Loading...
100703 planning CITY OF NEW HOPE 4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH NEW HOPE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 55428 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 7, 2003 City Hall, 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDERThe New Hope Planning Commission met in regular session pursuant to due call and notice thereof; Chairman Landy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Barrick, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Absent: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken Also Present: Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant, Steve Sondrall, City Attorney, Ken Doresky, Community Development Specialist, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary CONSENT BUSINESS There was no Consent Business on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING PC03-13 Chairman Landy introduced for discussion Item 4.1, Review and Discussion of Temporary Signs in Boulevard Study and Recommendations Item 4.1 From the Citizen Advisory Commission and Codes and Standards Committee, City of New Hope, Petitioner. Mr. Alan Brixius, planning consultant, explained that this discussion pertained to new regulations for garage sale and open house signage. Currently, the ordinance addresses garage sales under public convenience and directional signs, and that small signs not exceeding two square feet can be displayed on private property for the convenience of the public. These signs are required to have the name and address of the person(s) erecting the sign. Garage and rummage sale signs shall not be erected more than five days before or maintained more than one day after the sale. Open house signs shall not be erected more than one day before or maintained more than one day after the open house event. Code language regarding the location of the signs states that except for governmental signs, no sign shall be erected or temporarily placed within a street right-of- way or upon public lands, easements or rights-of-way. Under these rules, a number of violations have occurred and the City Council directed staff to enforce the code, which raised a lot of controversy within the community. It was determined that the rules could be clarified. The Citizen Advisory Commission reviewed the ordinance, took public comments, and made recommendations for changes. The modifications include definitions for bench signs, directional, garage sale and open house signs. Criteria have been outlined for benches, directional, garage sale and open house signage. The CAC made recommendations to change the sign code. Sign area was increased from two square feet to six square feet to allow better visibility from the street, and the sign height should be limited to three feet. Currently, the code requires that the sign display the month/day/year and the address of the event. Discussion ensued regarding including the name of the person(s) having the event, however, the consensus was that a name was not necessary on the sign. Code now states that signs must not be placed in the boulevard right-of-way. The boulevard is the area from the curb back 15 feet to the property line. This has been modified to allow signs to be set back 10 feet from the curb. Brixius added that the building official maintained that a 10-foot setback would be sufficient to avoid traffic visibility issues. Current code maintains that, other than governmental signs, such signs shall not be located on municipal property or on property owned by the school district. The current code states that no signs should be posted on utility poles, fences or trees. No signs should be posted on vehicles or trailers located on the street. Signs posted on property other than the premises on which the sale is conducted shall have the permission of the property owner. This mainly refers to corner properties where several be posted on utility poles, fences or trees. No signs should be posted on vehicles or trailers located on the street. Signs posted on property other than the premises on which the sale is conducted shall have the permission of the property owner. This mainly refers to corner properties where several signs could collect on any given day and the property owner should have an opportunity to say whether or not a sign is placed on their yard. Posting of garage sale signs shall be permitted one day prior to the sale, during the sale, and all such signs shall be removed one day after the garage sale is complete. This is a change from the current ordinance, which allows the posting of signs five days prior to the sale and one day after the sale. The first draft of the ordinance recommended three days prior to the sale and the CAC recommended the posting of signs one day before the event. Brixius mentioned that different standards could be considered with regard to open house signs. Six square feet in area was retained as well as the three foot height requirement. Most open house signs are preprinted, therefore, the date could be eliminated. Open house signs may be posted only during the open house event. The balance of the requirements are the same as garage sales. Brixius added that currently all zoning violations are a misdemeanor. It was felt that level of enforcement was too excessive and sign ordinance violations should be addressed as a petty misdemeanor. Any signs in violation of the code may be removed and disposed of by the city. Brixius stated that a zoning ordinance amendment would also be considered. In 2000, when the zoning ordinance was updated, there was a provision for temporary sales related to commercial uses. Staff was recommending reinstating temporary sales, including