Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-07-2014 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA May 7, 2014 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: April 2, 2014 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2014-001 Variance for Additional Wall Signage Applicant: Chad Mason, Allegiance Fitness Address: 2240 Woodale Drive B. MA2014-001 Major Subdivision of Longview Estates into 10 Lots Applicant: Eichi, Inc., Marty Harstad Address: 2195 Silver Lake Road 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Sign Code Amendment, Chapter 1008.10 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, May 21, 2014 B. Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8. Review Minutes: A. April 16, 2014 9. Staff Reports A. Upcoming Planning Cases 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioner’s Reports 11. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 16, 2014 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for April 16, 2014. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Birken, Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson. Absent and Excused: None. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 MU2014-001-CU-1 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage 2 MU2014-001-VR-1 Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion 4 _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes March 19, 2014. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Carvelli-Yu. To approve the Minutes of the March 19, 2014 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. MU2014-001-CU-1 Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage MU2014-001-VR-1 Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback Applicant: Chuck Pelton Address: 8312 Red Oak Drive Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, Chuck Pelton, is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for an oversize detached garage and a variance for a reduced driveway setback on his property at 8312 Red Oak Drive. The applicant wants to expand his house by attaching the existing detached garage and turning it into living space. He then plans to build a new 1,800 square foot garage behind the house with a driveway. Associate Heller explained the applicant submitted plans for a garage larger than what City Code allows without a conditional use permit. Any building larger than 952 square feet must get City approval of a conditional use permit. The applicant will also be installing a driveway that connects to the existing driveway and leads to the new garage in the backyard. This driveway will run past the house and be closer than five feet to the property line, which requires a reduced driveway setback variance. Associate Heller reviewed the conditional use permit and variance requirements per City Code and recommended the Commission hold a public hearing, take comments and approve the CUP and variance as requested. Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Curt Lyons, 2649 Ridge Lane, asked how close the new driveway would be to the property line. Associate Heller noted the driveway would be two feet from the property line. Mr. Lyons questioned if the applicant would be working out of the new garage. Chuck Pelton, 8312 Red Oak Drive, explained he was an HVAC contractor and noted the garage would be used for personal storage and not for business. He reported his commercial truck would be stored in the garage. Dave Notoro, 8325 Fairchild Avenue, requested further information on why a conditional use permit was required. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Associate Heller commented that the conditional use permit was required because the applicant as requesting to build a garage larger than was allowed by City Code. She reported the conditional use permit process involved a public hearing, and had to be reviewed and approved by both the Planning Commission and City Council. She explained that the conditional use permit process allowed the City to place conditions on the permit prior to approval and the applicant would be required to comply with these conditions. Dave Moracco, 8335 Fairchild Avenue, wanted assurance that no commerce or commercial activity would be taking place in the new garage. Chair Stevenson indicated the applicant has admitted the garage would be used to store a commercial vehicle and was not being used for commercial HVAC service. This was well within City Code for the R-1 Residential zoning district. Mr. Moracco requested the City continue to monitor this garage to ensure that the applicant does not begin using the detached garage for commercial purposes. Associate Heller discussed how the City regulated home based businesses in Mounds View. She reported homeowners were allowed to store commercial vehicles within garages. Chair Stevenson added that the City had a Code Enforcement Officer that assisted with these matters. Mr. Notoro asked what conditions would be placed on the permit for approval. He questioned the size and height of the detached garage and inquired if any trees on the applicant’s property would be removed. Mr. Pelton stated the garage size was somewhat fluid but would be approximately 36 feet wide and 50 feet deep. He indicated three trees would need to be removed in order for him to put in the garage and driveway. He explained the garage would have cedar log siding to match the home. Associate Heller reported the garage could be no higher than 18 feet to the peak. Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Commissioner Schiltgen requested further information about how the new driveway would be configured. Mr. Pelton stated the original driveway was 80 feet in length and would be continued another 40 feet along the existing garage to the new garage. Commissioner Love asked if the current driveway would remain in place. Mr. Pelton stated the existing cement driveway in front of the house would remain as is. Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Love inquired if the City or the watershed district had any guidelines regarding the additional impervious surface. Associate Heller commented the restrictions regarding impervious surfaces only came into effect when covering more than an acre. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution 998-14, a Resolution Recommending Approval of the Conditional Use Permit for an Oversize Garage; Planning Case No. MU2014-001-CU-1. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Birken. To approve Resolution 999- 14, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a Reduced Driveway Setback; Planning Case No. MU2014-001-VR-1. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. County Road 10 Corridor Overlay District Discussion Planning Associate Heller reviewed the changes made to the overlay district Ordinance since the last Planning Commission meeting with the Commission in detail. She recommended cultured stone be included as an acceptable building material. Chair Stevenson questioned if the Commission really wanted to require that 50% of all four sides of buildings along the corridor be brick faced. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu and Commissioner Birken supported this requirement. Associate Heller stated this requirement would improve the quality of the developments along the corridor. Associate Heller recommended the Commission hold a joint meeting with the City Council on June 2, 2014 to further discuss the overlay district Ordinance. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. May 7, 2014 B. May 21, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission April 16, 2014 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. April 2, 2014 The Commission discussed the April 2, 2014 meeting minutes. No changes were made. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases. She explained the Commission would be reviewing the sign ordinance at a future meeting. She reported Coventry Senior Living was pouring walls and the car wash would be removed in the near future. ______________________________________________________________________________ 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports None. 11. Adjournment There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: May 7, 2014 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance request to allow 224 square feet of wall signage at Allegiance Fitness, 2240 Woodale Drive; Planning Case VR2014-001 Introduction: The applicant, Chad Mason, representing Allegiance Fitness at 2240 Woodale Drive, has requested a variance to allow an additional 124 square feet of wall signage on the exterior of their building. Allegiance Fitness opened in the summer of 2013 and leases space in the Mounds View Business Park South. Their building has two visible frontages – one side facing County Road 10 and the other side facing the parking lot, where the entrances are. Each tenant in the business park can have up to 100 square feet of wall signage. Each parcel in the business park can have up to 200 square feet of ground signage, but often that signage must be shared among multiple tenants and any sign is at the discretion of the property management company, if they even provide ground signage at all. The property management only recently installed a ground sign for the south business park tenants, but the sign was placed so that the list of businesses is not visible to traffic going northwest on County Road 10 Discussion: Allegiance Fitness is expanding and will be using most of the building, and want to improve their exterior signage so their business is more visible and to make it easier for customers to find them. Their business is two different types of training facilities, so with the expansion they will have a separate entrance for each of the training areas. Since these entrances are spaced quite far apart they want to put a sign above each doorway. The property management company is supportive of this additional signage request. Allegiance Fitness currently has three wall signs of their wing logo that are 24 square foot each (total 72 square feet). One logo sign is on the County Road 10 side and the other two logo signs are flanking the original entrance door. They would like to keep the three existing logo signs, and add three new wall signs with the Allegiance Fitness wording, for a total of 224 square feet of wall signage. Similar Requests: Over the years, several businesses in Mounds View have been granted variances for additional wall signage: Aldi and Totino’s at Mounds View Square, the retail building with Abbey Carpet, the Carmike Wynnsong theater, C.G. Hill in the north business park, and the KFC restaurant have all received variances or other approvals for signage in excess of 100 square feet. The Mermaid, through its PUD, was also allowed signage in excess of the City’s requirements. Allegiance Fitness Variance Report May 7, 2014 Page 2 For the Planning Commission to act favorably toward this application, there must be a demonstrated hardship or practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. This is true for all variance requests. State statutes require that the governing body review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. These criteria are set forth in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2, of the City Code. The Code clearly states that a hardship exists when all of the criteria are met. The individual criteria, with responses, are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code limits amounts of signage for aesthetic reasons. The zoning code does not take into consideration the size of the business’s building or the visibility of the building from its street frontages. Due the angle of County Road 10, some businesses located along the highway have more than one visible street front where wall signage could be appropriate. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify signage criteria for businesses, it does support improvements to, and the success of the City’s businesses. The installation of additional wall signage will be helpful to the success of this business. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant is asking for the additional wall signage in order for the business to be more visible to potential customers, and to help new customers find their location. d. Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same zone or vicinity and result from lot size or shape, topography or other circumstances over which the owner of the property since the enactment of this Title has had no control. The unique circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. The unique circumstances of this building are that it has two very visible sides – one side is only visible from County Road 10, and the other side faces the parking lot where the entrances are; and because they are in a business park with multiple tenants, they do not have their own ground signage like other businesses. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This business is located within a multiple building business park that is on the main commercial corridor that runs through the City. The additional signage will have little impact to the existing character of the neighborhood. Allegiance Fitness Variance Report May 7, 2014 Page 3 f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Allowing the additional 124 square feet of wall signage would be the minimum the applicant feels is necessary to provide suitable visibility. g. The Planning Commission may impose such conditions upon the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with the standards established by this Title or to reduce or minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood, and to better carry out the intent of the variance. The condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. 1. A zoning permit must be applied for and issued for the new signage. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the applicant’s property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper. As of May 2, 2014, staff has not received any comments. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commissioners take testimony from staff and the applicant and open the public hearing. After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and the public, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 1001-14 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variance. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Planning Commission needs more information before making a decision or if they decide there is a need for more discussion, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photos of building 4. Photos of building with proposed signage 5. Resolution 1001-14 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Mermaid Aerial View Allegiance Fitness Woodale Drive Allina & Zero Gravity Quanex & US Geological Mermaid Abbey Carpet McDonald’s Photos of Allegiance Fitness Allegiance Fitness is expanding into most of this building. Existing signs on this building side are the 2 “wing” logos = 48 square feet total Parking lot side County Road 10 side Existing signage = 24 square foot wing logo Entrance 1 Entrance 2 Photos showing proposed signage on building Entrance 1 - Add 39 square foot sign Entrance 2 – Add 39 square foot sign Photos showing proposed signage on building Side Facing County Road 10 Wings logo = 4’ x 6’ (24 sq. feet) Lettering = 3.5’ x 34.5’ (120 sq feet) MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1001-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 224 SQUARE FEET OF WALL- MOUNTED SIGNAGE AT ALLEGIANCE FITNESS, 2240 WOODALE DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2014-001 WHEREAS, the applicant, Chad Mason, representing Allegiance Fitness, 2240 Woodale Drive, has applied for a variance to allow 224 square feet of wall signage; and, WHEREAS, 2240 Woodale Drive is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, and is legally described as follows: Condo No. 296 Mounds View Business Park South PIN: 08-30-23-43-0019 and 08-30-23-43-0021 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Site Plan 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Staff Report 5. Photographic Documentation WHEREAS, Section 1008.09 of the Sign Code indicates that the maximum wall- mounted signage for a commercial building is 100 square feet per business occupant; and, WHEREAS , the applicant has applied for a variance to allow 224 square feet of wall- mounted signage; and, WHEREAS, the purpose of the variance provision in the Zoning Code is to give relief to property owners when the strict enforcement of the zoning code requirements imposes a hardship thereby restricting the improvement of property due to practical difficulties brought about by unique or extraordinary features of the physical property that are beyond the property owner’s control; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing regarding this request on May 7, 2014; and, WHEREAS, according to Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code, the Planning Commission is to review a standard set of criteria, of which all must be satisfied, in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Resolution 1001-14 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission finds that the criteria as identified in Section 1125.02, Subdivision 2 of the Mounds View Municipal Code are satisfied and finds there to be sufficient practical difficulty with regard to the property located at 2240 Woodale Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding signage limits is for aesthetic reasons. The requested additional signage still meets the general purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is trying to keep the business successful. