Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 03-17 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 17, 1994 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Willson at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Tim Willson, Commissioners Donald Booth, Debra Hilstrom, Mark Holmes, and Robert Mickelson. Commissioners Dianne Reem and Ella Sander arrived shortly after the meeting began. Also present were the Secretary to the Planning Commission Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Kathy Stratton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 16 1994 There was a motion by Commissioner Hilstrom and seconded by Commissioner Holmes to approve the minutes of the February 16, 1994, Planning Commission meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mickelson abstained due to his absence. CHAIRPERSON'S EXPLANATION Chairperson Willson explained the Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. FREEDOM OF SPEECH/OPINION SIGNS Chairperson Willson introduced the first item of business, a discussion of Freedom of Speech/Opinion Signs. The Secretary explained the issue for discussion regards non-commercial signs that express an opinion, not necessarily campaign related. He explained the current Brooklyn Center sign ordinance limits the placement of signs in connection with an election to 60 days before and 10 days after the election. He said any sign not listed as a permitted sign in the ordinance is a prohibited sign. But several recent court cases indicate Brooklyn Center's ordinance could be unconstitutional as it relates to opinion signs. He explained two such cases, Goward vs. the City of Minneapolis, and a case in New Brighton regarding opinion signs about animal rights. He said New Brighton does not prohibit opinion signs but 3-17-94 1 regulates them as to number, size, and placement on property. He said the New Brighton ordinance was upheld at the District Court level, but is currently in the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a decision sometime this summer about whether regulating the number of signs and the location on property violates a person's freedom of speech. He said there is starting to be some case law and Constitutional law regarding what a City can and cannot do in regard to opinion signs. The Secretary stated two points, first it appears the City cannot prohibit non-commercial opinion signs. He said the City certainly can regulate commercial signs and billboards, but an opinion sign on someone's property appears to be a right that must be protected. He said it also appears that based on aesthetics, health, and safety, certain aspects of these signs may be regulated, such as their size, number and location. His second point was opinion signs cannot be regulated in a manner more restrictive than commercial signs. He asked the Commission to determine ways, if any, they want to recommend regulating these signs, as well as defining what they are. He said the Commission should address the issue as it would apply to residential and commercial areas, number, size, location, and the possibility of using language similar to the language in the ordinance that already exists. He said the Commission should steer clear of recommending any action that limits or otherwise regulates the message of the signs. Commissioner Reem asked if it would be possible to limit the number of days a sign is up out of consideration for neighbors. Chairperson Willson said he did not believe you could put a time on someone's opinion, and it would also be hard to monitor. Commissioner Holmes asked if the signs recently put up addressed to Mr. Carruthers expressing an opinion are illegal. The Secretary said according to the current sign ordinance they are, but the City is not enforcing these regulations because of the court cases and the fact that the City needs to modify its regulations about opinion signs. Chairperson Willson said one distinction between political or campaign signs and opinion signs is for political signs the candidate is buying the sign and paying to put it in someone's yard, and with opinion signs the homeowner buys it himself or herself and erects it in the yard. He added that he believed the City can't say after 2 weeks, or some period of time, it must be taken down by the homeowner. Commissioner Reem expressed the opinion that neighbors who must view these signs have rights also, and what happens when a neighbor calls and complains about such a sign or signs? 