Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2013 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA October 2, 2013 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: August 21, 2013 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. VR2013-005 Variance Request to Allow a 6-foot Fence in the Front Yard of a Corner Lot Address: 7700 Bona Road Applicant: David Farrell B. VR2013-006 Variance Request to Allow a Reduced Driveway Setback Address: 2833 County Road H Applicant: Kent Reed 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Proposed Sign Code Amendments 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. Wednesday, October 16, 2013 B. Wednesday, November 6, 2013 8. Review Minutes: A. September 18, 2013 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 September 18, 2013 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Schiltgen at 7:00 p.m. for September 18, 2013. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Carvelli-Yu, Elofson, Love, Rundle, and Schiltgen. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Cramblit and Stevenson. Also Present: Planning Associate Heidi Heller. ______________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2013-004 Variance Request to Allow a 6-foot Fence in a Front Yard 2 of a Corner Lot _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes August 7, 2013. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Rundle. To approve the Minutes of the August 7, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2013-04 Variance Request to Allow a 6-foot Fence in the Front Yard of a Corner Lot Applicant: John Ellis Address: 5048 Greenwood Drive Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, John Ellis is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of his corner lot located at 5048 Greenwood Drive. The property is located at the northeast corner of Greenwood Drive and County Road H. The Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicant recently purchased this newly constructed housing and would prefer to have a 6-foot tall wood fence for screening from County Road H and has applied for a variance. Associate Heller reviewed the variance considerations in detail and recommended the Commission hold a public hearing and approve of the variance as requested. Commissioner Carvelli-Yu asked what material the fence would be made out of. John Ellis, 5048 Greenwood Drive, explained the fence would be a maintenance-free material and would be a clay tan color. Vice Chair Schiltgen questioned if any trees would need to be removed for the fence. Mr. Ellis stated no trees would be removed for the proposed fence. Commissioner Rundle did not think the proposed fence would affect the sight lines along County Road H. Commissioner Love inquired if the lot was fairly level. Mr. Ellis indicated the proposed location for the fence was level and the small berm along County Road H would be removed when the sidewalk is installed. Acting Chair Schiltgen opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Acting Chair Schiltgen closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Carvelli-Yu/Commissioner Elofson. To approve Resolution 988-13, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to Allow a 6-foot Fence in a Front Yard of a Corner Lot; Planning Case No. VR2013-04. Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Love commented there was a long length of six foot fencing along Silver View Park and she found this to be suitable along County Road H. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. _____________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. October 2, 2013 B. October 16, 2013 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Review Minutes: A. August 21, 2013 The Commission discussed the August 21, 2013 meeting minutes. 9. Staff Updates A. Upcoming Planning Cases Planning Associate Heller discussed upcoming planning cases noting she had two planning cases scheduled for the October 2, 2013 meeting. The first case was a driveway setback and the other was a six-foot fence request. It was noted the Taiko building would be demolished on Thursday, September 19th and Robert’s would be taken down on Monday, September 23rd. She explained Apple Tree Dental would be closing on their property next week with renovations to begin shortly thereafter. Staff anticipated Apple Tree Dental would be open for business next spring. 10. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners Reports Vice Chair Schiltgen commented his street was being completed this year and he was pleased with the quality of the work conducted by the contractor. 11. Adjournment Mounds View Planning Commission September 18, 2013 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: October 2, 2013 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to Allow a Six-Foot Tall Fence in the Front Yard of 7700 Bona Road; Planning Case VR2013-005 Introduction: The applicant, David Farrell, is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall fence in the “second front yard” of his corner lot located at 7700 Bona Road. The property is located at the southwest corner of Bona Road and County Road I. Since two streets border corner lots, they have two front yards. As such, the City Code requirement for front yard applies to two sides of the property, which means that corner lots to have additional limitations. The Zoning Code indicates that no fence in front of the front line of a building in a residential district may exceed four feet in height. The applicant would prefer to have a 6-foot tall wood fence for screening from County Road I, and thus has applied for the variance, although after installing the fence. Discussion: According to the Municipal Code, Section 1103.08, Subdivision 3, fences of a height greater than 48 inches (4 feet) are not allowed in the front yard of a property without a variance. The Zoning Code also establishes a sight triangle that limits all obstructions within the area at the corner of intersections, measured thirty (30) feet from the point where the property lines meet at the intersection of two streets. The proposed fence would not be located within the sight triangle. Variance Considerations: For the City to approve this variance, as with any