Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 02-14 PCP 3 rBR (y•o!KLYN TER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FEBRUARY 14,2013 1. Call to Order: 7:00 PM 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes—January 31,2013 Meeting 4. Chairperson's Explanation 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. 5. Planning Application Items with public hearing)—None 6. Planning Application Items without public hearing)—None a) Loren Van Der Slik/Gatlin Development Planning App. No. 2013-002 Request to TABLE indefinitely - Final Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3`d ADDITION, located in the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD 7. Action Items—None 8. Discussion Items a) Discussion on Amending City Code Chapter 34- SIGNS regarding Dynamic Message Signs in Public and Semi-Public Places b) Verbal Report and Update by Staff- of On-Going and Approved Developments, and Anticipated Planning Applications 9. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA JANUARY 31, 2013 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:02 p.m. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE Mr. Benetti administered Oath of Office to Randall Christensen and Benjamin Freedman. ROLL CALL Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Scott Burfeind, Randall Christensen, Benjamin Freedman, Carlos Morgan, Michael Parks, and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development, Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—JANUARY 17, 2013 There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Burfeind, to approve the minutes of the January 17, 2013 meeting as submitted. The motion passed. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as 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. APPOINTMENT OF 2013 CHAIR PRO TEM—APPOINTED ANNUALLY BY CHAIR The Chair of the Planning Commission thanked those Commission members that indicated an interest in being appointed as Chair Pro Tern of the 2013 Planning Commission. Chair Rahn further stated he would appoint Commissioner Burfeind as Chair Pro Tem of the 2013 Planning Commission. APPLICATION NO. 2013-002 LOREN VAN DER SLIK/GATLIN DEVELOPMENT Mr. Benetti explained that the applicant requested to delay action on this item until the February 14, 2013 meeting to allow more time to adjust their plat. A motion was made by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to postpone the final plat until the February 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Burfeind, Christensen, Freedman, Morgan, Parks and Schonning And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. Page 1 1-31-13 DISCUSSION ITEM — AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 34, SIGNS, BY ALLOWING "DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS" TO CERTAIN PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC USES LOCATED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Mr. Benetti explained that staff had been approached by a sign company to install a dynamic message board sign at Evergreen Elementary School, 7020 Dupont Avenue N. He added the company was informed that these types of signs are prohibited in residential districts (which are typically where schools are located) and the company asked the City Council to consider an ordinance amendment to allow such signs for public or institutional type uses. Staff was also approached by a church with a similar request, however, these types of signs would not be allowed since the church is also located in a residential zoning district. Mr. Benetti further explained City Council was generally supportive of this request and directed staff to present the matter to the Planning Commission for formal consideration. He added DMS type signs are only allowed in the C2, I-1 and I-2 districts and prohibited in all other districts. Benetti also stated that if a school or church were located in one of these permitted zoning districts, a DMS would be allowed under the provisions of the Ordinance. Mr. Benetti added Public and Semi-Public Places should include uses such as schools, places of worship, city hall, the community center, Hennepin County library, and others, however, City Code is silent or absent of what exactly constitutes a "Public' or Semi-Public" use or place and when questioned,this determination is either made by the Zoning Administrator or City Council. Mr. Benetti stated the following modifications to the ordinance was suggested by a sign vendor: k. A dynamic messages sign "DMS," is permitted efAy in the C2, 1-1 and 1-2 Districts and for Public and Semi-Public Places in all Districts). A DMS is also subject to the all applicable requirements of Seefien 34 '^^.3." of this ordinance for the district in which such signs are placed. A DMS message must remain constant for at least two seconds when such sign is in use. A DMS within a residential zoned district or within 50 feet of a single family residence shall be turned off or programmed to go blank between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily. All DMS shall be equipped with dimming technology that automatically adjusts their brightness in direct correlation with ambient light conditions. Mr. Benetti also stated City staff would also like the Commission to make a determination regarding keeping or adding the "technical" specifications to the standards below and may also consider allowing certain uses under the CI (Service/Office) and C 1 A (Service/Office) Districts the ability to display DMS type signs: No DMS shall exceed 0.3 foot candles above ambient light as measured from a preset distance depending