Loading...
10-10-2006 PC MINMEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL TUESDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2006 Members Present: Vice-Chair Stevens, Commissioners Anderson, Offerman, Scott and Westgaard. Commissioner Ropp arrived at 6:35 p.m. Members Absent: Chair Lemke Staff Present: Jeremy Barnhart, Planning Manger; Chris Leeseberg, Planner; Debbie Huebner, Recording Secretary Call Meeting To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Lemke. 2. Consider 10/10/06 Planning Commission Agenda MOVED BY COMMISSIONER OFFERMAN AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 10, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Consider 9/14/06 Planning Commission Minutes MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Commissioner Ropp arrived at this time (6:35 p.m.) 4. Planning Commission R~resentative to Attend City Council Meeting Commissioner Ropp will attend the October 16, 2006 City Council meeting. 5.1. Request by_Jeff Werner for Preliminary Plat (Cranberry Ridg~, Public Hearing -Case No. P 06-15 Planning Manager Jeremy Barnhart stated that in order to allow more time to resolve issues associated with the plat, the applicant for the Cranberry Ridge plat has requested that his application be tabled to the December 12, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Vice-Chair Stevens opened the public hearing. Clair O1son,10476 205 Avenue NW, Elk River -Concerned how the proposed road extension would impact his property. Jeff Knutson, 11505 310 Avenue, Zimmerman, MN -Stated he owns Lot 5 in Birchview asked how the developer intends to tie into the cul-de-sac. He stated that he was told the connection would be further to the west. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 October 10, 2006 --------------------------- Lonny Lieder, 23710 141 Avenue North, Rogers, MN -Stated he developed the Birchview plat. He was concerned with the location of the proposed road extension. He felt that the proper location for the road would be west of the wetland, and rrudway on the existing 207th Avenue. Mr. Barnhart stated that these are some of the issues they need to resolve, since there is very limited access to County Road 33. He expressed apologies to those residents in attendance who were expecting a full presentation of the request. Kristi Johann, 2291 132nd Lane, Blaine, MN -Stated she is the owner of Lot 3, Block 1 in the Birchview subdivision. She had concerns regarding where the road would go through Birchview and impacts of safety of the children in this area. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WESTGAARD TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE REQUEST BY JEFF WERNER FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CRANBERRY RIDGE, CASE NO. P 06-15 TO THE DECEMBER 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 5.2. Request by City of Elk River for An Ordinance Amendment to Section 30-851 Regarding Siens, Public Hearing -Case No. OA 06-02 Planner Chris Leeseberg provided an update on progress to date for an ordinance amendment to address temporary/portable signs. He noted that through the Chamber of Commerce, 250 business owners were notified of the September 26th workshop discussion of the proposed ordinance language changes. Approximately 14 E-mail responses were received, and one business owner was in attendance. Mr. Leeseberg reviewed staff's recommendation to revise the existing ordinance. Vice Chair Stevens opened the public hearing. Tami Weeks, owner of The Jungle hair salon, 934 Highway 10 -Questioned why no other business owners were in attendance at tonight's meeting. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the public hearing was published in the Star News. She asked why the ordinance amendment was initiated. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the amendment was a result of the concerns of the City Council, Planning Commission, staff and complaints from the public. Ms. Weeks questioned why the City uses temporary signs, if they are negative. Mr. Leeseberg stated they are allowed by City ordinance. Ms. Weeks asked why she is not allowed to place signs in the MnDOT right of way. Mr. Barnhart stated that the City cannot issue a permit for signs in MnDOT right of way, and the City has the right to remove signs that are placed there. Mr. Leeseberg noted that most signs in the MnDOT right of way are illegal, except for traffic safety signage. Jeff Gongoll, representing the Chamber of Commerce, 509 Highway 10 -Stated that the Chamber is supported of clarification of the definition of temporary/portable signs. He stated that the general consensus of the Chamber members who responded to a possible ban of temporary signs was very negative, as evidenced in the 14 E-mails which were included in the Commission's packets. Mr. Gongoll stated he felt Exhibit C was a good representation of the discussion at the September 26th workshop. He felt limiting the number of days to 30 would be onerous, and that 90 days to would be acceptable with no limit on the number of Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 October 10, 2006 --------------------------- pernzits. In regard to Item 7(b), he felt that limiting the number of events to three may have a negative impact for some of the non-profit organizations. He asked that the temporary signs continue to be allowed under the provisions of Exhibit C. Rachael Erickson of Express Signs and Balloons, 19320 Yukon Street, Oak Grove, Minnesota - Stated that her company does a lot of business in Elk River and she felt that the 90 day limit was adequate. She felt that a shorter time period would impact some of the businesses that need advertising during the slow times of the year. She stated that they try to place the signs in the best possible location for their customers. She stated that some of the other cities where they do business have specific spots for locating signs, such as X-number of feet from a sidewalk. She felt that being specific in where to put the signs is helpful to her as a sign company owner. She noted that in some cities, there are actually pre-drilled holes in the ground to place the signs. She stated that she has worked with over 300 businesses in the past three years; 43 in the past 9 months, and 6 tax exempt non-profit organizations and 7 non-tax exempt non-profit. Ms. Erickson stated that they take pride in their signs and encourage business owners to use professional headers. She state that she is willing to get feedback from the Commission as to how the appearance of the signs can be improved. Vice Chair Stevens asked if Express signs and Balloons ask clients to see a sign permit before placing a sign. Ms. Erickson stated that they have recently changed their process to include advising clients that Express Signs will need to see their sign permit before placing a sign. Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Erickson what she means by a "professional header"? She stated that they encourage businesses such as "Curves" to use their custom logo on the signs. Commissioner Offerman asked if Express Signs has a m;n;mum number of days a client must rent temporary signs. Ms. Erickson stated no, but that they recommend having a sign out 6 - 9 days prior to an event. Commissioner Offennan asked who is responsible for damage caused by wind. Ms. Erickson stated that she has insurance/liability insurance to cover damage to the signs, as well as caused by the signs. She stated that they will adequately stake and sandbag the signs to prevent them blowing over. Tami Weeks stated that if all eight businesses in the strip where she is located would have to split up the 90 days, they each would only be able to advertise 1 day at a time, if they wanted to advertise several times a year. She stated that she personally advertises 4 - 5 times a year, and has the signage for two weeks each time. She did not feel the proposed sign ordinance amendment was fair. Ms. Weeks asked if each of tenants in the Target area would have the same regulations. Mr. Leeseberg stated that the same rules will apply; a total of 90 days per calendar year per parcel number (PII~. There being no further public comment, Vice Chair Stevens closed the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson stated that as an Elk River resident, he has concern for the aesthetics of the signs. He stated that he is not in favor of banning temporary signs completely, since from a business standpoint, the signs are a very valuable form of advertising. But, he felt that the signs should truly be temporary and should go away after advertising an event. He felt there are other ways to advertise such as through newspapers. Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 October 10, 2006 --------------------------- Conunissioner Anderson stated that he was in favor of Exhibit C and that a maximum of 90 days was a realistic number to allow temporary signs. He was not in favor of allowing each tenant in a multi-tenant building to advertise for 90 days. He stated that he felt any one permit should not exceed 30 days, and that the number of permits should be left open. Commissioner Scott asked Ms. Erickson if she felt the language regarding placing the sign on an improved surface was realistic. She stated that normally yes, as long as they have a good way to secure. Ms. Erickson stated that for security purposes it was a good idea, but that the only problem would be sometimes the sign could be some distance from the business being advertised. Commissioner Offenrnan stated that he agreed with Commissioner Anderson to recommend the language in Exhibit C, with the 30-day maximum for a permit. He conctured that allowing multiple businesses within a site to each have 90 days was not desirable. Commissioner Offenman also agreed that the signs can have a big impact for businesses, but so can newspapers and flyers. He felt the amendment was a big change, as far as cleaning up the language. Commssioner Westgaard stated he also supported language in Exhibit C, with a revision to 7 (b.) to add that no one permit will exceed 30 days in duration. Commissioner Ropp asked how the proposed amendment will affect enforcement. Mr. Leeseberg stated that it would be "awash" as far as staff time, since one business could potentially pull nine 10-day permits a year. Overall, he felt that that staff time would balance out. Mr. Gongoll stated that the 30-day time limit may not be enough time for new business to advertise their opening. Commissioner Offenrnan stated that the applicant would have the option of securing another 30-day permit. Mr. Gongoll stated that businesses should be made aware they have that option. Vice Mayor Stevens stated that he concttrred with the comments made by the other Commissioners. He stated that the reason this issue came up is because there were a number of temporary signs throughout the City with no permit and in locations where they should not be. He stated that those in the sign business need to be aware of what the laws are in the City they are doing business. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMISSIONER OFFERMAN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE, SECTION 30-851, CASE NO.OA 06-02, TO INCLUDE EXHIBITS C AND D, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGE: ITEM 7. (A.) -SHALL READ, "SIGNS MAY NOT BE DISPLAYED FOR MORE THAN 90 DAYS TOTAL, PER CALENDAR YEAR, WITH NO PERMIT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS". ITEM 7. (D.) -STRIKE THE LANGUAGE, "AND BE LIMITED TO THREE EVENTS PER YEAR" AND ADD THE LANGUAGE, "SIGNS MAY NOT BE DISPLACED FOR MORE THAN 90 DAYS TOTAL, PER CALENDAR YEAR" Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 2006 Page 5 MOTION AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON, SECONDED BY COMMISSION OFFERMAN, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CHANGE: ITEM 7. (B.) -STRIKE THE LANGUAGE, "UP TO SIX PERMITS PER YEAR MAYBE ISSUED TO A PROPERTY NOT TO EXCEED THE NUMBER OF DAYS ALLOWED IN SUBSECTION (7). A. OF THIS SECTION." Discussion followed regarding whether or not regulation of the number of permits was necessary. Staff recommended that there be no cap. MOTION CARRIED 6-0. 6. Other Business 6.1. Update on September 18, 2006 City Council Meeting Commissioner Westgaard provided an update on the September 18, 2006 City Council meeting. Adjournment There being no further business, MOVED BY COMMISSIONER ANDERSON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. The meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, .~ ;~~~u-.-~- Debbie Huebner Recording Secretary