HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 02-28 PCP a Cary(.f PW
OOKLYN
ENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
FEBRUARY 28, 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
7. Action Items—None
8. Discussion Items
a) Discuss and Consider Possible Recommendations to the City Council in
Amending City Code Chapter 34- SIGNS (Allowing Dynamic Message Signs in
Public and Semi-Public Places)
b) Review of the Community Development Planning and Project Map 2013
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
FEBRUARY 14, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Rahn at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners, 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. Scott Burfeind, Randall Christensen, and Benjamin Freedman were absent and excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES —JANUARY 31, 2013
There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to approve the
minutes of the January 31, 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.
APPLICATION NO. 2013-002 LOREN VAN DER SLIK/GATLIN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Benetti explained that the applicant requested the final plat be tabled indefinitely due to
unforeseen circumstances and issues surrounding the minor adjustments needed to be made to
various lot lines as required under the preliminary plat approval.
Commissioner Parks asked if there is something being kept from the Commission. Mr. Eitel
replied that the plat is with the County right now and they are waiting to get them back with the
County's comments before submitting for a final plat.
Commissioner Morgan asked how the Shingle Creek Crossing development is progressing. Mr.
Benetti replied that it is going well and the 4th building is under construction for LA Fitness.
A motion was made by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to table the
final plat indefinitely.
Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners, Morgan, Parks and Schonning
And the following voted against the same: None
The motion passed unanimously.
Page 1
2-14-13
DISCUSSION ITEM—DISCUSSION ON AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 34- SIGNS
REGARDING DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGNS IN PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC PLACES
Mr. Benetti explained the City 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.) with two basic questions for study:
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?
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, 1-1, and 1-2 Districts?
He added it was the consensus of the City Council to ask the Planning Commission to provide
review and comment on Question No. 2. The Planning Commission discussed amending
Chapter 34 at their January 31, 2013 meeting.
Mr. Benetti explained the definition of a Dynamic Message Sign as "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". He added they are only
permitted only in the C2, 1-1 and 1-2 Districts and must remain constant for at least two seconds
when such sign is in use.
Mr. Benetti pointed out Section 34-140; Subd. 3. D, 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 maybe 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.
Mr. Benetti pointed out the following concerns raised by the City Council and Planning
Commission:
Page 2
2-14-13
• The perceived impacts these types of signs upon a residential neighborhood.
• Most schools and churches in residential zones are allowed by means of a special use
permit and must have access on a collector or arterial street.
• What level of lighting or brightness would be acceptable for these signs in a residential
neighborhood, how to measure their brightness or illumination levels, or a need to
provide hours of operations.
Mr. Benetti provided definitions for both public and semi-public places, picked from a select
number of metropolitan communities' ordinances. He added some of these cities refer to these
public properties or areas under the term of"Public Uses" and "Semi-Public Uses", which the
Commission may wish to consider as part of any language amendments.
Mr. Benetti explained 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, I-1 and I-2 zones. He added the most logical areas to expand DMS's would be in
the Cl and CIA (Service/Office) Districts, however, most of the Cl and CIA zoned areas are
situated along or near the Brooklyn Boulevard, which is a very busy and prime business corridor
The Commission felt by expanding the opportunities to place these types of signs along this
corridor, may detract from the overall appearance and aesthetic elements the new 2013 Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor Study. Benetti added if every business were to have a DMS along this
corridor, it could present a noticeable distraction along this Brooklyn Boulevard corridor.
Mr. Benetti stated the City Council is not requesting any significant changes to the current sign
standards and if the Commission were to recommend allowing DMS in other zoning districts
they 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
• consider adding a new Changeable Message Sign definition
Mr. Benetti provided examples of various dynamic message signs already existing around the
city at various schools and churches.
Mr. Benetti provided a comprehensive definition of a changeable copy sign in the City of
Bloomington's Sign Code and suggested this type of new language or a similar version be
incorporated into the City Sign Ordinance and recommend to the City Council for consideration.