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the building is large and has two visible frontages and two entrances. 4. The unique feature of this property is the way the building is sitting on the property. One side is visible from County Road 10 and another side is where the parking lot and two entrances are. This business is in a business park and they only have limited ground signage. 5. The additional signage will not alter the existing commercial character of the neighborhood. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance the applicant feels is required to provide suitable visibility and alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty. 7. The Planning Commission may impose conditions upon the premises as may be necessary to comply with city standards and to minimize the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission, based upon the above findings, approves the variance request of Allegiance Fitness at 2240 Woodale Drive, to allow a total of 224 square feet of wall-mounted signage. Adopted this 7th day of May, 2014. _________________________________ Paul Schiltgen,Vice Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: May 7, 2014 Type of Business: Planning Case City of Mounds View Staff Report To Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for a proposed Major Subdivision at Longview Estates, 5173 Longview Drive; Planning Case MA2014-001 Introduction: Marty Harstad, representing Eichi, Inc. has submitted an application for a major subdivision of vacant land known as Longview Estates. This 7.14 acre parcel is on the west side of Longview Drive between County Road H2 and Woodale Drive. The proposed subdivision would create 10 buildable lots from the existing one lot. Discussion: The area identified as Longview Estates is currently zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with the existing zoning of the property. This parcel is designated as a wetland district; therefore the minimum size for these lots is 125 feet wide and 20,000 square feet. In 2010, the City Council approved a variance to allow reduced lots widths in this development area. All of the lots shown on the preliminary plat meet the 20,000 square foot requirement, but only two lots meet the 125 foot width requirement. Due to the amount of wetlands present on this parcel, the lots will be developed with the driveways accessing Longview Drive and very limited yard space. A boulder wall will be built along the entire length of the parcel, fairly close behind each of the homes, as a divider between the homes and the wetland. The City is being given a 42-foot wide outlot that runs next to Silver Lake Road for the full length of the entire 7-acre parcel. The City requested this outlot in order to prevent any further development from occurring in this area. There are uplands that will be dry in this area, and neither the City or Rice Creek Watershed District want the new property owners to build sheds, garages, play structures, etc. here because they will need to cross the wetlands to reach them. This leads to fill being brought in, doing landscaping or clearing of the growth in the wetland. There will also be a new pond that the City will be maintaining. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the Longview Estates parcel and much of the surrounding area as single family detached housing. The proposed subdivision would be consistent with that designation, and with the residential goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal would also be consistent with specific housing goals and policies articulated in the Comp Plan. Longview Estates Major Subdivision May 7, 2014 Page 2 Local Water Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, this planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and stormwater management. The project area is located in the SC-2 sub-watershed. The minimum recommended building elevation for the SC-2 sub-watershed is set at 891.9 feet. Easements: The City’s Subdivision Code requires that plats dedicate perimeter drainage and utility easements for each lot in the subdivision. This plat does dedicate the necessary perimeter easements along with a very large easement behind the homes that encompasses the wetland area. There will also be a new 20 foot easement between lots 8 and 9 for the stormwater pipe that is being relocated further north and will drain into the new pond. Streets: The ten new lots will have access onto Longview Drive, which is a city owned road and was reconstructed in 2012. This street is adequate to handle the amount of added traffic that ten additional homes would create. Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. The dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to the parks system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. In this case, the fee should be equal to 10% of the market value of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey County assessed values as the basis for dedication computation. The 2013 Ramsey County land value is $120,000. The dedication amount then would be $12,000. Utilities: All utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and sanitary sewer connections have already been installed for 10 lots. Traffic: The amount of daily vehicle trips on the proposed road will definitely increase since ten additional housing units are proposed. On average, single-family homes generate about 10 vehicle trips per day, thus one could expect an additional 100 movements along Longview Drive as a result of this subdivision. Vegetation: The 7.14 acre site is mostly wooded with wetlands. The applicant must follow the landscaping requirements in City Code Chapter 1127. Staff recommends that after each house has been constructed, the yard areas should be sodded and at least one tree shall be planted in the front yard – whether they are existing trees or new ones planted if the existing trees must be removed. The new tree species must be