Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-07-07 - Planning Commission MinutesCITY OF CORCORAN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 7:00 PM - TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2015 The Corcoran Planning Commission met on July 7, 2015, at City Hall in Corcoran, Minnesota. Present were: Chair Jacobs, Vice -chair Ravnholdt, Commissioner Wu, Commissioner Theis, and Commissioner Schultz. Also present were: Council Liaison Hank, Administrator Martens, City Planner Lindahl, Planner Matze, and Code Compliance Official Pritchard. 1. Call to Order Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:00pm 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Open Forum — None 4. Approval of: a. Agenda Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Theis to approve the agenda as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) b. April 2, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Motion made by Wu seconded by Schultz to approve the minutes as presented. Voting Aye: Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 3 :0) Jacobs and Ravnholdt abstained. c. June 4, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Motion made by Theis seconded by Ravnholdt to approve the minutes as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 4:0) Wu abstained. 5. New Business a. PUBLIC HEARING. Sign Ordinance Update (city file 15 -012) i. Staff Report — Planner Matze presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. (7 :24pm) iii. Public Comment — Sean Leuer, Westside Tire, asked for clarification on a number of issues including the reason for the update, how it would affect existing signs, cost of new requirements to business owners, and which communities were compared when writing the ordinance. Mr. Leuer also commented that the 12 second requirement for dynamic displays is too long for businesses located on roads with higher speed limits and should be less and that the new requirements may deter future growth as basic signs would not be allowed. He stated that the new sign requirements are expensive options and requiring expensive signage would discourage existing businesses to upgrade.. Tom Gleason, Pro -Tech Auto, stated that he was "happy" the sign ordinance was being addressed and that he would finally be able to complete the update to his sign. He also asked for clarification on the "strong sign" language. Mr. Gleason also said that electronic message boards are expensive and he would like to see manual message boards allowed. He thanked the Commission for their time and for reviewing the ordinance. Tim Laurent, Motor Cafe, stated that he was excited about the update and that the inclusion of dynamic signage was a great option for businesses to present information as it is very important. Mr. Laurent also asked for clarification regarding existing signage. He also shared concerns that a 12 second requirement for dynamic signage seemed long and that the 35% limit may be too small. Mr. Laurent shared that overall the proposed ordinance appears flexible and comparable. Dick Denison, 22741 Wagon Wheel Lane, submitted a letter to be entered into the public hearing. He stated that he was "generally in agreement" with the proposal but raised some concerns: he stated that some of the sign sizes were more generous than neighboring areas and the 16' height may be excessive next to residential areas. Mr. Denison also stated that the City should consider signs facing residential areas to go dark or be turned off at a specific time after the business closes and shared concerns for brightness. iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5 :0) (7 :46pm) V. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — The commission asked staff to clarify concerns and answer questions raised during the public hearing. Staff confirmed that updating the sign ordinance was determined to be a Council priority as it is important to businesses. The new ordinance gives many more options, increases signage size, type, lessens regulations, and allows new technology. Staff confirmed that signs legally existing at the time of approval of the updated ordinance would become legal non - conforming and are allowed to remain. Legal non - conforming signs are protected by state statue and are allowed to be maintained and repaired, but if the sign is removed it would have to comply with new standards. The Commission discussed manually changeable message boards and stated that there use was common for churches, community organizations and events. Staff confirmed that this type of sign would still be allowed on a temporary basis. Staff confirmed that approximately 25 cities were compared while drafting the update as well as sign industry standards. The Commission asked if "blade" (projecting) signs would be allowed in the downtown district. It was confirmed that they would be allowed. Staff clarified that the terms "back -lit" and "halo" are interchangeable and have the same definition. The Commission asked why incandescent lighting was addressed even though the technology was being phased out. Staff confirmed that it is regulated and allowed as to not limit the signs design. Staff confirmed that the 12 second dynamic change requirement is consistent with industry standards. Staff clarified the term "strong sign" did not necessarily refer to the structural integrity of the sign but more the design and size of the base (monument). Staff stated that raising the maximum sign size was because the current ordinance was very limited, especially for large buildings. Staff also clarified that signage was only allowed on 1 side (frontage) of the building and that a typical site