Mr. Benetti explained the following options for the Planning Commission to consider:
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
Page 3
2-14-13
i
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 they support the possible expansion of
DMS's in other zoning districts, and if so, what areas or districts deemed appropriate;
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.
Mr. Benetti explained that following a discussion, Staff will prepare a report of findings and
recommendations to present to the City Council for further consideration.
Chair Rahn stated that expanding the zoning districts to allow these signs seems fair, however,
limiting such signs in other areas seems unreasonable. Mr. Eitel replied that existing signs
would be considered non-conforming, however, the ordinance could be amended to increase the
message change from two seconds.
Commissioner Parks stated that some of the existing signs appear brighter at night and can be
very distracting from a faraway distance, and when the properties are surrounded by residential
neighborhoods, it is an annoying distraction. He added the schools and public buildings seem to
use different types of signs since they are used for identification and not used to draw people in.
Mr. Eitel summarized that it seems the Commission feels some of the signs can be distracting.
Chair Rahn stated since the technology is available, there should be a way to allow the DMS in
public places so they too can take advantage of the new technology. He added he feels inviting
the public and vendors to a public hearing would be a good idea to get their input also.
Commissioner Parks stated cities have done a good job of making the streets more pleasing to
the eye and regulating this technology, keeps certain signs from getting out of control and keeps
the neighborhoods more pleasing.
Chair Rahn stated that regulations allowing/prohibiting these signs in public and semi-public, C 1
and C2 areas should be further explored.
Mr. Benetti replied that staff will meet with the city attorney regarding the regulations and use of
Dynamic Messaging Signs in various zoning districts within the city. The City can limit the
number and size of signs on a property but the freedom of speech amendment, does not allow
cities to dictate what the signs display.
Page 4
2-14-13
DISCUSSION ITEM - REPORT AND UPDATE BY STAFF OF ON-GOING AND
APPROVED DEVELOPMENTS AND ANTICIPATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Mr. Benetti provided development updates in the city:
• LA Fitness was recently approved.
• The plans submitted for the Panda Express building did not meet the architectural
standards approved for Shingle Creek Crossing and they will be back on the Planning
Commission agenda soon with revised plans.
• Howe Fertilizer site has been submitted to revise the original PUD from 2008 to upgrade
to a 61,000 sq. ft. building.
• 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue has two new tenants; Omnicare and Medafor occupy
approximately half of the building.
• Luther Auto has acquired two parcels adjoining their property and will expand their PUD
to allow for expanded and increased parking on their site.
• Future hotel on a vacant pad site by the Embassy Suites and Earle Brown Heritage
Center.
• NW Family Services building is complete.
There were no other discussion items.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Morgan, to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
8:37 p.m.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Rebecca Crass
Page 5
2-14-13
City of Business and Development
Brooklyv 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
Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist
DATE: February 28, 2013
RE: Agenda Item No. 7.a— Continued Update - Amending City Code Chapter 34- SIGNS
regarding Dynamic Message Signs in Public and Semi-Public Places
Introduction
At the February 14, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, Planning Staff presented a memo
report with information related to dynamic message signs in Public/Semi-Public Places, along
with statements related to potential impacts to residential neighborhoods, allowances for such
signs in other districts; and sign standard reforms. The recommendations that night included the
following:
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.
The Commission sitting that night generally supported the idea of allowing DMS type sign in the
Public/Semi-Public places, and the City Code should provide a new definition or classification of
"Public" and "Semi-Public" places. The Commission discussed and appeared to generally
support the idea of expanding DMS' to other districts, but did not decide what, if any of these
districts would be appropriate. The Commission also discussed providing certain limitations or
different standards, such as message change intervals, which may need further study or
consideration in order to be modified. Finally, the Commission raised a number of concerns on
the brightness levels of these signs in public places, such as schools and churches located in
residential neighborhoods, and felt it was important to limit any impacts to these neighborhoods.