on sign size Measurement distance shall be determined using the following equation: the square root of the product of the sign area and one-hundred. [Example using a 12 square foot DMS: x(12 x 100)= 34.6 feet measuring distance.] Page 2 1-31-13 Mr. Benetti stated staff requests the Planning Commission consider the proposal to allow dynamic message signs (DMS) in zoning districts other than the C-2, I-1 and I-2 districts, specifically for Public and Semi-Public Uses/Places. He added the Commission should also consider a new definition of what a Public/Semi-Public Use or Place is, in order to provide clarification and applicability of future sign applications. Mr. Benetti further stated if the Commission chooses not to accept the proposal, City Staff will prepare a response to the City Council which rejects any sign code amendment at this time. He added the Planning Commission can also direct staff to address this item through the public hearing process at the February 28, 2013 meeting when a draft ordinance would be prepared for consideration. Chair Rahn asked for further clarification regarding the following suggested language: "A DMS within a residential zoned district or within 50 feet of a single family residence shall be turned off or programmed to go blank between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily. Mr. Benetti explained the language provided was suggested by a sign vendor and he would be more likely to suggest if a DMS sign is allowed in M residential district, the sign must be turned off between 10 pm and 6 am and certain illumination standards would be required. Mr. Eitel explained City Council asked the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding defining public and semi-public uses and also what type of lighting signage could be allowed in residentially zoned areas. City Council is looking for advice and input from the Planning Commission as to how the ordinance could be amended. Commissioner Christensen stated that in his neighborhood churches and schools are all surrounded by residential properties and allowing DMS signs will impact those neighborhoods. Mr. Eitel replied that Perry Avenue where Willow Lane Elementary is located is not a collector roadway. He added if such a sign were allowed, it should have been along the back side on Brooklyn Boulevard since signs to communicate to the public should be on the well-traveled roads and not on the side streets. He further stated that when the Northwest Family Services building was constructed, access to the school on Brooklyn Boulevard was eliminated. Commissioner Rahn stated that this appears to be an issue of the signs catching up with technology since existing schools and churches may want to upgrade existing signs on their property. Commissioner Burfeind asked if there is a standard that dictates which street a sign should be placed. Mr. Benetti replied no; however, if a new school or church were to come in to the city, they would need to meet today's standards for placement of signs. Page 3 1-31-13 Commissioner Parks stated that there is a certain feeling you get when you live in certain zoning districts and some of these lighted signs get very bright around residential areas. He feels it would be appropriate to have a public hearing to further discuss this. He added he does not know what 0.3 ft. candles looks like and he would like to know how bright that is. Commissioner Burfeind stated he would support these signs with more restrictions to a time frame when the signs would be turned off. He added he is hesitant to support allowing DMS signs in certain areas such as along Brooklyn Boulevard since that would be distracting and take away from the long range Brooklyn Boulevard vision. He added if the streetscape amenities continue in the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor it might not fit to have the DMS signs up and down Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Benetti replied that hypothetically, if a business in a C-2 zoned district wished to replace an existing allowable sign on that property, and Code allowed them an 80-sf. sized wall or pylon/cabinet type sign, they could replace that sign with a full-sized 80 sq. ft. DMS sign, unless certain restrictions were established or provided for under size limitation standards. Benetti stated other communities' ordinances have size limitations built-in to their ordinances, and he suggested this may be an item or point the Commission could consider. Commissioner Christensen stated that with the variety of signs located in the city, he feels there should be further discussion regarding Dynamic Messaging Signs and where they can be located as well as establishing restrictions. Commissioner Freedman asked if the concern is the annoyance to the neighbors or is a distraction to have the signs. Mr. Eitel confirmed the potential annoyance to neighbors was the concern of the Councilmember. Commissioner Freedman asked if other cities that allow these signs have received complaints. Mr. Benetti replied that information was not available but he could contact neighboring cities to determine if complaints have been received. He added there are many cities that do not allow these signs in any zoning district, however, with this new technology, these are the signs of the future. Chair Rahn stated it seems the City Council would like a public hearing to discuss this further and he would like staff to provide examples of light standards and also feedback from other cities that allow these signs. Commissioner Parks stated he feels signs could be allowed in areas where they do not affect residential