approved by the City. Mr. Harstad does not plan to build the homes, so most of the landscaping requirements will be addressed with the home builder. Wetlands: The National Wetlands Inventory Map and the City’s official Wetland Zoning Map identify a significant wetland within the property boundary. Since the property is over one acre in size, the applicant will need to apply for a general stormwater permit from the MPCA. The applicant has already received approvals and a permit from Rice Creek Watershed District. Significant work and soil corrections will be done to the property in order to prepare for building. Longview Estates Major Subdivision May 7, 2014 Page 3 Recommendation: Review the plans and discuss the proposed preliminary plat. Staff review revealed no deficiencies at this time and thus Resolution 1002-14 recommending approval of the preliminary plat has been drafted for your action if the Commission so desires. Respectfully Submitted By, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Preliminary Plat 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 5. Planning Commission Resolution 1002-14 Preliminary Plat Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Aerial View Silver Lake Rd County Road H2 Red Oak Dr Woodale Dr Longview Dr Longview Estates Woodcrest Park MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1002-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF LONGVIEW ESTATES INTO 10 LOTS; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. MA2014-001 WHEREAS , Marty Harstad, reprenting Eichi, Inc. has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the major subdivision of Longview Estates, legally-described as follows: Lot 4, Block 1, Mueller Addition WHEREAS, The above-described land is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential and is designated as Single-Family Detached on the Comprehensive Plan; and, WHEREAS, Marty Harstad with Eichi, Inc. has submitted a Preliminary Plat for the major subdivision which creates 10 buildable lots; and, WHEREAS, the community development and public works staff have reviewed the preliminary plat and finds that it satisfies the minimum subdivision requirements as articulated in Titles 1100 and 1200 of the Mounds View Municipal Code and complies with county platting requirements; and, WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is within a designated wetland area; and, WHEREAS, the City Council passed Resolution 7658, approving a variance to allow reduced lot widths in a wetland district; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 1204.04, Subd. 4, the subdivision is subject to a park dedication fee of $12,000, which would be equivalent to 10% of the 2013 Ramsey County assessed value of the land area, which is determined to be $120,000.00; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Preliminary Plat 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Resolution 1002-14 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary Plat submitted by Marty Harstad, EIchi, Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee in the recommended amount of $12,000. 2. The applicant shall follow City Code Chapter 1127 for landscaping requirements. 3. The applicant shall obtain permits, if required, from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency before construction activity commences. 4. All utilities within the development area and to the individual home sites shall be located underground. 5. The applicant shall enter into various agreements with the City and/or the EDA including (but not limited to) a Developers Agreement. 6. The applicant shall apply for Final Plat approval no later than 6 months after the date of approval of the preliminary plat, or the Preliminary Plat approval will become null and void. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of May, 2014. __________________________________________ Paul Schiltgen, Vice Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: May 7, 2014 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Discussion about Amending Chapter 1008 of the Mounds View Municipal Code Pertaining to Dynamic Display Signs Introduction: The City amended its sign code on January 12, 2009 to include operational requirements and conditions for the use of dynamic display signage with the adoption of Ordinance 816. The code has since been amended to make additional changes after the dynamic sign code was put into effect. Staff is proposing another amendment. Discussion: Prior to the adoption of the ordinance regulating dynamic signs in 2009, these types of signs were not specifically addressed in the City Code, and were allowed just as other types of signs. With the new technology that was allowing dynamic displays to become more affordable and common for businesses, and the conversion of billboards to electronic signs, the City Council felt they needed to put some regulations on these types of signs. The sign code was amended to add a section specifically for dynamic signs. Technology for dynamic display signs is continually changing and improving. The City recently replaced the dynamic display sign at City Hall and sees firsthand the possibilities of what can put displayed on these signs. The City Council discussed this issue and decided that allowing “movement” of the messages, for example, flowing one screen or image into the next, would be acceptable. The City Council asked that the Planning Commission discuss amending the Code to remove the language that requires each image to be static, with no movement on the display. The Planning Commission should also discuss a change to allow dynamic display signs to simply be a maximum of 50 square feet in size, rather than “50% of the sign face or 50 square feet, whichever is less.” Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review and discuss the proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 1008 relating to dynamic signs as shown in the attached resolution. The Commission may take action if they are comfortable with the proposed amendments, or changes can be discussed and brought back to the Commission. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachment: 1. Resolution 1000-14 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1000-14 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1008 OF THE MOUNDS VIEW CITY CODE ABOUT DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGNS; SPECIAL PLANNING CASE 190-14 WHEREAS, City staff has recommended that amendments be made to the sign code relating to dynamic displays; and, WHEREAS , the Planning Commission agrees with the City Staff recommendation to remove language limiting what type of signs that dynamic displays are allowed on; and, WHEREAS, City staff has amended Chapter 1000, Section 1008.10 of the Mounds View City Code by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Section 1008.10 Subd. 9. Dynamic Display Signs: (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09) a. The City allows noncommercial dynamic display signs wherever the City allows commercial dynamic display signs. Such signs are subject to the same standards and total maximum allowances per site or building of each sign type specified in this Chapter. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended Ord. 864, 11-3-11) b. Standards for all dynamic display signs: (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11) (1) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be static, complete in themselves, without continuation in content to any other sign. The messages, content and images on all such displays shall not flash or blink. or move and shall not include any video images or content. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11) (2) No person or contractor shall install a dynamic display sign that because of its position, shape, movement or color, interferes with the proper functioning of a traffic sign, signal or that constitutes a traffic hazard. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09) (3) All dynamic display signs shall have ambient light monitors and shall, at all times, allow such monitors to automatically adjust the brightness level of the sign based on light conditions. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09) Resolution 1000-14 Page 2 (4) The manufacturers, owners and operators of dynamic display signs must design and equip such signs with a fully functional monitoring off switch system that automatically shuts the sign off or will freeze the device or sign in one (1) position; if a malfunction occurs. The signs and displays also must be equipped with a means to shut off or discontinue the display if it malfunctions. The sign owner or operator must stop or shut off the dynamic display within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible of the City notification that the sign is not meeting the standards of this Section of Chapter. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09) (5) Any dynamic display sign capable of accessing and utilizing MN Amber Alert technology shall display such messages as they are made available by the MN Dept. of Public Safety or other responsible agency. (Added, Ord. 864, 11-3-11) Section 1008.10 Subd. 9c. Dynamic Display Signs: c. In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the City allows on-site dynamic display signs subject to the following additional conditions: (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended Ord. 864, 11-3-11, Ord. 872, 6-7-12) (1) Such signs may be located only in the Limited Business (B-2), Highway Business (B-3), Regional Business (B-4) or Commercial Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) zoning districts. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11) (2) Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places or worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11, Ord. 872, 6- 7-12) (a) City Council approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) as outlined in Section 1106.04 and Section 1125.01, subdivision 3 of the City Code. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09) (b) Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights. (Added, Ord. 864, 11-3-11) (c) Such signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11) (3) The owner or operator of a dynamic display sign shall control and display the primary or background images and messages on the sign so they maintain each display for a minimum of four (4) seconds. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11, Ord. 872, 6-7-12) (4) Dynamic display signage shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet of the sign area or fifty percent (50%) of the total square footage of said sign face, whichever is less. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11, Ord. 872, 6-7-12) Resolution 1000-14 Page 3 (5) Such signs may only display and advertise information about products, events, persons, institutions, activities, businesses, services, or subjects that are located on the premises or on the site or only to provide public service or community service information. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11) (6) Such signs must meet all other City location and setback requirements. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22-09, Amended, Ord. 864, 11-3-11) WHEREAS, amending the City Code to allow dynamic displays on all types of signs would better serve the public and would clarify the zoning requirements; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission concurs that an amendment to the City Code is warranted and justified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Section 1008 of the Mounds View City Code as defined herein. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of May, 2014. _____________________________________ Paul Schiltgen, Vice Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)