Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-2000 PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting November 15, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Peterson at 7:00 p.m., November 15, 2000. 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chairperson Peterson, Commissioners Berke, Hegland, Johnson, Miller, Stevenson, Kaden, Thomas, and Cerny. Members Excused: None. Also Present: Planner Jim Ericson and Community Development Director Jopke. Index to Minutes Page Discuss Possible Changes to the City’s Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code 2 Staff Reports / Items of Information 5 Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports 5 3. Citizen’s Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda There were no citizen requests or comments on items not on the agenda. 4. Approval of Minutes A. October 18, 2000 Commissioner Miller indicated a period was needed on Page 6 of 7. MOTION/SECOND: Stevenson/Miller. To approve the October 18, 2000 meeting minutes with the noted correction. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 Ayes – 9 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 5. Discuss Possible Changes to the City’s Sign Code, Chapter 1008 of the Municipal Code Planner Ericson drafted and presented to the Commission a preliminary revision to the sign code with the only changes of substance being the addition of a “purpose” section and the reorganization of the allowable signage by zoning district into a table. Planner Ericson obtained and presented to the Commission a model sign ordinance from a group called United States Sign Council Foundation, a charitable, nonprofit organization devoted exclusively to funding sign-related research and educational activities of benefit to the growth of the sign industry. Mr. Ericson indicated he had also requested a model sign ordinance from the League of Minnesota Cities but was told the League of Minnesota Cities did not have a model sign ordinance. The League of Minnesota Cities does have several cities’ ordinances on file and would be happy to forward some examples to him. Planner Ericson drafted a proposed schedule for the review of the major components of the sign code to help expedite the process. The timeline was presented to the Commission and Planner Ericson asked for input as to changes or revisions to the timeline. Planner Ericson reviewed each area of the code he felt needed updating, changing, or clarifying, referring first to the new “Purpose” section. He indicated that each of the definitions would need to be carefully considered for possible changes. He pointed out that on Page 4 in Section 1008.03, Subd. 2, referring to “Exceptions” would need to be revised to be clearer. He recommended that the phrase “in its direction” in Section 1008.04 be changed to read “at its discretion” for purpose of clarity. He referred to Section 1008.05, Subd. 2 concerning permit issuance, indicating that the part dealing with “unusual signs or signs needing a special permit need to be referred to Council for approval” should be rewritten for clarity. He advised that some of the language in Section 1008.06, addressing the provisions for obtaining a license to install signs, could possibly be removed from the code. Planner Ericson continued by pointing out that Subd. 1f of Section 1008.08 requiring signs to be installed with identifying numbers may not be applicable and as such, could either be eliminated or changed. He stated that in his opinion, subpart 1of Subd. 1i of Section 1008.08 subpart 1 is one of the most confusing sections of the sign code. Planner Ericson indicated because of the confusing nature, he redrafted the section and presented his new version to the Commission for their review. Planner Ericson indicated that the table on Page 8 identifying signage by zoning district was added as a result of the suggestions made by the Commission at its last meeting. The last issue addressed by Planner Ericson concerned the variance language, and whether it is necessary to repeat the criteria in the sign code. The section could simply refer to Chapter 1125. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to how Section 1008.08 would apply to home-based businesses. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 Planner Ericson inferred that home-based businesses were defined separately under the City Code. Commissioner Kaden inquired as to how wind speed pressure could be determined for a sign. Planner Ericson indicated the City would rely on the sign companies to provide signs that met City Code requirements. Planner Ericson told the Commission it is not the intent of Staff to make changes to the sign ordinance that would make most signs in the City nonconforming. Commissioner Johnson indicated that R-4 and R-5 zoning are larger parcels and requirements for allowable real estate “for sale” signs should possibly be changed to allow a larger, 32 square-foot sign which seems to be the industry standard. Planner Ericson indicated that Staff removes the small advertising signs such as “weight loss” “work from home” and other nuisance advertising from telephone poles to prevent others from thinking Mounds View allows such advertising. Garage sale signs, he added, are treated differently. Information is printed in the newsletter each spring concerning sign etiquette and courtesy for garage sales. Commissioner Miller inquired as to whether there was a place in the