properties, however, in residential areas, there are concerns with the brightness of the signs. He added he would be favorable to allow Dynamic Messaging Signs in C1 and C2 zoned districts. It was the general consensus to discuss the parameters at the February 14th Planning Commission meeting and prepare for a public hearing on the February 28`x'. There were no other discussion items. Page 4 1-31-13 OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Burfeind, seconded by Commissioner Parks, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Page 5 1-31-13 City of Business and Development BroojU n Center— Department www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway,Brooklyn Center,Minnesota 55430-2199 Phone 763.569.3300 TTY/Voice 711 Fax 763.569.3494 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Sean Rahn and Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Eitel, Business&Development Director n� Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist DATE: February 14, 2013 RE: Request to TABLE indefinitely - Final Plat of SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING 3rd ADDITION, located in the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD The Preliminary Plat of Shingle Creek Crossing 3rd Addition was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the January 17, 2013 meeting, whereby a unanimous recommendation was provided to the City Council. The City Council received this recommendation and approved the same preliminary pat at the January 28, 2013 regular council meeting. Planning staff followed-up this approval with a request to consider the Final Plat Shingle Creek Crossing 3rd Addition at the January 31, 2013 meeting. At this meeting, city staff requested this item be tabled, due to a last minute request by the Applicant, Gatlin Development Company, to delay action and give more time to prepare an updated and corrected final plat. A motion was made and passed to postpone this item until the February 14th meeting. The Applicant has now requested this final plat item be tabled indefinitely, due to the unforeseen circumstances and issues surrounding the minor adjustments needed to be made to various lot lines, as was required under the preliminary plat approval. Staff does not see this as a problem or issue, since final plats are not subject to the 60-day rule (State Statute review period), and we anticipate the Applicant will provide a corrected final plat within a few weeks. Planning staff requests a motion to table this final plat item indefinitely, until such time the Applicant delivers an updated final plat to the City, and requests action taken at a future meeting. City of Business and Development XBrooMyn Center— Department www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway,Brooklyn Center,Minnesota 55430-2199 Phone 763.569.3300 T"rY/Voice 711 Fax 763.569.3494 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Sean Rahn and Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Eitel, Business & Development Director ' Tim Benetti, Planning &Zoning Specialist DATE: February 14, 2013 RE: Agenda Item No. 7.a — Discussion on Amending City Code Chapter 34- SIGNS regarding Dynamic Message Signs in Public and Semi-Public Places Introduction At the January 14, 2013 City Council Study Session, the Council was presented with a request to consider an additional Sign Ordinance reforms to allow dynamic message signs (DMS) for public and semi-public uses (i.e. churches, schools, city hall, etc.). This item was brought forward due to a request from Evergreen Park Elementary to install a dynamic message sign on their school property, which signs are currently prohibited and not allowed in the R1 Residence One Districts. The Council was presented with two basic questions for study: Question 1: Does the City Council wish to consider an amendment to the Sign Ordinance that would allow Dynamic Message Signs at Public and Semi-Public Places? Question 2: Does the City Council wish to have the Planning Commission review the Dynamic Message Sign Standards and its limited use to only the C-2, I-1, and I-2 Districts? The Council discussed various concerns related to this request, which include the following: • The potential impacts upon the residential neighborhoods; • Assurances that any sign reforms would not involve allowances or relaxing of certain (current) sign standards, such as flashing or rotating signs, or animated or motion message signs; • Define or clarification of what is a"Public" and"Semi-Public"place; and • Public input on this amendment proposal. The final consensus of the City Council was to generally support both questions and ask the Planning Commission to provide review and comment on Question No. 2 (attached for reference is a copy of the Council's January 14, 2013 Study Session minutes). At the January 31 st Planning Commission meeting, Staff introduced this item and discussed the opportunity to recommend the City Council consider amending Chapter 34 — SIGNS of the City Code, specifically, to allow dynamic message signs (DMS) in Public and Semi-Public Places. Sign Definitions & Standards The definition of a Dynamic Message Sign is noted in the City [Sign] Code as follows: Sign, Dynamic Message: a dynamic messages sign, "DMS" also known as a changeable message sign, variable message sign or other similar name is an electrical or electro mechanical sign on which a message may be placed which can be changes remotely or on site through hard wire or wireless communications. Under City Code Sect. 34-140, Subd. Lk., DMS's are permitted in the three zoning districts identified below and must meet the