Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2012 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA April 18, 2012 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: March 7, 2012 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the record.) 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-001: Variance Request to Allow an Accessory Building to Exceed the Allowed Height of 15 feet as Measured at the Midpoint of the Roof (Pre- Nov 2009 Zoning Code) Address: 8027 Woodlawn Drive Applicant: Tim & Christy Downing 6. Other Planning Activity A. Discuss Code Amendment for Dynamic Display Signs 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. May 2, 2012 B. May 16, 2012 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session AGENDA SESSION 1. Review Minutes: a. March 21, 2012 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting March 21, 2012 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Meehlhause at 7:00 p.m. for March 21, 2012. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Commissioners Cramblit, Meehlhause, Miller, Schiltgen, and Smith. Absent and Excused: Commissioners Rundle and Stevenson. Also Present: ______________________________________________________________________________ Planning Associate Heidi Heller. Index to Minutes Page Approval of Minutes 1 VR2012-001. Consideration of a Variance Request to Allow an 2 Accessory Building to Exceed 30% of the Principal Structure Size on a Business Zoned Property Review Proposed City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy 3 As Home Based Business _____________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approval of Minutes January 18, 2012. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve the Minutes of the January 18, 2012 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. VR2012-001 Consideration of a Variance Request to allow an Accessory Building to Exceed 30% of the Principal Structure Size on a Business Zoned Property – Bill Lloyd – BHL Services, Inc. – 2975 County Road 10 Planning Associate Heller indicated the applicant, Bill Lloyd, owner of BHL Services, Inc. has a purchase agreement for the property at 2975 County Road 10. Staff discussed the past uses of the site, noting the property was built in 1959. Mr. Lloyd wants to purchase the building and move his construction management there, but needs a garage for secure storage of supplies and vehicles. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the size of the detached accessory building to exceed the maximum size limit of 30% of the floor space of the principal use. Associate Heller stated the existing building at 2975 County Road 10 was 1,421 square feet in size. Based on this, the Zoning Code would only allow for a 426 square foot garage on this site. She reviewed the proposed improvements for the site, noting the existing dumpster enclosure would be removed. Mr. Lloyd has requested to build a 728 square foot garage (26’ x 28’), which would be 51% of the floor space of the building. Associate Heller explained the Planning Commission may issue a variance to provide relief to the landowner. She commented the commercial property at 2975 County Road 10 was unique as it was less than half the size of most commercial sites in the City. Staff mailed notices to all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property and a notice was published in the Sun Focus newspaper. She had not received any comments to date. Vice-Chair Meehlhause opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Vice-Chair Meehlhause closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Commissioner Cramblit questioned if the back side garage doors would remain. Bill Lloyd, the applicant, stated they would be removed, as the entire building would be converted into office space. Commissioner Cramblit asked if the proposed garage could be attached to the existing building. Mr. Lloyd stated there was a great deal more expense if the garages were tied into the existing building. He then provided further information to the Commission on his business and clientele. He noted he was a licensed contractor in over 40 states. He stated nine new high-quality jobs would be brought to the city through his business. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Vice-Chair Meehlhause indicated the jobs were great, but the improvements to the building would also benefit the community. Commissioner Miller inquired if the small shed would remain. Mr. Lloyd stated the shed would be removed from the site. He discussed how the rear area of the building would be improved along with the fencing. Commissioner Schiltgen asked if the purchase of the building was finalized. Mr. Lloyd stated all terms were agreed upon pending the approval of a variance from the City. He noted a Phase I environmental review would also have to be completed per required by the bank. Vice-Chair Meehlhause noted the proposed garage was 26’ x 28’ with two garage doors. He questioned if the company’s two trailers and pick-up truck would fit into the garage. Mr. Lloyd stated the two trailers aren’t very big (6’ x 12’) and have been out of town on sites for the last nine months. He indicated the trailers are usually at construction sites for material storage. He wants the garage this particular size so that the truck and trailer could be backed into to the building and left connected. Vice-Chair Meehlhause asked which side of the garage the garage doors would be located. Mr. Lloyd commented the doors would be located on the east side of the garage, facing the parking lot. He indicated the garage was positioned at an angle to match the way the existing building sits on the site. The garage would be covered with brick to match the principal structure. He noted he would be spending approximately $100,000 to improve the existing structure and build the detached garage. He anticipated the improvements would take about five weeks to complete. Commissioner Miller was pleased with the proposed improvements. Vice-Chair Meehlhause inquired if the Commission should reference removal of the existing storage building and trash area. Associate Heller stated this could be added to the resolution if the Commission felt it was necessary. Commissioner Cramblit felt this would be addressed through the construction of the new garage and remodeling of the main building, and not necessary to state in the resolution. Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Cramblit/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 957-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance to allow an Accessory Building to Exceed 30% of the Principal Structure Size on a Business Zoned Property for Bill Lloyd, BHL Services, Inc. at 2975 County Road 10; Planning Case No. VR2012-001. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Review Proposed City Code Amendment to Allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business Planning Associate Heller informed the Commission that at a City Council meeting in October, a resident asked the Council whether they would be willing to amend the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home based business in Mounds View. The City Council discussed the idea at their November work session. The Council supports amending the City Code, and asked that the Planning Commission make a recommendation. Associate Heller explained the Planning Commission has discussed several options about how to amend the City Code to allow massage therapy as a home based business and agreed that the only additional requirement should be approval from the property owner if the massage therapist is not the property owner. Staff will create a form for this approval, which will be submitted with the business license. She then reviewed the proposed Resolution and recommended approval. Vice-Chair Meehlhause questioned if a homeowner could start a car repair business in its garage. Associate Heller stated this is not typically the kind of home based business that the City would encourage, but if the work was completed inside a garage and had no outdoor storage or noise, it may not be a problem. However, if the City received complaints, then staff would investigate and possibly stop the business from operating at the home. Commissioner Smith supported the Resolution and the Code Amendment language change. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Smith/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution 958-12, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Code Amendment language change to allow Massage Therapy as a Home Based Business. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ Mounds View Planning Commission March 21, 2012 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. April 4, 2012 B. April 18, 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice-Chair Meehlhause adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. ______________________________________________________________________________ (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session) Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Transcribed by: Heidi Guenther TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: April 18, 2012 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 Detached Accessory Building to Exceed the Maximum Height Limit at 8027 Woodlawn Drive; Planning Case VR11-008 Introduction: The Planning Commission denied this request in December 2011 and the City Council also denied the variance in March 2012. Since then, the Council rescinded their denial and asked that the Planning Commission review this variance request again under different zoning code requirements. Given that the building permit for the garage has been “open” since it was issued in 2007, City Staff and the City Council have decided that the applicant should use the Zoning Code that was in effect when his permit was issued. The applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, is requesting a variance to allow the height of his detached accessory building to exceed the maximum height limit of 15 feet as measured at the midpoint between the eave and the peak (Zoning Code in effect in 2007). Mr. Downing has built a second garage on his property that is 15 feet 9 inches tall at the midpoint. Discussion: In October 2007, the applicant was issued a building permit to construct a detached accessory building on his property. The building plans submitted were for a typical style, single story, 936 square foot detached garage. At the time the permit was issued, the Zoning Code height limit was 15 feet as measured midway between the peak and the eave. Mr. Downing’s garage plans showed a height of 15 feet at the midway point, which met the current zoning code. Mr. Downing did not start work on the garage for a long time, and the City Building Official granted several extensions for his building permit in order to keep the permit “active” until he had time to start construction. Per the building code, a building permit will stay active as long as some construction work is being done at least every 6 months. The applicant may submit a written request for an extension of their permit, which the Building Official may grant at their discretion. A footing inspection for the garage was finally done by the City building inspector on August 31, 2010, and the floor slab was poured the next week. After that, the City did not receive any requests from Mr. Downing for more inspections. In late August 2011, Staff became aware that a 2-story garage with dormers had been constructed on the applicant’s property. After reviewing the permit application, staff saw that the garage Mr. Downing built was different from the plans he had submitted in 2007. The Building Official attempted to contact Mr. Downing in late August 2011, and again in September after receiving no response to the first letter. Downing Garage Height Variance Report April 18, 2012 Page 2 In early October 2011, staff finally spoke with Mr. Downing and he submitted a drawing of the as-built garage showing the garage height at the midpoint was 15 feet 9 inches. At that time, staff informed him that he would need to either reduce the height of the garage or apply for a variance. Mr. Downing chose to apply for a variance. The pre-November 2009 Zoning Code pertaining to accessory building height is confusing and not clear in explaining exactly where to measure to determine the “height.” The previous code defined the height as: Building Height: Building height is to be measured from the average established curb level or from the average ground level at the building line, whichever is higher, to the top of the cornice of a flat roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, and to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hipped roof. 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 limits the height of buildings in order to maintain visual consistency throughout neighborhoods. Accessory buildings in particular have these limitations so they do not exceed the height of the house, and to limit the uses that could occur in a larger building. This garage is not taller than the house, and will provide more indoor storage for the applicant. b. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan does not specify design or size criteria for buildings, it does support improvements to and the maintenance of properties. c. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Title or the City Code. The applicant owns many things that would be stored in a large garage. 