Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Meeting Minutes 07-26-10Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 26, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JULY 26, 2010 Call to Order: Chairman Ringstad called the July 26, 2010, Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Those present were Commissioners Perez, Billington, Fleming, Howley and Ringstad, Community Development and Natural Resources Director Danette Parr, Planner Jeff Matzke, City Attorney Suesan Pace and Development Services Assistant Joe Sortland. 2. Approval of Minutes: The Minutes from the July 12, 2010, Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented. 3. Public Hearing: A. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1107.400-1107.1700 AND SECTION 1102.809(5) CDNR Director Danette Parr presented the proposed amendments to Section 1107.400-1107.100 and Section 1102.809(5), updates to the City of Prior Lake Sign Ordinance. Questions by the Commissioners: Howley asked if the City is protected if a sign is stolen. Parr answered that if the sign is removed by the City that there are specific parameters, however the City did not have any responsibility if a private entity removes a sign. Howley asked if existing sidewalks will affect sandwich board signs in regards to ADA requirements. Parr answered that there are likely some sidewalks in the City where a sandwich board will not be possible. Howley asked, in regards to Community Parks, if it would be more practical to not list the specific parks and to instead use acover-all description of "Community Parks" instead. Pace answered that staff intentionally listed the specific parks, and that it could be modified in the future if more Community Parks are created. Howley asked if the Wetland Buffer signs are installed with the approval of a regulatory board. Parr answered that it is the responsibility of the developer to install the sign, and staff will inspect the sign to ensure it was placed correctly. The City will provide the developer with the approval that is required to install the Wetland Buffer sign. Billington asked if the City Council should be responsible for "moral guardianship" in connection with a sign ordinance. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN072610.doc 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 26, 2010 Pace answered that they used some of the language from the Public Safety statute, but they can strike "moral guardianship" if requested. Billington requested that "and morals" be stricken from the ordinance. A MOTION WAS MADE BY FLEMING AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Fleming, Howley and Ringstad. The motion carried. The Public Hearing began at 6:35 p.m. Comments from the Public: Ted Guth, 14372 Rutgers Street, Prior Lake, presented a slideshow displaying several Prior Lake and south metro businesses, vacant land and right-of-way with non-conforming signs, excessive signs and signs that he did not believe were tasteful. The presentation also included pictures of vehicular signs, snipe signs, monument signs displaying leasing and rental information, and banner signs which were torn, sagging or in his view excessive. Guth presented pictures of electronic signs which he said changed too frequently and were not attractive. Guth stated that he does not think vinyl banner and snipe signs should be permitted, and that rental signs should be limited to a window or monument sign. In addition, Guth stated that he would like to see wall signs that do not exceed 150 square feet and no banner signs allowed. Brian Wolf, 17645 Juniper Path, Suite 135, Lakeville and Trent Johnson, 3877 Island View Circle, Prior Lake spoke on behalf of Fieldstone Family Homes. Wolf stated that temporary directional signs have been responsible for 62% of the sales of their homes, equaling approximately sixteen homes in 2010. Wolf stated that the signs have been an asset for their company and the City. Fieldstone Family Homes is responsible for installing and maintaining their signs. Wolf stated that the enforcement of the temporary signs has been one-sided. Johnson stated that he had witnessed his signs being removed while garage sale signs were not removed by Code Enforcement. He requested that the enforcement of the signs be fair. Wolf stated that other cities permit off-site temporary directional signs and that the signs for Fieldstone Family Homes are only installed when the homes are open. Gary Golay, 3245 Fox Tail Trail NW, Prior Lake, stated that sign ordinance amendment does not include a provision to allow additional signage for association signage stating that the community is governed by a Home Owners Association, and requested that a provision be given consideration. Linda Ringstad, 4627 Parkwood Drive SE, Prior Lake, spoke on behalf of the Prior Lake -Savage School District. She stated that off-site temporary signs have been important for advertising school district events. Ringstad stated that she does not believe a fee for temporary signs is appropriate for non-profits, and that permits for school district and community educational service signage should not require a fee. Ringstad also stated that the School District has been putting the temporary signs up for approximately 10 years and they have made a point to not put the signs in residential neighborhoods and only for a week or two prior to the events. AI Imholte, 2280 195th Street, Jordan, part-owner of Carlson Ace Hardware, asked if the sign ordinance included any provisions on back-lit signs. Parr answered that a provision allowing back-lighting signage has been added to the sign ordinance L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN072610.doc 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 26, 2010 Imholte stated that signage is important for the Prior Lake businesses and liked the banner sign provision that was proposed. A MOTION WAS MADE BY FLEMING AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Fleming and Ringstad. The motion carried. The public hearing closed at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Comments and Questions: Fleming stated that fair enforcement of signage is important. Fleming stated that he does not believe an additional sign indicating that a community is governed by a Home Owners Association is appropriate. Fleming asked how the $500 fine for a sign violation was determined. Pace answered that criminal citations do not always work effectively and that the midpoint amount of a misdemeanor is $500, thus, this was used to determine the amount for a sign violation. Parr answered that the Fieldstone Family Homes temporary signs were placed in the right-of-way. She stated that the adjacent garage sale signs had been removed and would be removed consistently in the future. Fleming stated that he supports the sign ordinance amendment. Howley stated that he supports the sign ordinance amendment. Howley asked staff to explain the process of the sign violation fine. Pace answered that the owner of the sign would be given notification providing them a set amount of time to remove the illegal sign, prior to the $500 fine being imposed. If the owner did not comply, the property would be assessed the $500 at the end of the year. Howley stated that a separate Homeowners Association would not be appropriate, but rather be incorporated in the Subdivision Identification sign for that neighborhood/community. Howley also mentioned that it might be appropriate to not charge for signage that relates to a community event. Billington stated that he believes enforcement of the signs should be predictable and that he supports the sign ordinance amendment. Perez asked staff about new construction sign regulations. Parr answered that the new construction sign regulations allow for signage in cases of new subdivisions and new projects, as well as off-premise directional signage for these new developments for up to 12 months, however, this does not apply to older developments. Perez asked staff about the school district's request for temporary signage in right-of-way. Pace answered that state statute regulates what type of signage is allowed in public right-of-way. Parr stated that the school district informed her that they try to not place signage in the right-of-way. L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN072610.doc 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 26, 2010 Perez stated that he supports the sign ordinance amendment Ringstad stated that enforcement of signs needs to be consistent and that all signs in the right-of-way should be removed. Ringstad stated that he supports the sign ordinance amendment. Parr informed the Planning Commission that there were necessary additional alterations of the draft that would be made by staff and the City Attorney, such as noting a specific time for electronic signs that will require ten seconds before the electronic sign can change the image or words, as well as other minor alterations discussed. Parr also noted that the sunset clause for sandwich boards should also be applied to banners. A MOTION WAS MADE BY FLEMING AND SECONDED BY BILLINGTON TO APPROVE THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1107.400-1107.1700 and Section 1102.809(5). VOTE: Ayes by Perez, Billington, Howley, Fleming and Ringstad. The motion carried. 4. Old Business None. 5. New Business: None. 6. Announcements and Correspondence: 7. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 7:30p.m. Joe Sortland, Development Services Assistant L:\10 FILES\10 PLANNING COMMISSION\10 MINU1'ES\MN072610.doc