plan process would assure thoughtful orientation of the building. In response to Mr. Denison's concerns, staff confirmed that the new ordinance addresses and regulates illumination standards including type of lighting, glare, brightness, etc., but does not require darkening of signs at night. The Commission asked how the 35% dynamic sign limit was determined. Staff confirmed that Council directed staff to allow dynamic signage as accessory to the main sign. The sign area was based on research of the surrounding communities and industry standards. Mr. Duffy, Think Digital Signs, offered an option for the dynamic sign size. He suggested that allowing a 37.5% maximum size would allow for a standard sized 24 square foot, 3'x8' dynamic sign on the proposed maximum 64 square foot monument sign that would be allowed as part of the ordinance update. The Commission and staff supported raising the dynamic sign size to 37.5°/x. Staff confirmed that dynamic displays cannot flash or scroll but would be allowed to fade between messages. This requirement would not apply to window signs, such as displays. Staff confirmed that entrance and exit signs would be allowed to be freestanding and lit. The Commission asked if the new requirements would apply to hospital /emergency room signs. Staff confirmed that it would apply to these uses and a variance would be required if the standards were not met. Staff confirmed that business vehicles would be allowed signage except that vehicles parked solely for signage /advertising would not be allowed. Staff clarified that signs installed on parapets were and still would be treated as wall signs. The Commission and staff clarified that the new requirements would offer business owners options of both small inexpensive signage as well as larger more elaborate signs. Mr. Duffy, Think Digital Signs, stated that the ordinance update gives a large range of cost options and flexibility. Tim Laurent, Motor Cafe, offered an example that he was able to install a 15' individual letter sign for less than $1,000 and that the new ordinance gave more options. He also asked for clarification if illumination was optional. Staff confirmed that lighting is allowed and regulated, but not required. Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment with a change to 7b of the ordinance to raise the maximum dynamic sign allowance from 35% to 37.5 %. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) Motion made by Schultz seconded by Wu to recommend approval of the findings of fact. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) b. PUBLIC HEARING. Ordinance amendment to allow creation of lots without development rights (city file 15 -014) i. Staff Report — City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. (9:02pm) IR11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIW011.T •u, 71--TNTM ►C.Te- iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Wu seconded by Theis to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) (9:02pm) V. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — Staff laid out examples of how the proposed ordinance would affect land owners within the city and clarified that the creation of lots without development rights would only be allowed on lots that may in the future have development rights available. Staff also confirmed that a legal document stating the secondary lot is unbuildable would be required to be recorded with the plat at the county. Motion made by Theis seconded by Ravnholdt to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment and findings of fact as presented. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5 :0) At 9:17pm, a short recess was taken; the meeting reconvened at 9.20pm. c. PUBLIC HEARING. New Verizon Monopole at 23605 Co Rd 50 (PID 30- 119 -23- 21 -0001) (City File 15 -016) i. Staff Report — City Planner Lindahl presented her staff report. ii. Open Public Hearing — Chair Jacobs opened the public hearing. (9:32pm) iii. Public Comment — Paul Harrington, Buell Consulting / Verizon, was in attendance. Mr. Harrington stated that he believed all staff concerns were addressed and supported the proposed resolution. He said that he was available for questions. iv. Close Hearing Motion made by Theis seconded by Wu to close the public hearing. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) (9:54pm) V. Commission Discussion & Recommendation — The Commission asked for clarification from the applicant on a number of issues. Mr. Harrington clarified that the monopole was designed to carry 2 additional telecommunication antennas. The commission inquired about location of ground equipment for future antennas to be added as they were not shown on the plan. Staff confirmed that this would be addressed in the future via a site plan by the company adding the equipment and that a "ghost- plat" is not required for this type of project. Mr. Harrington stated the fencing would be 6' high chain -link with 3 line barbed wire top. The total height and capacity was clarified. Also clarified were landscaping requirements and future expansion requirements. Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Theis to recommend approval of the resolution as presented with minor correction to condition 7c. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5:0) 6. Reports: a. Planning Project Update — Information only b. City Council Report — Councilmember Hank — Information only c. Other Business — None 7. Adjournment Motion made by Ravnholdt seconded by Schultz to adjourn. Voting Aye: Jacobs, Ravnholdt, Wu, Theis, and Schultz. (Motion carried 5 :0) Meeting adjourned at 10:15pm. Submitted by Mike Pritchard Code Compliance Official