following standards: "A dynamic messages sign "DMS," is permitted only in the C2, I-1 and I-2 Districts. A DMS is also subject to the requirements of Section 34-140.3.A of this ordinance. A DMS message must remain constant for at least two seconds when such sign is in use." As noted in the previous January 31" staff memo report to the Commission, City Code Section 34-140; Subd. 3.1), provides standards for those signs allowed to "Public and Semi-Public Places (All Districts)", which are limited to the following: 1. Churches, synagogues and temples may have the following signs: a. One freestanding sign with the sign area not to exceed 36 square feet. The sign shall not extend more than 10 feet above the ground level. There may be a second such sign if the use abuts two or more streets. Properties entitled to a second freestanding sign may elect to erect a single freestanding sign not exceeding 72 square feet in area or 1 S feet in height. b. One wall sign not to exceed 36 square feet. C. One wall sign immediately above or beside each public entrance to that part of the building which is used as a school and meets the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Education, or as a day care facility and is licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare. The sign area shall not exceed 10 square feet. 2. Other public and semi-public uses, including private clubs and lodges. a. Freestanding signs as specified above for churches, synagogues and temples. b. One wall sign, the maximum area not to exceed 36 square feet. Potential Impacts to Residential Neighborhoods One of the first questions or prime concern raised by the City Council and later by the Planning Commission was the perceived impacts these types of signs could have upon a residential neighborhood. As was noted by Planning Staff and the city maps, many of these public/semi- public places are located in residential zoned neighborhoods; in fact, most are located in the RI Zones. Staff also reported that most schools and churches in these residential zones are allowed by means of a special use permit, and said use must have access on a collector or arterial street. The Council and Commission also discussed (but did not decide) what level of lighting or brightness would be appropriate or acceptable for these signs in a residential neighborhood, how to measure their brightness or illumination levels, or a need to provide hours of operations. Public and Semi-Public Places As stated earlier, dynamic message signs are not allowed in any public or semi-public place, or public/semi-public uses. City Code is absent of a definition or explanation of what exactly constitutes a "Public" or "Semi-Public" place. During research of this issue, Planning Staff discovered the following definitions for both public and semi-public places, culled from a select number of metropolitan communities' ordinances: Public use means uses owned or operated by any municipality,school district,county,state, Maple Grove or other governmental unit. Semipublic use means the use of land by a private nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. Maplewood Semipublic use means the use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. Public uses means uses owned or operated by school districts,municipal,county,state,or New Hope other governmental units. Semipublic use means the use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. Public Uses: Uses owned or operated by municipal,school districts,county,state,or other Plymouth governmental units. Semi-Public Use:Uses owned by private or private non-profit organizations which are open to some, but not all,of the public. Shoreview Public/Quasi-Public Facilities. Uses such as schools,churches,and government buildings and facilities,including parks, playgrounds,trails and other recreational areas. Public Uses. Uses owned or operated by municipal,school districts,county,state,or other White Bear Lake governmental units. Semi-public Use-The use of land by a private,nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. Instead of"public places" as noted in our City Ordinance, these other cities refer to these public properties or areas under the term of"Public Uses" and "Semi-Public Uses". The Commission may wish to discuss if they feel it is prudent to follow-suit and rename or re-label "places" to "uses" as part of any language amendments. Allowances for Other Zoning Districts In response to Question No. 1 and 2 above, the Council was supportive of allowing DMS type signs to Public/Semi-Public Places, and possibly allowing DMS in other zoning districts. The Council requested the Planning Commission provide review and comments on the second question, specifically the allowance of these DMS in other districts beyond the C2, 1-1 and I-2 zones. Ideally, the most logical areas to expand DMS's would be in the Cl and CIA (Service/Office) Districts, since some of these service/office areas function at or near typical commercial activity levels. As it now stands, most of the C 1 and Cl A zoned areas are situated along or near the Brooklyn Boulevard, which is a very busy and prime business corridor running through the community. A concern raised by the Commission (at the Jan. 31St meeting) was by allowing or expanding the opportunities to place these types of signs along this corridor, this may detract from the overall appearance and aesthetic elements the new 2013 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study calls for and encourages as part of the overall improvements planned in this corridor area. More importantly, if every business were to have or install