garage sales, be inserted back into the zoning ordinance. No permit or license would be required, and sales would be limited to no more than three sales per property per year, not exceeding three consecutive days each, and garage sale signs must comply with the provisions of the New Hope Building and Sign Code. Brixius pointed out the graphic included in the packet would be utilized for news releases to provide additional information on where signs can and cannot be placed. Commissioner Svendsen requested clarification on sign height being three feet from the ground to the top of the sign. This height restriction would apply to open house signs as well as garage sale signs. The date requirement would not be required on open house signs. Commissioner Buggy added that open house signs are directional in stature and there was no room for an address. Brixius indicated that requirement could be modified. Commissioner O’Brien questioned whether the 10-foot setback was workable for open house signs. Commissioners Oelkers and Buggy responded that the 10-foot setback was workable at this time of the year, and that during the winter months, the signs would not be seen if placed 10 feet back, which could be behind a snow bank. Generally, open house signs were only up for two to three hours. Brixius stated that the suggested change was for placement in the right-of-way, which does not exist in the current code. Modifications to the recommendations from CAC could be made. O’Brien suggested the 10-foot requirement be modified so signs could be placed closer to the street and the exposure greater for anyone selling their home. 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 2003 Mr. Steve Sondrall, city attorney, stated that any setback imposed should be consistent for garage sale and open house signage. Commissioner Oelkers initiated discussion on the length of time garage sale and open house signage could be posted. Oelkers indicated that one of his for sale signs located 14 feet eight inches from the curb had been removed by a city inspector and questioned where those signs were addressed in the code. Brixius maintained that the right-of-way or boulevard area was considered to be 15 feet, and it was now recommended to reduce the sign setback to 10 feet to increase visibility from the street. Oelkers recommended that an open house sign be located five feet from the curb, but not on the sidewalk. His reasoning was that an open house sign was out for a limited amount of time, where a garage sale sign could be out for four or five days. Oelkers indicated that he felt the city was being too governmental on the public right-of-way due to the fact that property owners had to maintain the property. If, for example, a dead tree had to be taken down in the boulevard, the city only paid half of the cost, and if a homeowner wanted to remove a tree in the boulevard, they had to pay the entire cost. Commissioner Svendsen raised the issue of “home for sale or lease” signs. Brixius stated that this type of sign was addressed in another section of the code. The general provisions portion of the zoning code states that these signs cannot be located in the rights-of-way. Sondrall added that the current code does not allow temporary signs in the boulevard or right-of- way. This code amendment would try to clarify exactly where signs could be placed. Commissioner Buggy questioned why the city was prohibiting signage in the public right-of-way. The roadway is public and everyone can use it. He stated he felt that as long as the signs weren’t too big, he did not buy into the statement about safety and blocking traffic, as a three-foot sign would not block a car coming down the street. As a realtor, he stated it was difficult to go to several different houses and hope that someone would be home to ask about putting a sign on their lawn. Realtors put the signs in an accessible, visible spot, which many times is in the public right-of-way. Buggy stated he did not understand why public property was so off limits to the small signs. Commissioner Barrick stated that the three-foot height limit had been inserted into the draft so that the signs would not be a traffic hazard. She added that she lives on a corner lot and did not find a problem with open house signs. The signs are professionally made and realtors always pick up the signs. Many times garage sale signs are just left after the sale, and property owners are forced to clean up after others. Barrick maintained that the distance from the curb, whether 10 feet, as recommended, or five feet did not matter to her. Buggy stressed that some intersections were not conducive to signage ten feet from the curb, with landscaping or steep depressions on the other side of the sidewalk. Oelkers pointed out that a three-foot height limitation for the signs would not be as intrusive at some intersections in the city as telephone poles, landscaping and mailboxes that are allowed in the right-of-way, which obstruct traffic. He stressed that he would like to see the setback for these temporary signs at five feet. 3 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 2003 Landy asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. Ms. Juanita Hoffe, 4632 Flag Avenue North, approached the podium. Ms. Hoff raised the issue of political signs. Chairman Landy responded that political signs were regulated by the state, as to size, location and the length of time to be posted. She questioned how big a problem garage sale signs were and she added that anyone holding a garage sale wants to place their sign on a busy street. Landy responded that several residents had approached the City Council about the enforcement of