06-16-1992 PC MIN
.
.
.
MINUTES OF THE ELk RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL
JUNE 16~ 1992
Members present: Chair Nadeau (7:43 p.m.), Commissioners
Eberley~ VanValkenburg, spotts, Johnson, and
Minton
Members Absent:
Tveite
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof,
Elk River Planning Commission was called
p.m. by Vice-Chair Eberley.
the meeting of the
to order at 7:01
Consider Ordinancp Amendment/Siqn Rpqulations/Sertion 900.721
off premi~e dirertional siqn~. window siqn~ and siqn~ for
larqp commercial busines~e~/P.H.
Vice-Chair Eberly noted that the public hearing and the
discussion of the sign ordinance had been continued to this
meeting, and according to the motion at the April 28, 1992
meeting, was to be continued from this meeting to the June
~~, 1992 meeting. In accordance with that motion, she opened
the public hearing.
Off Premise Directional Siqn~
The staff memo dated June 12, 1992 was reviewed, and it was
agreed that rural businesses are in a different catagory than
more urban businesses and that some consideration should be
given to those that are not on main roads. It was noted that
Prior Lake was the only city in the survey that regulated
signage in this area, and there was a desire to review that
ordinance more carefully. Mr. LeeRoy Kennedy asked if the
survey sought information for caseS like his. In response,
Commission members said that this was one of the main
purposes of the survey.
Vice-Chair Eberley asked if the selection of the communities
for the survey was considered acceptable. There was general
consensus that the selection of cities was appropriate.
Vice-Chair Eberley said that the Conditional Use Permit was
used in the Prior Lake ordinance, and asked if some of the
cases could be handled administratively, and others through
the CUP process, similar to the Home Occupation Permit
process. The Commission members wanted more information on
the charges for CUP applications and for the reviews.
There was general agreement that some signage
allowed, but that a number of criteria should
thought out and formulated for an ordinance.
included:
should be
be carefully
Those criteria
.
.
.
which cases should be handled administratively and which
ones should be handled through the CUP process
how many signs should be allowed
the size of the signs
the location of businesses in order to qualify for
signage
a def in i t ion of businesses that at~e it t~LH~al in nature"
where should the signs be allowed
a definition of J1dit~ectionalil signage
a definition of ~off-the beaten path" for busineses to
qualify.
The Commission agreed to ask the staff to propose some ideas
on these subjects so that this discussion could be continued
at the public hearing and meeting on June 23, 1992.
Chairman Nadeau joined the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
The Commission also asked staff to check some of the
surrounding rural townships in Sherburne and Anoka Counties
to see if they have any ot~dinances that would be helpful on
this subject.
Commissioner Johnson also noted that there may be some
policies in other sign ordinances that could or should be
incorporated into this ordinance.
Commissioner Nadeau indicated that he-would attempt to move
this subject to the beginning of the agenda for the next
meeting.
I
\!.Jindnw Sign<=;
The staff memo of June 12, 1992 was again reviewed, and it
was noted that there was a great deal of variety in the
ordinances of other communities, ranging from no regulation
to allowing no more than 25% of window coverage.
In discussing the purpose of any regulation, it was agreed
that the main reason for any regulation was esthetics and
pet~haps safety.
In a straw vote on this subject, 2 Commission members were in
favor of no regulation, and three members would agree to
allowing up to 50% window coverage ~or signs. The definition
of a window sign should not include such messages as
Christmas greetings or supporting the local teams. It was
.
.
.
agreed that the majority opin~on should be formalized into a
motion at the next meeting-
Larqe Commerrial Siqns
After reviewing the staff memo, it was agreed that there was
no need to change the ordinance for the size of free standing
signs for larger commercial buildings. The original intent
of this ordinance was based on visibility for traffic at the
posted speed limits, and therefore the size of the building
should not be a factor.
It was also aqreed that there should not be a clause in the
ordinance which would allow the Zoning Administrator to
approve a trade off between wall and free standing signage
for large commercial buildings_
It was agreed, however. that wall slgnage for large
commercial buildings, exceeding 50,000 square feet! could be
larger, since these buildings may have larger parking lots,
and the increase to 250 sq. ft. seemed to be appropriate.
In accordance with the motion of
Vice-Chair Eberley continued the
meeting of June 23, 1992.
the Apt~il 28,
public heat~ing
1992 meeting,
to the
Cu~tom Motor~ Junkyard
In regards to the status of the Customs Motor Junkyard, the
Commission wanted more information regarding the CUP decision
and conditions for this property, whether or not there has
been compliance with these conditions, and when was the last
review for the CUP.
Annual 80als
Vice-Chair Eberley said that the Big Lake Township Planning
Commission is being dissolved because it was not properly
authorized by the County Board of Commissioners~ and
therefore she and Comm1ssioner Minton would not attend theit~.
meeting_
The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at
approximately 9:00 p.m.
/ :;~;;: tted,
Robet~t L. Minton