a DMS along this corridor, and every sign met the minimum 2-second message intervals, coupled with the unlikely event all signs would be timed-coordinated with each other, may present a very distracting or "flashing" effect caused by multiple signs changing every 2-seconds. Other districts open for discussion may include the higher density, multi-family residential areas, such as the R5, R6 and/or R7 Districts. A DMS for uses in these high density residential areas could easily convey a message of rental rates, units for sale, site amenities, vacancy notices, on- site events or announcements for residents, and others. Nevertheless, the Commission should discuss if you feel any new sign ordinance reforms should include the expansion or allowance of the DMS' in these other districts, and what recommendations (including standards, if necessary) the City Council should consider if they choose to carry-forward on this sign ordinance amendment. Other Sign Standard Reforms The City Council reinforced upon Staff that they were not interested or directing the Planning Commission to revise or suggest any significant changes to the current sign standards, specifically those related to flashing or rotating signs, or multi-colored animated or motion effects on a DMS. Mindful of this and fully respecting this directive, and if the Commission were to recommend allowing DMS in other zoning districts such as the C1 and CIA Districts, or even the Public/Semi-Public Places, the Planning Commission may wish to consider recommending certain specific standards related to DMS, including (but not limited to) the following: • size limitations (DMS only cabinet size) • establishing or limiting brightness standards • message interval time-change • on/off time limits Also noted or discovered in the above-referenced definition, a DMS is "also known as a changeable message sign..." City Code however, does not specifically define what a "changeable message sign" is, nor does it identify what districts or places these types of signs would be allowed. As indicated on the sign illustration submittal by the Sign Source vendor, the Evergreen Schools has a changeable message sign, as do other uses throughout the city. These message signs must be manually changed (by hand) with separate letters or words pieced together to form a message, and periodically by a staff member, as this message more than likely changes over time. The sign appears to be lighted internally by fluorescent ambient lights source inside the cabinet base. Apparently, these changeable copy signs have been permitted to be incorporated into or simply calculated as part of an overall allowable sign area, even though the Sign Ordinance never clearly specified or defined if these types of signs are allowed. In Staff's continued research of this matter, we discovered a very comprehensive definition of a changeable copy sign in the City of Bloomington's Sign Code (attached hereto), and suggest the City of Brooklyn Center incorporate this new language or a similar version, into the City Sign Ordinance. The Commission should decide if adding a definition or allowances to these basic "changeable message board signs" is warranted and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Recommendation As indicated herein, the City Council expressed their overall support to allowing dynamic message signs to Public and Semi-Public Places and requested Commission input and comment on allowing DMS's in other districts. Planning Staff has provided the following list of possible recommendations or statements to be forwarded to the City Council for further consideration: 1) The Commission should provide a recommendation of support, and indicate what,if any measures or standards should be incorporated into any ordinance amendment. Moreover, if these signs are allowed in residential areas, the Commission should provide input as to what the potential impacts upon the residential neighborhoods may be, and discuss options, or specific methods and standards that could be included to limit any impacts; 2) the Commission should direct city staff to prepare language providing a new definition or land use term, similar to the other communities' ordinances, in regards to the "Public" and"Semi-Public"uses; 3) the Commission should discuss or determine if you support the possible expansion of DMS's in other zoning districts, and if so, what areas or districts deemed appropriate; and 4) the Commission should recommend a desire to conduct a public input session on any proposed sign ordinance reforms, and specifically request a fully published and noticed public hearing. The Commission may direct Planning Staff on notice letters sent to specific groups or stakeholders, such as the local schools, churches, City licensed sign hangers/vendors, or others. Once the Planning Commission has discussed or acted on these recommendations, Planning Staff will prepare a report of findings and recommendations, which would then be presented back to the City Council for further consideration. Anticipated [follow-up] action by the City Council would likely include a directive to the City Attorney to work with city planning staff in the preparation of draft ordinance with specific text amendments or preferred reforms, which is then forwarded back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration under a public hearing process. After the public hearing, an official recommendation made by the Planning Commission, along with the draft Ordinance, would be forwarded back to the City Council for final consideration and possible adoption. MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 