Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 02-14 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 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 I-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 C1 and CIA (Service/Office) Districts, however, most of the C1 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 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. 4L Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Page 5 2-14-13