Following this last meeting, Planning Staff met with City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and after
much discussion and consideration, it was suggested or agreed that the City should focus on
limiting the brightness of these signs; possibly limit the size(s) of signs; and limit the changeable
interval of said messages, especially if they are in residential zoned areas.
This memo contains additional information for the Commission to consider, along with a final
[suggested] recommendation to be forwarded to the City Council.
Brightness Standards
By current ordinance standards, the level of brightness or illumination spill of light from an
exterior light source, located in or next to a residential neighborhood, must not exceed 3 foot-
candles, measured at the property lines. The City Code section is noted below:
Section 35-712. LIGHTING. All exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses,
reflectors, or shades, so as to concentrate illumination on the property of
the owner or operator of said illumination devices. Rays of light shall not
pass beyond the property lines of the premises utilizing such illumination
at intensity greater than three foot-candles measured at property lines
abutting residentially zoned property, or 10 foot-candles measured at
property lines abutting street right-of-way or nonresidential zoned
property. No glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the
boundaries of the illuminated premises.
As noted previously in past reports and presentations, the industry standard of brightness for
these signs is no greater than 0.3 foot-candles, measured at a certain distance from the sign based
on the overall size of said sign. City staff will provide an in-house demonstration of what 0.3 FC
appears to be at the Feb. 28th meeting, by means of adjusting the TV spotlights in the Council
Chambers to this level to give you a better sense of what this light or luminance level is, based
on a light meter. The sign vendor working to place the DMS at Evergreen Schools is attempting
to arrange a portable DMS outside City Hall that same night, to give you a hands-on or in-the-
field demonstration of what these signs look like up close, and give you an opportunity to gage
the level of lighting and intensity these signs give off. Staff will notify you if this portable sign
is available and ready for your viewing prior to next Thursday night's meeting.
Size Limitations
The Planning Commission should discuss or consider limiting the size of these dynamic message
signs, if they are located in a residential zoned district. As shown on the multitude of similar
"hand-changeable message" signs on school and church properties throughout the city, most, if
not all of these signs have the lower half their allowable signage devoted to the message board,
while the other half is the stationary, permanent name of the use above it. The City Attorney
suggested the City consider limiting these DMS to the same standards.
Changing Message Interval Limitations
The Planning Commission should discuss or consider limiting or prescribing a different change
rate or time interval for messages to change on these signs in the Public Places, again based on
the fact of the City allowing these to be located in residential districts or near residential uses.
The City Attorney suggested the City consider limiting DMS' to longer periods, which can be
determined or recommended by the Planning Commission. The Commission may also wish to
recommend that these signs are turned-off completely at a certain time of the day and activated at
a set time.
The understanding is that these hand changeable message signs are typically not changed every
day or on routine basis, since their message is typically used to announce service times, or school
events (days/weeks in advance), or similar long-term messages. The idea is that multiple lined
electronic messages could be created and made to keep stationary for a longer period of time
than the 2-second message interval currently allowed under the Sign Ordinance.
Recommendation
Planning Staff is offering for the Commission's consideration the following list of
recommendations or statements to be forwarded to the City Council for further action:
1) Planning Commission supports allowing dynamic message signs to Public and Semi-
Public Places;
2) Planning Commission supports allowing dynamic message signs to the CI
(Service/Office) and CIA (Service/Office) Districts;
3) Planning Commission recommends the City Council direct city staff to prepare language
providing a new definition or land use term similar to the other communities' ordinances
with regards to "Public" and"Semi-Public"uses;
4) Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider limiting the overall
allowable size of any new DMS area or cabinet to no more than fifty percent(50%) of the
maximum allowable signage provided for in the district where the sign is placed.
5) Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider specific [new] standards
for any DMS in a residential area, including, but not limited the following:
a. A DMS message must remain stationary or static for up to one hour or more;
b. dimming technology that automatically adjusts their brightness in direct
correlation with ambient light conditions, and said brightness;
c. Sign brightness shall not exceed the industry standards of 0.3 foot-candles above
ambient light as measured from a present distance depending on the sign size; and
d. Any DMS located in a residential zoned district shall be turned off or
programmed to go blank between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. daily.
and
5) Planning Commission recommends the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare a
Draft Ordinance addressing these new reforms to the existing DMS provisions and
standards found under City Code Chapter 34 — Signs, and that this item be sent back to
Planning Commission for public input under an official, published public hearing
process, whereby an official recommendation on the proposed Ordinance will be made
and forwarded back to the City Council for final consideration.
Business and Development
City of Department
X-BrooHyn Center— 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
Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist
DATE: February 28, 2013
RE: Agenda Item No. 7.13 —Consideration of the 2013 Community Development Activities &
Projects Map
Please find attached for your review and consideration the proposed 2013 Community Development
Activities &Projects Map, prepared by Planning Staff.
As some of the Commissioners are aware, Staff routinely provides an updated CD Activities Map for the
Planning Commission(and community)to use as an illustration in identifying ongoing development
sites, potential land use proposal sites, redevelopment and opportunity sites, and study corridor areas.
For next Thursday night's meeting, Staff intends to review the old 2012 map and provide an update,
along with targeted or suggested areas of study, and certain potential redevelopment sites and projects.
Staff encourages you to provide any input or questions on these and other sites as part of our discussion
process. Until then, if you have any questions, feel free to call Gary at 569-3305 or Tim at 569-3319
(email GEitelkci.brooklyn-center.mn.us or TBenetti gci.brooklyn-center.mn.us).
1. Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor % �—=" uO4 _ —�. _ ;ip, �_ 14. Evergreen Villas
Study / Reimaging I
-------- --
-
15. Eastbrook 2nd Addn.
2. Shingle Creek Crossing PUD ; PALMER LAKE PARK
Phase I & Phase II " SEA P°`""° =` 16. Marketing of Phase II
mLL° DA Site - Link to EB H C,
3. Development Strategies & i- 1414 % Pond, Fountain
�J
Marketing of Opportunity Sites i
a) redevelop Brookdale Ford
a
a� w
17. Twin Lakes Trail
b) redevelop Brookdale Square extension to Mississippi
c redevelop N School of Bus. 10 15 2� pp
p " 12 2 Regional Park
__
24-.
4. 57th Avenue and Logan - 18
_. ,
i °� Brookhaven/Granite Peaks
EDA redevelopment "°° Apartments Rehab r
rt RhbP
s ��w..�
5. Maranatha Homes
Phase I - 97 units
19. Northport Elementary
Phase II: redevelop. ' 13
- - I `; Phase II of V
� 18
z
(Master Planning)
nursing home area w/
TENNAL
senior housing
PARK
20. France Avenue
4
Business Park IV
6. Northwest Family Servicer a
ANI
Center 63,000 sq ft Office
Addition and parking ramp 21 . Allied Building Site
sEA.
1
7. Slim's Pizza site 22. Surly Brewing Site
8. Brooklyn Blvd. Market 25
4
�._ 23. Howe Fertilizer Site
6,700 sf. Commercial site �
2008 PUD Approved Plan
60,000 sf. office/warehouse
9. Luther Auto - old Honda
building ding (pending approval of
dealershi p site "w 2
Ag. Dept. remediation plan)
10. Luther Auto - Phase III \ ✓�
Honda - Toyota Dealerships) I o- 19 T` .; °y 24. I-1 Industrial Park Study
a.
Area (Industrial Inventory
oa�
11. Palmer Lake Plaza Strategies for industrial
� � Strate 9
PUD Plannin _ -- --- -- ---- --- uses and opportunities
LILI L]
12. Humboldt Ave Corridor — �, ` 25. Shingle Creek
Enhancement opportunities
Llr
Community Development
(Trail and Daylighting)
13. EDA marketing of , F 7 .�� p
remaining acres _ � �
Activities & Projects
9 23 J
20 2013
21 �
��-- 22
Central Commerce District
XBROOKLYN
CENTER