14,2013 CITY HALL—COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Carol Kleven, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, Lin Myszkowski, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Finance Director Dan Jordet, Public Works Director/City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Planning and Zoning Specialist Tim Benetti, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Kleven requested discussion on Item 6c, Resolution Designating Official Newspaper, in particular to thank City Clerk Sharon Knutson for providing this information and telephone number so she could ask whether the City would receive a reduction in price if there were subsequent notices and about circulation numbers. She noticed that the 55429 zip code includes a large portion of Crystal. Councilmember Kleven indicated it is good for the City to have choices and after additional checking she found more reasons to use the Sun Post. Councilmember Myszkowski stated she spoke to City Manager Boganey and learned the cost per column inch is four times more expensive with the StarTribune, making it cost prohibitive. She stated she wished the Sun Post got to more homes and suggested lobbying the Legislature to include posting on line as part of the notification process,which would provide additional access. Councilmember Myszkowski noted it has been previously mentioned by other elected officials that many older residents do not have intemet access or are not comfortable with electronic access. City Manager Curt Boganey indicated on-line notification has been previously lobbied before the Legislature but the newspaper industry also has a strong lobbying effort. He noted many cities post on line but it does not substitute for the Statutory requirement that notice also be published in an official newspaper. MISCELLANEOUS 01/14/13 4- Councilmember Kleven asked whether the City received the LGA payment by the end of December in the amount expected. Finance Director Daniel Jordet answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Kleven asked whether people entering the Brooklyn Center court room pass through a metal detector to determine whether they are carrying guns. Mayor Willson noted that procedure is under the jurisdiction of the court system, but the City could write a letter to make that suggestion, if the City Council so desired. City Manager Boganey stated he will ask Police Chief Benner for an update on that issue since he serves on a committee that is addressing security measures. Councilmember Ryan asked what the other buildings currently under construction in Shingle Creek Crossing look like, besides the LA Fitness building, who are the other tenants, and if one is a Panda Express Restaurant. Mr. Boganey advised the Panda Express Restaurant will be a stand-alone building,but it is not yet under construction. Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel stated three buildings are under construction at this time. With regard to tenants, the City is aware of Pro Cuts, AT&T, and Qdoba Mexican Grill. The LA Fitness site plan has been approved and is in the final stages of building application review. Councilmember Ryan announced he will be attending the National League of Cities Congressional City Conference to participate in their outstanding training for the local elected. Mayor Willson reported he had attended the Midwest Summit on Gun Laws in Minneapolis along with other mayors and many in law enforcement including Police Chief Benner. He stated he will be joining Mayor's Against Gun Violence and had been asked to go to Washington for a symposium; however, he was not able to attend. Mayor Willson explained this organization had offered to pay for his flight to and from Washington and asked staff to research and determine the legality of an elected official accepting such an offer. Mayor Willson referenced an e-mail from the Planning Commission Chair and noted the Planning Commission did not have a quorum to meet on October 24 when the Gatlin project was on the agenda. He indicated he made a determination to not reappoint one Planning Commissioner based on low attendance. Mayor Willson referenced a legislative report to the House of Representatives on the Minnesota Open Meeting Law that he had provided to the City Council, noting the information on Page 4 relating to being cautions in using a-mails or other communication methods. Mayor Willson stated it has been the City Council's policy to send communications to Mr. Boganey for dissemination to the City Council. Councilmember Myszkowski noted she and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson will also receive this information during the new member orientation with the League of Minnesota Cities in February. 01/14/13 -2- e � o der, I NMI* 9Mm.--I-W'- �M MON ON y , q r y i sm—l—l-l"����ee1� 7� ,,�ate.�.. n• Co szk kt asked hog fi `may 1 `tote tgtil s a� d e t HIN Xtexple� e�tgr�S e @� fran� ixt,,,� os �se�� c vw�� �tur��ie �endv e �,gt burs„y .. ”lu etru� e ' ace � �cicate ��ais ' " � .: 5 tee' �vtnrnt � n�ecaus�L I��iec`3tno� s very ttt es 01/14/13 -3- 2=7904, ' . ®R- W�r Ry_ om-s, can cal a .. x �111,,` STRATEGIC PLANNING—TEAM BUILDING RETREAT Mr. Boganey introduced the item and asked the City Council to provide direction regarding the proposed RFP to select a facilitator for the anticipated strategic planning and team building retreat. He cautioned there may be"sticker shock"associated with a new proposal but he finds it would be money well spent. The City Council expressed support for the RFP as drafted. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Myszkowski seconded to close the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 01/14/13 -4- STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) ss.Certification of Minutes CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER) The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota,certifies: 1. That attached hereto is a full, true, and complete transcript of the minutes of a Study/Work Session of the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center held on January 14,2013. 2. That said meeting was held pursuant to due call and notice thereof-and was duly held at Brooklyn Center City Hall. 3. That the City Council adopted said minutes at its January 28,2013,Regular Session. f City Clerk Mayor 01/14/13 -5- BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE Canopy sign-any sign that is part of or attached to a canopy,made of fabric,plastic,or structural protective cover over a door or entrance. A canopy sign is not a marquee and is different from service area canopy signs. See Section 19.126.1 for graphic illustration. Canopy sign,service area see Service Area Canopy Sign so �` Changeable copy sign,electronic-a sign,or portion thereof that displays electronic,non-pictorial,text information in which each alphanumeric character,graphic, or symbol is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes(LED's),fiber optics,light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic changeable copy signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic displays. Electronic changeable copy signs do not include official or time and temperature signs. Electronic changeable copy signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. Construction sign-a temporary sign erected on the premises on which construction is taking place,during the period of such construction, indicating the names of the architects,engineers,landscape architects, contractors or similar artisans, and/or the owners,financial supporters,sponsors,and similar individuals or firms having a role or interest with respect to the structure or project. Directional sign-any sign which serves solely to designate the direction of any place or area and,as such, shall be located on the same lot as said place or area. Examples include"entrance"and"exit"signs. Discontinued sign-any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains without a message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one year or more,or any sign which pertains to a time,event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been discontinued. Permanent signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership or management of such business shall not be deemed discontinued unless the property remains vacant for a period of one year or more. Any sign remaining after demolition of a principal structure shall be deemed to be discontinued. Signs which are present because of being legally established nonconforming signs or signs which have required a conditional use permit or a variance shall also be subject to the definition of discontinued sign. Electronic graphic display sign-a sign or portion thereof that displays electronic,static images,static graphics or static pictures,with or without information, defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of tight emitting diodes(LED's),fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area where the message change sequence is accomplished immediately or by means of fade, repixalization or dissolve modes. Electronic graphic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic or digital displays. Electronic graphic display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. Elevation-the view of the side,front, or rear of a given structure(s). Elevation area-the area of all walls that face any lot line. Erect-activity of constructing, building, raising,assembling, placing,affixing,attaching, creating, painting, drawing or any other way of bringing into being or establishing. Estate sale-see Garage Sale. Flag-any fabric or similar lightweight material attached at one end of the material,usually to a staff or pole, so as to allow movement of the material by atmospheric changes and which contains distinctive colors, patterns, symbols,emblems, insignia,or other symbolic devices. Flashing sign-a directly or indirectly illuminated sign or portion thereof that exhibits changing light or color effect by any means,so as to provide intermittent illumination that changes light intensity in sudden transitory bursts and creates the illusion of intermittent flashing light by streaming,graphic bursts showing movement,or any mode of lighting which resembles zooming,twinkling, or sparkling. Freestanding sign-any sign which has supporting framework that is placed on,or anchored in,the ground and which is independent from any building or other structure. Frontage-the line of contact of a property with the public right-of-way. Garage sale-sale of personal items no longer wanted by the persons residing on the premises of a sale. May also be several households selling their personal items. A garage sale does not include the sale of commercial merchandise. Garage sale sign-any temporary sign which identifies and announces a garage yard or estate sale. Gasoline service station-any building, land area or other premises or portion thereof,used for the retail dispensing or sales of vehicular fuels,whether as the principal or accessory use. Grade-grade shall be construed to be the final ground elevation after construction. Earth mounding criteria for landscaping and screening is not part of the final grade for sign height computation. 19-3