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. This property does not have any unique features other than it is a larger lot. Downing Garage Height Variance Report April 18, 2012 Page 3 e. The variance does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant’s neighborhood consists of large, almost one acre size lots, and the applicant has a 2-story house, so the height and roof pitch of the garage is compatible with the house, and the overall garage size does not feel overwhelming to the property or the neighborhood. The second garage is behind the front line of both adjacent neighbor’s home and garage. f. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulties. Economic conditions alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The 9 inch height variance is the minimum variance needed to alleviate the practical difficulties since the garage is already built. 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. The applicant has not finished the exterior of the accessory building. A new/modified building permit for the as-built structure has not yet been approved by the Building Official. If a variance is granted, staff would recommend imposing conditions of deadlines for receiving Building Official plan approval for the as-built garage, issuance and payment for the modified building permit, along with a deadline for completing the exterior finish of the garage. Public Hearing: As with any requested variance, this application requires a public hearing. Staff again 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, April 5, 2012. Staff received one phone call from the property owner of 2442 Sherwood Road on April 5, 2011. He is in favor of allowing the applicant to leave the garage as is. Several neighbors have spoken at the previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings about this case. Most of them have no problem with the garage itself, but a few felt that Mr. Downing should have followed the City rules. Downing Garage Height Variance Report April 18, 2012 Page 4 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 variance as requested. Resolution 959-12 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 Photos 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Drawing of Garage 5. Letter from Applicant, Tim Downing 6. Resolution 959-12 Statement from applicant – Cory Mathiowetz ZONING MAP N * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View New Garage location The aerial photo was taken before the garage was constructed, but the footprint area has been cleared. 8027 N Photographic Documentation Looking southeast across the backyard. View of north side of tall garage. View of property from the street. Top of tall garage is visible behind the front garage. View of front/west side of tall garage. Rear corner roof overhang of the front garage Looking southwest across backyard at tall garage and back of house (standing in NE corner of yard) View of rear of tall garage and south neighbors house and garage (standing in SE corner of yard) South neighbor’s property: GARAGE and HOUSE Drawing of front of as-built garage Letter from Applicant Letter from Applicant MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 959-12 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION APPROVING A NINE (9) INCH HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 8027 WOODLAWN DRIVE; PLANNING CASE VR2011-008 WHEREAS, the applicant, Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, has applied for a nine (9) inch height variance for a detached garage; and, WHEREAS, 8027 Woodlawn Drive is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential, and legally described as: Woodlawn Terrace, Lot 24, Ramsey County, Minnesota PIN 05-30-23-32-0033 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Photographic Documentation 4. Staff Report WHEREAS, the City Council and City Staff decided that the applicant should use the height requirements for accessory buildings that were in effect when the applicant’s building permit for the garage was issued in 2007; 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 restricts 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 April 18, 2012; 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. Photographic Documentation Driveway/parking area concrete extension running along the side of garage Resolution 955-11 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 8027 Woodlawn Drive, and makes the following findings of fact related to its decision: 1. The garage does not exceed the height of the house and is intended to provide enough indoor storage for the amount of items that the applicant owns. 2. The variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the applicant has added a significant improvement to his property and can store more items indoors. 3. The applicant owns several vehicles, trailers and other equipment that could be stored indoors. He will be able to maintain his property by being able to store most or all of his items inside. 4. The applicant’s lot is almost an acre in size, which is larger than most in the city. 5. The taller garage does not appear to be an overwhelming size for the neighborhood or the applicant’s property. 6. The nine (9) inch variance is the minimum variance required to alleviate the applicant’s practical difficulty since the structure is already built. 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 Tim Downing, property owner of 8027 Woodlawn Drive, to allow a nine (9) inch height variance for the garage, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicant must receive approval from the Building Official for a new building permit for the garage as it is actually built by July 1, 2012. b. The applicant must pay the additional permit fees for the new building permit by July 1, 2012. c. The applicant must complete the exterior of the garage by October 1, 2012. Adopted this 18th day of April, 2012. ________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: April 18, 2012 Type of Business: Discussion/Action 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. A local business would like to install a dynamic sign on their building as a wall sign. City Staff reviewed the sign code and it states that “dynamic display signs are allowed on on-site free standing or ground signs.” The City Council discussed this issue at their April 9, 2012 meeting and decided that when the new dynamic display language was added to the City Code, there was no intention of specifically not allowing dynamic displays as wall signs. The City Council asked that the Planning Commission discuss amending the Code to remove the language stating what type of signs that dynamic displays can be located on. Staff has suggested amendments for the Planning Commission to review and discuss. The changes are shown by deleting the stricken language and adding the underlined text as follows: Section 1008.10 Subd. 9. Dynamic Display Signs: 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. b. Standards for all dynamic display signs: (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 and shall not include any video images or content. (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. Dynamic Display Code Amendment April 18, 