code defining Christmas tree sales within the City and signage allowed for that. Planner Ericson indicated that there are guidelines for Christmas tree sales lots which include information on allowable signage. Planner Ericson asked the Commission whether they wanted to invite local business owners to come to the planning and discussion meetings on the sign ordinance or if the Commission would prefer to come up with a draft of possible changes to the sign code and then have one meeting where business owners could review and make comment on the code changes. Commissioner Thomas indicated she felt it would be a good idea to switch Ground Signs and Temporary Signs on the schedule to accommodate the holiday rush times for business owners. It was the consent of the Commission to notify local business owners of the meetings to discuss proposed changes to the sign ordinance and to inform them there will be a business owner’s forum on February 7, 2001 should they wish to participate in any or all of the meetings. It was also the consent of the Commission to switch Ground Signs and Temporary Signs on the timeline. Commissioner Thomas noted it may be necessary to define the requirements for a sign such as the Carmike sign that is oriented at a 45 degree angle. Planner Ericson indicated that issue could be looked at during the redrafting of the sign code. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Kaden inquired as to how the Commission should handle gas station owners who advertise pop sales by stacking cases of pop up and using different colored cases to outline the price. Planner Ericson indicated that right now Mounds View’s Code does not allow for the outside display and sale of products. Community Development Director Jopke indicated in Roseville they had defined the ability to advertise and display product outside under the terms and conditions of a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit allowed for a specific number of outside displays per year. Commissioner Hegland inquired as to whether the local craft shows or other local events within the City call and obtain the proper permits. Planner Ericson indicated that 9 out of 10 events planners do call for a permit. The sign company informs people who rent the signs that they may need a permit and to contact the city where the event is being held to obtain one. Commissioner Kaden indicated it may be necessary to redefine the meaning behind “long” grass on Page 7 because he knows of someone in his neighborhood who has ornamental tall grass that looks nice but is a nuisance to one of the neighbors who disapproves of it. Planner Ericson suggested handling ornamental grasses as a separate issue. Commissioner Thomas suggested changing the language on Page 7 to read “controlled landscape” provided it’s maintained. Chairperson Peterson indicated the graphics showing how to measure signs was very helpful and inquired as to whether the City could use them in its Code or could somehow obtain graphics to use in the Code. Planner Ericson indicated he would think this could be possible. 6. Staff Reports/Items of Information A. Previous Council Actions Community Development Director Jopke indicated that the City Council had met on November 13, 2000 and approved the Preliminary Plat for the Mermaid PUD and they referred Ordinance 672 back to the Planning Commission for further research and discussion. This item was referred back because a resident came forward indicating that per City Code his telemarketing business is not allowed because he has outside employees that come to his home to work. Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 Chairperson Peterson inquired as to whether it would be possible to obtain ordinances covering home-based businesses from the cities surrounding Mounds View to use as a guide while working on the home-based business ordinance. Planner Ericson indicated he had already requested copies and would present them at a future meeting. B. Items of Discussion Community Development Director Jopke told the Commission this was his last meeting and thanked the Commission for the opportunity to work with them. The Commission thanked Community Development Director Jopke for his years of service. 7. Chairperson and Planning Commission Reports Commissioner Stevenson inquired as to the status of the Walgreens and Culver’s development. Planner Ericson indicated things were progressing along but said there is a probability that Culver’s will not come to Mounds View as there is a new Culver’s restaurant opening just north of Mounds View. Commissioner Thomas inquired as to whether the City had received plans from Ernie Gustafson for the development on County Road I. Planner Ericson indicated he had not received anything concerning the property. Commissioner Johnson noted he had spoken to the owner of the Amoco property who indicated he was attempting to find someone to reopen the station. If that is not feasible, the property will be sold. However, not to another gas company. There were no other reports of the Commission. 8. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairperson Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:36 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Mounds View Planning Commission November 15, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 James Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Joan Lenzmeier TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.