3-17-94 2 The Secretary said if the sign is ragged and torn so it is an eyesore it can be regulated, but otherwise it appears it would infringe upon the homeowner's rights to have it taken down because of a neighbor's complaint. Chairperson Willson commented that signs with graphic photos or lewd content would technically have to be acceptable also. The Secretary said pornography can be regulated, although it has become hard to define pornography. He said it's true, there could potentially be 10,000 signs in the City and someone could even put up a sign saying "Let's get rid of all the signs," but the court has said this is a right people should have. Tile Secretary said a sign can say just about anything, but if it's spray painted on a house or building then it is illegal under current ordinance standards. He said no signs can be in a public right of way or tacked on power poles, fences, or trees, nor can they be painted on buildings. He also said the City can require signs be maintained. Chairperson Willson asked if painting a building a particular color can be considered a sign. The Secretary said that has been an issue for commercial property but not residential property. He explained certain commercial restrictions that had been enforced such as limiting neon on a roof or words on a canopy. He said each case is considered on an individual basis and the ordinance is interpreted and applied. Chairperson Willson said the City has good ground to stand on regarding commercial sign limitations, but it's the public individual signs where it's "splitting hairs." The Secretary said New Brighton has limited signs to one per frontage (which means two signs for corner lots) and a size of six square feet. Commissioner Holmes asked why the New Brighton ordinance is being challenged and the Secretary said he thought it was because of the number and size limitations. Commissioner Reem asked if a property owner would have to have a permit from the City to put up a sign, and who would check to see if it is maintained. The Secretary recommended against having property owners obtain permits before displaying signs because it would be an administrative problem. As for enforcement it would be, in all likelihood, Code Enforcement and Inspection personnel that would be responsible. The Chairperson said requiring permits for sign placement might be a problem if a fee is charged. He said there is no permit required for real estate signs, which are about six square feet in size, and garage sale signs which are comparable commercial type signs found in residential areas. 3-17-94 3 Commissioner Sander confirmed that is the size of real estate signs and said to her knowledge no permit is required in any of the suburbs for such signs. Commissioner Booth said he agrees with Commissioner Reem regarding limiting the time signs can be displayed, and he said he didn't think it would be going beyond the jurisdiction of the City to require such regulations. Chairperson Willson said he would like to see limitations as well but did not think a time limitation would hold up in court. Commissioner Booth referred to a letter from the City Attorney which made it seem time limits would be allowable. The Secretary said it would be a good idea to discuss this with the City Attorney more. He said if time were to be limited a permit would probably be necessary, otherwise it would be impossible to know when a sign went up in order to have a say in when it should come down. He said that would definitely add to the enforcement time necessary for signs. Commissioner Booth said political or campaign signs often have a disclosure statement saying who put it up and who paid for it. He suggested that same type of disclosure could be put on every sign. The Secretary said he would strongly recommend the City not get into the permit process for such signs. Commissioner Hilstrom said there will be wear and tear on signs because of weather so people will have to change or move a sign periodically anyway. She added, if there were a time limit people could take a sign down and then put it right back up anyway. Commissioner Mickelson asked Commissioner Booth what the number is for the Minnesota statute he had referred to, and Commissioner Booth said it is MN Statute 211b.045. Commissioner Hilstrom said if political or campaign signs cannot be limited in number, then could opinion signs be limited in number? The Secretary responded he thought so because political or campaign signs are regulated for a time limit, they are not limited to number. He said if there is no time limit on opinion signs, that could be good reason to limit number. Commissioner Mickelson asked if portable signs are allowed for campaign or political signs, and the Secretary stated they are if they're 16 feet or less unless it is a state general election year, which means there is no limit to size. 3-17-94 4 Commissioner Mickclson asked about lighted signs, and the Commission concurred there should be no lit opinion signs and they could regulate based on potential safety hazards. Commissioner Holmes asked about Christmas displays, and the Secretary explained temporary displays for civic or religious holidays are allowed by the current Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Hilstrom asked if there is any way to limit graphic signs that could be upsetting to small children, and the Secretary said that could be considered limiting the message which is probably out of the boundaries for a City to do. He added pornographic displays are regulated. Chairperson Willson said he had come up with a short list of things for the Secretary to look into: -time length for sign display -one sign per individual or frontage -lighted signs -size -owner's name and date of erection on sign -maintenance -location on property The Secretary said maintenance and location on private property are already taken care of in the existing sign ordinance. He