variance request, there needs to be demonstrated practical difficulty associated with the property that makes a literal interpretation of the Code overly burdensome or restrictive to a property owner. State statutes require that the governing body (the Planning Commission) review a set of specified criteria for each application and make its decision in accordance with these criteria. The City has set these criteria 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 and a staff comment about each are as follows: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The property at 7700 Bona Road is a corner lot, which is not in itself unique; however, the applicant seeks permission to have a 6-foot tall fence for the purpose of privacy and screening from busy County Road I. This property is across the street from several apartment buildings which create a lot of vehicle and pedestrian traffic, and there is a sidewalk along County Road I, adjacent to the applicant’s property. The taller fence would provide privacy and security for this property. 7700 Bona Road Variance Report October 2, 2013 Page 2 b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties. The applicant, owning a corner lot, is at a disadvantage to improve the property as other homeowners might because the property has two front yards. Every property owner has the right to apply for a variance to improve the function and livability of their property. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant cannot control the fact that his property is a corner lot with two front setbacks. The corner lots are much more restricted by the City Code and many times the resident’s use and privacy of the property is limited because of these restrictions. 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. Granting the variance would not confer upon the property owner a special privilege in that most property owners do not have to work with these setback constraints. The City has approved similar variances for taller fences in front yard areas of corner lots that are along busier streets. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The fence is setback about 35 feet from the edge of the County Road I pavement so it should not impact any sight lines, including the view for vehicles going south from Bona and turning onto County Road I. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The two foot variance is the minimum variance needed since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 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. Staff does not have any suggested conditions. A zoning permit for the fence has already been applied for. 7700 Bona Road Variance Report October 2, 2013 Page 3 Based upon the review of the above criteria, it appears to staff that the requested variance does satisfy the practical difficulty threshold. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, a public hearing is required. City staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of 7700 Bona Road. Staff has not received any comments as of September 27, 2013. Recommendation: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff, the applicant and any neighbors, the Commission should take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the variance as requested. Resolution 989-13 is attached for the Commission’s approval if they so choose. 2. Deny the requested variance. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings of fact appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If the Commission needs more information before making a decision or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can table the request until they are provided such information. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Statement from Applicant 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Corner Lot Fence Diagram 6. Resolution 989-13 ZONING MAP County Road I * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View COUNTY ROAD I Per City Code- only the RED line area can have a fence more than 4-feet tall without a variance. The YELLOW lines are where the applicant is requesting a variance to install a 6-foot tall privacy fence. Bona Rd Statement from Applicant Photographic Documentation Location of fence – bushes have been removed County Road I Applicant’s house 7700 Bona County Road I Installed 6- foot fence County Road I Installed 6- foot fence Bona Road City Code Permitted Fence Location for Corner Lots MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 989-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE IN THE SOUTH FRONT YARD OF 7700 BONA ROAD; MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE VR2013-005 WHEREAS, the applicant, David Farrell, has applied for a variance to allow a six-foot tall fence in the south front yard (near County Road I) of his property at 7700 Bona Road; and, WHEREAS, 7700 Bona Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as follows: Greenfield, The East 15 feet of the West ½ of Lot 10. Subject to Road; The East ½ of said Lot 10, Block 2. Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 05-30-23-33-0034 WHEREAS, Section 1103.08 of the Mounds View Zoning Code indicates that the maximum height of a fence in a front yard four feet (4’); and, WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to allow a six foot (6’) fence in the front yard abutting County Road I; and, WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents about this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial Photo 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report 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 public hearing on Wednesday, October 2, 2013, about this variance request; 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 that must be satisfied in order to grant a variance to the Zoning Code. Resolution 989-13 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Mounds View Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings related to this request: 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 7700 Bona Road, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding limited fence heights in front yards is to not close off the front of the property from the visual openness of the street, but yet still allow a fence for safety and some sense of privacy for the property owners. This becomes difficult on corner lots, particularly lots on busy streets, where the property owners really want the privacy due to the high traffic along one of their front yards. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the front yard height limitations would preclude having a fence tall enough to provide security, screening and buffering from busy County Road I. 4. The unique feature of this property is that it is a corner lot with two front yards, and there is a sidewalk along County Road I that is adjacent to the applicant’s property. 5. The 6-foot tall fence in the front yard should not change the existing neighborhood character or cause visibility problems for traffic. 6. The 2-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since the Zoning Code limits front yard fence heights to four feet. 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, does hereby approve the variance request for a six- foot tall fence in the south front yard of 7700 Bona Road. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 2013. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 5B Meeting Date: October 2, 2013 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Variance to allow a 3-foot Driveway Setback at 2833 County Road H; Planning Case VR2013-006 Introduction: The applicant, Kent Reed, property owner of 2833 County Road H is requesting a variance to allow the driveway to have a 3-foot setback. The City Code requires a five foot setback for driveways without a variance. Discussion: 2833 County Road H is a large lot with the existing home placed 17 feet from the west side of the property. There is a gravel driveway that runs past the house to the detached garage behind the home. The applicant will be installing a new hard surface driveway but wants to keep the driveway in the existing location with a 3-foot setback because there is limited room between the side entry steps on the house and the property line for a driveway. The driveway will have a 5-foot setback behind the house so that it lines up with the garage. The Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner in those cases where the Code imposes practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of the property owner’s land. 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. A variance may be granted only in the event that all of the following circumstances exist: a. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of these regulations. The zoning code requires minimum driveway setbacks for aesthetics and to provide separation and some sense of privacy between neighbors. The required setbacks typically can be met, but because the house was placed closer to the west side property line and the detached garage is behind the house, the driveway has to run next to the house to reach the garage. The house was built in 1940 and the driveway location has likely existed with a 3-foot setback since then. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports improvements to properties. 2833 County Road H Driveway Variance Report October 2, 2013 Page 2 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 driveway to remain as it has been for many years, with a 3-foot setback rather than the required 5-foot setback. The driveway width for vehicles to pass the house’s side entrance steps could be 10.5 feet if the driveway can have a 3-foot setback. 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 feature of this lot is where the house was placed on the lot. The property owner purchased the property as it is currently. e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. This driveway has been in the same location for many years, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 2 foot variance is the minimum variance needed since that is what the Zoning Code requires for a driveway setback. 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. Staff does not have any suggested conditions. A zoning permit has already been applied for the driveway construction. 2833 County Road H Driveway Variance Report October 2, 2013 Page 3 Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. 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 on Thursday, September 19, 2013. Staff has not received any comments as of September 27, 2013. Recommendation: Staff recommends 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 variances as requested. Resolution 990-13 is attached for action if the Commission so chooses. 2. Deny the requested variances. The Commission should direct staff to draft resolutions of denial with findings appropriate to support the denials. 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 Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Statement from Applicant 5. Proposed Site Plan 6. Resolution 990-13 ZONING MAP * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential N Aerial View Existing Garage Photographic Documentation Garage with 5 foot setback Existing gravel driveway has a 3 foot setback The new side entry steps will extend 3.5 feet out from the house New driveway would be 14 feet wide and follow the same path as it is currently, but would run right next to the house – width available for vehicles to pass by the entry steps would be 10.5 feet 14 feet Statement from Applicant MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 990-13 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A DRIVEWAY WITH A THREE-FOOT SETBACK AT 2833 COUNTY ROAD H; PLANNING CASE VR2013-006 WHEREAS, the applicant, Kent Reed, property owner of 2833 County Road H, has applied for a variance to allow the driveway to have a 3-foot setback; and, WHEREAS, 2833 County Road H is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and is legally described as follows: Knollwood Park, Lot 114, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN: 07-30-23-34-0047 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Site Plan 4. Photographic Documentation 5. Staff Report 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 October 2, 2013; 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. 