2012 Page 2 (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. (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. (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. (6) All dynamic display signs shall meet the following brightness standards: (a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility and no sign shall exceed 500 Nits (candelas per square meter) during the day and 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter) at night. (b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight nor shall such a sign interfere with the driver’s operation of a motor vehicle in any way or manner. (c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (d) The person owning or controlling a sign with a dynamic display shall adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards according to the City’s instructions. The sign owner or operator shall adjust the sign within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible upon notice of non-compliance from the City. (e) All dynamic display signs installed after December 31, 2008, shall be equipped and operated with an ambient light monitor or a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness level of the sign in response to light conditions. These signs also shall be equipped with a means to turn off immediately the display or lighting if the sign malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign or lighting within one (1) hour or as soon as reasonably possible after the City notifies the owner or operator that the sign is not meeting the standards of this Section or Chapter. (f) Subsequent to November 1, 2011, no dynamic display sign shall have the capacity to operate in excess of 7,500 Nits (candelas per square meter). The lamp wattage and luminance level in Nits (candelas per square meter) shall be provided at the time of permit application. Dynamic display sign permit applications must also include a certification from the owner or operator of the sign stating that the sign shall at all times be operated in accordance with City codes. Dynamic Display Code Amendment April 18, 2012 Page 3 (g) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display signs shall meet the City’s lighting requirements as listed in Section 1103.09 (Glare) of the City Code. c. In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the City allows on-site dynamic display signs on on-site freestanding or ground signs subject to Section 1008.10, subdivision 1 (Ground Signs) of the City Code, the above-mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs, and subject to the following additional conditions: (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. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: (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. (b) Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights. (c) Such signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. (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. The City allows images, messages or content on such signs that are static, with secondary or accessory animation or movement that floats in, out, or across the primary message or those that have soft transitions. (4) The City allows dynamic displays as part of a permanent freestanding or ground sign, only if the Dynamic display signage shall not exceed part of the sign comprises no more than fifty (50) square feet of the sign area or fifty percent (50%) of the total square footage of said sign face, whichever is less. (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. (6) Such signs must meet all other City location and setback requirements. d. The City allows off-site dynamic display signs subject to Section 1008.10, subdivision 6 (Billboards) of the City’s Code, the above-mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs, and the following operational standards and additional conditions: (1) The images and messages displayed on the billboard must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of eight (8) seconds. The transition from one (1) static display to another must be instantaneous and without any special effects or videos. Dynamic Display Code Amendment April 18, 2012 Page 4 (2) Only billboards located adjacent to Interstate 35W not less than 1,000 feet from any residentially zoned property in the City of Mounds View may be retrofit to a dynamic display, and only subsequent to a building permit issued by the City. One hundred percent (100%) of the sign face may be used for dynamic display (3) Public Safety. If City staff determines that a dynamic display sign is not being operated pursuant to this Chapter due to its location or display capabilities, City staff can require the sign owner or operator to modify the sign after the City notifies the property owner or operator about the operational issues. Recommendation: The Planning Commission should review and discuss the proposed amendments to City Code Chapter 1008 relating to dynamic signs. There is a resolution attached if the Commission is comfortable taking action. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachment: 1. Resolution 960-12 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 960-12 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 185-12 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: c. In addition to all other standards of this chapter, the City allows on-site dynamic display signs on on-site freestanding or ground signs subject to Section 1008.10, subdivision 1 (Ground Signs) of the City Code, the above-mentioned standards for all dynamic display signs, and subject to the following additional conditions: (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. (2) Notwithstanding subsection 1 above, such signs may be located on the sites of schools, churches, places of worship or other institutional land uses, subject to the following additional conditions: (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. (b) Dynamic display signs in residentially zoned districts must utilize amber color lights. (c) Such signs shall not cause glare, disturbance or other problems to any residential properties or land uses. Res 960-12 Page 2 (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. The City allows images, messages or content on such signs that are static, with secondary or accessory animation or movement that floats in, out, or across the primary message or those that have soft transitions. (4) The City allows dynamic displays as part of a permanent freestanding or ground sign, only if the Dynamic display signage shall not exceed part of the sign comprises no more than fifty (50) square feet of the sign area or fifty percent (50%) of the total square footage of said sign face, whichever is less. 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 18th day of April, 2012. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: _____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator (SEAL)