regulate, but the commission was uncomfortable with making all such uses conditionally permitted. Gozola suggested that access requirements could be included in the code as a performance standard for a permitted use if the Commission wanted to regulate that aspect of a business site. The Commission discussed other potential impacts of agricultural businesses that may need review including parking, traffic, dust, and hours of operation. The Commission provided direction to allow wayside stands, regulate seasonal sales as permitted uses with performance standards, and to require a conditional use permit for larger operations. The requirements for a conditional use will come back to the Commission review, and a third category will be developed for the most intensive uses. The Commission had no further questions or comments on the second ordinance. Gozola concluded the discussion by reviewing the proposed ordinance changes related to temporary signs and temporary off -site signs. He noted that the ordinance addressed the commission's feedback from the previous meeting including an allowance for multiple on -site signs for agricultural businesses based on the acres used for agricultural production. The Commission agreed by consensus to lower the build -out requirements for sign removal from 95% to 90% in open space development projects. Gozola suggested using the issuance of building permits as the determinant for calculating the build out percentage. The Commission further agreed by consensus to revise the draft ordinance to allow two off -site signs for agricultural sales businesses. Finally, direction was given to create a renewal process and fee for temporary signs. Informational Items Klatt discussed that the City Council had recently ordered the preparation the AUAR for the Village Area with three development scenarios to be studied. He also noted that the variance for the 7934 Hill Trail septic system had been approved. Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-08 2 DRAFT; 4-14-08 Adornment The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kyle Klatt Planning Director Lake Elmo Planning Commission Minutes; 4-14-08 3 Planning Commission Date: 5/12/08 Not a public hearing Item: 5a ITEM: Accessory Building Regulations SUBMITTED BY: Kyle Klatt, Planning Director , REVIEWED BY: Ben Gozola, Senior Planner SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUESTED: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider some minor amendments to the City's Accessory Building regulations to improve consistency and clarity between various sections of the City Code. This issue was raised by Staff after it became apparent that some of the setback and height requirements noted on a departmental handout for accessory buildings did not match the appropriate sections in the Zoning Ordinance or at least seemed somewhat inconsistent. This matter was originally discussed two months ago as part of a Staff report, and at his time, additional direction is sought from the Commission concerning proposed revisions to the code. The attached table attempts to gather all of the accessory building standards into one chart; however, the City Code regulates accessory buildings by both type and zoning district making direct comparisons from one district to the next difficult. The Zoning District provisions also sometimes regulate principal and accessory buildings together and at other times list each of these structure requirements separately. Finally, the requirements also sometimes vary depending on lot size (or principal building size) further complicating a direct comparison between districts. After spending some time reviewing these sections, some minor modifications are being proposed to primarily improve consistency in the code for accessory buildings, including: • Clarifying whether or not the building setbacks in most zoning districts also apply to accessory building. • Adding accessory building setbacks to the RE district provisions or clarifying that the accessory building setbacks are the same as the principal building setbacks. • Defining accessory building height the same as principal building height and revising the regulations to reflect this change. Adding a general height requirement for Agricultural zones, acknowledging that most farm -related buildings are exempt from height requirements. • Eliminating language that restricts buildings used for the parking of passenger automobiles to 1,000 square feet in size. The size of accessory buildings is already limited in residential zones to not much more than 1,000 square feet. In rural residential and agricultural zones, larger accessory structures are already permitted, and it does not seem feasible to limit automobile parking in these larger structures. • Given the change proposed above, additional clarity should be provided for attached garages and how this size is calculated. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: In addition to the attached chart, more specific examples will be provided during the meeting for consideration by the Commission. It is anticipated that with additional direction from the Commission, any proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments may be prepared for review at an upcoming meeting. This item is included on the 2008 Planning Commission Work Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission provide direction regarding the elements of the Zoning Ordinance specific to accessory buildings that should be revised at this time, and at a minimum, that these changes address the modifications summarized above. ORDER OF BUSINESS: - Introduction Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Report by staff Kyle Klatt, Planning Director Questions from the Commission Chair & Commission Members Accessory Buildings Summary Tables TABLE 1 — SETBACKSIHEIGHT Accessory Bldg Setbacks AG AG RR RR R1 R2 R3 R4 RE Gaul Anirel Front Side Side (Street) Rear Rear (Garages, Boats, Storage, Tool) Arterial Street Height Number * Or 10% of lot width, whichever is greater No figures found in the Zoning Ordinance 200 30 30 100 30 30 50 50 200 10 10 100 10 10 20 20 200 25 25 100 25 25 50 50 200 40 40 100 40 40 50 50 200 10 10 100 10 10 20 20 200 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 3 a 14 14 20 14 14 14 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 OP OP 1 S Tne 30 30 15* 15* 30 30 15* 15* 15* 15* 770 14 25 20 1 1 1 TABLE 2 - DETACHED AND ATTACHED GARAGE REGULATIONS AG 0-10 Acres 10-40 Acres 40+ Acres RR 0-10 Acres 10-15 Acres 15 + Acres RI Size of Attached No Limit No Limit No Limit No Limit No Limit No Limit < 5,000 SF N/A > 5,000 SF and Under 1 Acre 1,200 SF Combined 1-2 Acres 2 + Acres R2 R3 R4 RE OP No Limit No Limit N/A N/A N/A Same as R1 Same as Rl Number and Size of Detached (2) 2,000 SF Total (2) 2,000 SF Each No Limit (unless non-agricultural) (1) 2,000 SF (1) 2,500 SF (1) 3,000 SF N/A (1) 1,200 SF Combined, May not exceed footprint of primary structure (1) 1,200 SF (1) 1,300 SF N/A N/A N/A Same as R1 Same as Rl • In all districts, buildings used or intended for the storage of passenger automobiles may not exceed 1,000 SF. • In all districts, detached accessory buildings on lots of less than 20,000 SF may not exceed the size of the principal structure.