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 2833 County Road H, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: Resolution 990-13 Page 2 1. The general intent of the Zoning Code regarding setbacks is to create physical separation between driveways for aesthetics and a sense of privacy for the property owners. The requested setback is the same that has existed for many years. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant is improving the property. 3. The applicant is requesting this variance because the driveway runs past the house that only has a setback of 17 feet, and in order to have a 10.5 foot wide drive aisle past the house, the driveway setback needs to remain at 3 feet. 4. The unique feature of this property is the location of the house close to the west side of the lot, and because the garage is in the backyard so that the driveway has to run past the house in the limited space that is there. 5. The driveway has been in the same location with a 3-foot setback for many years, so there will be no change to the existing character of the neighborhood. 6. The 2-foot variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since that is what the zoning code requires for driveway setbacks. 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 Kent Reed, property owner of 2833 County Road H, to allow a driveway to have a 3-foot setback. Adopted this 2nd day of October, 2013. _________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: __________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: October 2, 2013 Type of Business: Other Planning Activity City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Sign Code Amendment Discussion The corridor is the City Council’s priority this year and the Planning Commission has been asked to review the Zoning Code in order to better promote and accommodate development along County Road 10. The Commission has started by focusing on creating a PUD Corridor Overlay District and discussing general development ideas to make the Corridor look better. One of those ideas was changing the style and height allowances of the signage that is along the Corridor to only allow monument style signs, and to reduce the 15 foot setback amount. The Commission discussed sign code changes at the July 24, 2013 and August 21, 2013 meetings and feels that amending the sign code (Chapter 1008) rather than only having specific requirements for the corridor is a better option. The majority of the commercial signage is along the corridor so it makes more sense to have the sign code be consistent for the whole City. The proposed added changes are underline and highlighted in blue, and deleted language is stricken and highlighted in red. There is already language for nonconforming signs, which are signs that don’t meet the City Code after it’s amended. Recommendation Review the proposed sign code amendments. Sincerely, Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Chapter 1008, Signs and Billboards with proposed amendments 1008.005 1008.01 (Rev. 1/09) CHAPTER 1008 SIGNS AND BILLBOARDS 1008.09 1008.09 (Rev. 10/10) Subd. 2. Signs Allowed by District: The following table represents the allowable signage and area requirements (in square feet) by zoning district: (Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 769, 5-8-06; Ord. 816, 1-22-09; Ord. 829, 9-3-09; Ord. 847, 10-21-10) Sign Type R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 CRP PUD Ground No No 32 32 32 100 200 200 200 200 100 * Wall No No 64 64 No 100 100 100 100 100 * Projection No No No No No 8 24 24 24 No * Window No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No * Identification 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 8 8 8 4 * Temporary Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Real Estate 10 10 32 32 10 32 32 32 32 64 32 32 Home Occupation 1 1 No No 1 No No No No No No No Campaign Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Billboards No No No No No No No No No No No No Directional No** No** 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 Construction 8 8 8 8 8 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 Incidental 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Noncommercial 6 6 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 * Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as allowed by the PUD Narrative document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as permitted for a B-3 zoning district. ** Directional signs may be allowed within right of ways upon written approval of the City, the appropriate governmental agency having jurisdiction over the road way (if not the City) and the owner of the property directly abutting said sign. Subd. 3. Ground Sign Height, by District: The following table represents the maximum height allowed for ground signs in each zoning district. (Amended, Ord. 829, 9-3-09) R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 I-1 CRP PUD (1) (1) 8 8 8 20 16 20 16 (3) 35 16 (3) 35 16 35 16 (3) 35 16 (3) (2) (3) (1) No ground sign, other than home occupation, campaign, real estate, incidental and temporary signs shall be allowed in these districts. (2) Signage requirements within a PUD shall be as indicated by the PUD Narrative document. If no such document exists, signage shall be as allowed for a B-3 zoning District. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) (3) Maximum billboard sign height in some locations is 45 feet. Refer to Section 1008.10, Subdivision 6 of this Code. (Ord. 769, 5-8-06). 1008.10 1008.10 (Rev. 10/10) 1008.10: SPECIFIC SIGN TYPE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS: Subd. 1. Ground Signs: The following standards shall be maintained for all ground signs, excluding incidental, temporary, home occupation, campaign, identification and real estate signs: (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) a. No part of a ground sign shall be nearer than three feet (3') to any building unless such sign is placed parallel to the side of the building. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) b. No part of a ground sign shall be nearer than 15 feet (15') to any perimeter lot line, except signs on properties along County Road 10 may have a five foot (5’) setback from the lot line adjacent to County Road 10. No ground sign shall be nor located within a thirty (30)-foot sight triangle on any property abutting two (2) intersecting street right of ways. (Refer to the graphic below.) (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) c. The owner, lessee or occupant of the land on which the ground sign is located and the owner of the sign shall keep the property on which the sign is located free of long grass, weeds or other rank growth, rubbish or debris. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) d. All parts of ground signs shall be designed for wind pressure of not less than thirty (30) pounds per square foot, and ground signs of wood construction shall have all members which extend into the ground protected from decay by treatment with a preservative approved by the Building Inspector. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) e. No permit shall be granted for the location of any ground sign having a sign area of more than forty (40) square feet within one hundred feet (100') of any single-family residence. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) County Road X Right of Way County Road Y Right of Way 30 ft 30 ft Sign is set back 15 feet from both front and side property lines Business Sign cannot be located within sight triangle. Sight Triangle* Property Lines * The sight triangle is formed by connecting the two end points of 30-foot lines extending in both directions from the intersection of two property lines abutting a street or highway. 1008.10 1008.10 (Rev. 10/10) f. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision 6 of this Section (1008.10, subdivision 6), no more than one (1) pole or pylon sign shall be allowed per lot. However, the ground sign area allowance may be divided between one (1) pole or pylon sign and a monument sign or between multiple monument signs, subject to the requirements herein, provided that one (1) or more of the following conditions are applicable: (Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 769, 5-8-06; Ord. 816, 1-22-09) (1) The lot abuts multiple street right-of-ways, in which case a sign may be located along each frontage. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) (2) There are multiple curb cuts or driveways accessing the property, in which case a sign may be located near each access point or driveway, provided the signs are separated by no less than two hundred feet (200'). (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) (3) The width of the lot, as measured along its longest street frontage, exceeds two hundred and fifty feet (250'), in which case multiple signs may be located along the long frontage provided such signs are separated by no less than two hundred feet (200'). (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) (4) The property or properties are within an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). (Ord. 679, 5-29-01) g. Ground signs must include masonry construction materials such as stone, brick or stucco. 1008.13 NONCONFORMING SIGNS: It is the intent of the City with this Chapter that nonconforming signs shall not be enlarged or expanded, nor should a person use this Chapter as grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is further the intent of the City with this Chapter to permit legal nonconforming signs to remain if such signs are safe, maintained in good condition and if such signs have not been abandoned, moved or removed. Any sign, including a billboard, legally existing at the time of the passage of this Ordinance that does not conform to the provisions of this ordinance shall be considered a legal nonconforming sign and may be continued including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not including the moving, enlargement or expansion of the sign. “Expansion” shall be defined as any structural alteration, change or addition that is made outside of the original sign structure or design. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 769, 5-8-06; Ord. 816, 1-22-09) Subd. 1. Nothing in this Ordinance shall prevent the return or repair of a sign structure that has been declared unsafe by the Building Official to a safe condition. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 769, 5- 8-06; Ord. 816, 1-22-09) Subd. 2. When any lawful nonconforming sign is discontinued for more than one (1) year, or is changed to a conforming sign, any future sign or sign structure shall meet the provisions of this Chapter. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 769, 5-8-06; Ord. 816, 1-22-09) 1008.13 1008.13 (Rev. 10/10) Subd. 3. Any legal, nonconforming sign shall be removed and shall not be repaired, replaced, restored, or rebuilt if it is damaged by fire or other similar peril to the extent of greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction and no sign permit or building permit (if applicable) has been applied for within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of destruction. The City’s Building Official shall be responsible for making the determination whether a nonconforming sign has been destroyed greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction. In making this determination, the Building Official shall consider the market value of the entire sign at the time prior to the destruction and the replacement value of the existing sign. In the event a building permit is applied for within one hundred eighty (180) days of the date of the damage or destruction and the sign did not withstand damage greater than fifty percent (50%) of its market value at the time of destruction, the City may impose reasonable conditions upon the building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent properties. (Ord. 679, 5-29-01; Ord. 769, 5-8-06; Ord. 816, 1-22-09) Subd. 4. A lawful nonconforming sign shall not be changed to a similar nonconforming sign or to a more restrictive nonconforming sign. (Ord. 769, 5-8-06) Subd. 5. Sign Regulation Conformance. Should a sign owner, operator or contractor permanently move a nonconforming sign or a nonconforming sign structure for any reason for any distance, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations of this Chapter and with the zoning district standards that it is in after the owner or contractor moves it. (Added, Ord. 816, 1-22- 09)