said he would like to pursue a consensus from the Commission so the next time they meet they can draft some type of language. Chairperson Willson explained enforcement of sign violations is already taken care of under the City Manager's jurisdiction. He said it is treated as a misdemeanor with a $700 fine or 90 days imprisonment. The Secretary explained the City usually notifies a person of a violation and then requests correction within a certain number of days. He said if there is no correction in that time, then the City tags the individual. Commissioner Mickelson asked if the Minnesota Statute could be provided to the Commissioners and the Secretary responded it could. Commissioner Booth said if the name and date of erection were put on the sign it would be helpful if it blew down the street, then someone could return the sign. There was discussion regarding size and the Commission came to the consensus that limiting opinion signs to six square feet would be best. The Commission also agreed signs should not be lit. 3-17-94 5 Commissioner Hilstrom asked about spot lights and the Secretary said indirect lighting could also be prohibited. Commissioner Holmes mentioned sometimes signs inside a house can show through the window, and the Secretary said they wouldn't be regulated unless the sign was flashing and could be seen from the street as per the current ordinance. Regarding placing the owner and date of erection on a sign all agreed it should be considered part of the sign rather than in addition to the six square feet. Commissioner Mickelson said he would vote against putting identification on signs. Commissioner Sander said if a sign was really derogatory against another person it would be good to have'identification, especially if someone could put a sign in her yard while she was away on vacation, and without identification she could be sued for slandering someone when she did not do it. The Secretary said identification would not help with lawsuits but he would check this out with the City Attorney. He said he also wanted to point out New Brighton ordinance limits opinion signs in commercial areas to already existing signs where you can use a sign that's already installed for an opinion. He said though Brooklyn Center doesn't regulate reader boards it would be good to use the same approach as New Brighton did. The Secretary said he would also suggest limiting to one sign per premise or one per frontage, but because that can be vague in instances of multiple dwellings he said he would check into it. Commissioner Hilstrom suggested the wording could be "one sign per property owner", and Commissioner Sander stated multiple family homes have their own rules regarding that type of thing. Commissioner Hilstrom asked about churches and schools, and the Secretary explained they are limited as commercial establishments would be. Chairperson Willson presented his amended list of items that seem to be a consensus by the Commissioners for consideration regarding the sign issue: -6 square foot signs, not lit -pursue the possibility of a time length -check into limiting signs to one per dwelling -check into requiring owner and date of sign placement -check into opinion in commercial areas -pursue wording to include multiple dwellings 3-17-94 6 The Secretary agreed to check into these things, meet with the City Attorney, and draft sonic language for the meeting on April 14th. OTHER BUSINESS Because there were no issues pending, there was a motion by Commissioner Mickelson and seconded by Commissioner Hilstrom to cancel the March 31, 1994 Study Session, and therefore the next meeting of the Planning Commission is to be April 14, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary said business likely to be on the agenda for April 14 is a possible Brookdale Square expansion and request for re-platting by the Lutheran Church of the Master. There was discussion regarding the progress of Taco Bell dumpster screening and other current projects as well as the status of the lawsuit from Holiday Stationstores, Inc. Commissioner Reem commented there had been a very positive meeting of apartment owners regarding what landlords can do about screening residents and cleaning up apartments. She said she felt it was a good thing, and the Secretary added these meetings have been going on for about two years. Commissioner Reem pointed out there is a creek between Little League Park and Garden City Park that is full of refuse and debris that has been there for years and looks and smells bad. She asked if someone could be contacted to clean it up and the Secretary said he would check into it. Commissioner Reem also commented Brooklyn Boulevard is full of potholes again and the construction company should be contacted to do it over since they did not do a good job. She said it hasn't held up more than a year. The Commission discussed what a nice addition to the City the Cracker Barrel restaurant has been. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Mickelson and seconded by Commissioner Hilstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:21 p.m. f% Chairperson Recorded and transcribed by: Kathy Stratton TimcSaver Off Site Secretarial 3-17-94 7 1 1