this section of the code, and the Council then directed staff and the commissions to study the sign code. He stated, in his opinion, it was a waste of the Commission’s time. Brixius interjected that the signage was not the biggest issue as opposed to the maintenance and enforcement of the code. The City Council directed staff to be more proactive in enforcing the code, therefore, all code violations are enforced. At this time, no signs are allowed in the boulevard, and any signage placed there can be removed by staff. Through this study, recommendations are being made to clarify the code and potentially make changes. Mr. Sondrall added that the ordinance was not being enforced just for the sake of the ordinance enforcement. There were problems with signage in violation of the code, either too large or placed improperly. There have been complaints from citizens having signs placed in their yards without permission. Sondrall stated that no particular accident could be cited as a result of diminished visibility due to a sign. The Council had directed staff to take a proactive approach in addressing these issues and as a result have irritated some residents. This study was attempting to clarify the ordinance so that everyone understood the expectations. Once the expectation was understood, the problem would go away. A specific distance should be established so residents and staff know the expectations. Ms. Gennifer Heuisler, 6120 Ensign Avenue North, next approached the podium. She stated she had attended the CAC meetings where public comment was taken, wrote a letter to the City Council, and collected signatures on a petition. Ms. Heuisler stated that she felt the signs should be enforced on a complaint only basis. She felt that there would be a bigger traffic hazard with the signs placed 15 feet back from the curb. Heuisler pointed out that property owners have to maintain the boulevard and the public should be able to utilize the boulevard for three or four days, during the short “garage sale season.” It would be difficult for those holding the garage sale to knock on doors to get permission from corner lot property owners. For her garage sale, she stated she spent about $50 on materials for signs and wanted to use them again another year, therefore, she would prefer that the date would not be required on the sign. She stated she felt that it was wrong for inspectors to remove the signs during the garage sale if residents did not know the ordinance was to be enforced. Residents should have been given a chance to move the sign rather than the city inspectors just taking them. If the sign was not removed after the sale, the offender could be fined. She, too, felt that three to five feet from the curb was better than 10 to 15 feet. Heuisler stated that the sign issue, along with other issues, was the impetus for one neighbor to move out of New Hope. She added that she lives on a corner lot and had never had a problem with signs in her yard. She reiterated that enforcement should be on a complaint basis, or don’t enforce it at all, and if no enforcement was done, why have the code. If enforced, it should be enforced consistently for everyone. In other meetings, the inspector had indicated that he addressed code violations in between other inspections as he had time. She stated she felt it was not fair to penalize some residents and not others. 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 2003 she felt it was not fair to penalize some residents and not others. There being no one else in the audience to address the Commission, the public hearing was closed. Motionseconded by Commissioner Svendsen, by Commissioner Buggy to close the Public Hearing on Planning Case 03-13. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Oelkers stated for the record that he felt this study of garage sale and open house signs was a complete waste of time, effort, and money. MOTION Motionto approve Planning Case 03-13, by Commissioner Barrick Item 4.1 Review and Discussion of Temporary Signs in Boulevard Study and Recommendations From the Citizen Advisory Commission and Codes and Standards Committee, An Ordinance Amending Section 3-40 of the New Hope Building and Sign Regulations, City of New Hope, Petitioner, subject to the following change: 1. Section 2.d.ii. Modify open house signs to eliminate the requirement for a date and address of the event. 2. Section 2.d.iii. Change the setback area to five feet for open house signs. 3. Section 2.c.iii. Change the setback area to five feet for garage sale signs. A question was raised as to why a sign could not be posted on a fence and the answer was that this related to someone else’s fence, not the property owner. Signs were not allowed on utility poles due to safety reasons. Commissioner Buggy suggested that language be changed in Section 2.c.viii to read that garage sale signs be removed at the close of the sale rather than the next day. Brixius clarified that with the five-foot setback signs could not be placed on a public sidewalk, but rather five feet from the curb or behind the sidewalk. The open house signs should be a maximum of three feet in height. Brixius asked to clarify all provisions: 1. Section 2.c.i. Such signs shall not exceed six square feet in area or three feet in height. The height of the sign shall be measured from the top of the sign to the ground. 2. Section 2.c.ii. Such signs shall show, clearly imprinted, the days of the week of the event and the address of the event. 3. Section 2.c.iii. Such signs shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the back of the curb and not be located on the public sidewalk. 4. Section 2.c.iv. Such signs shall not be located on municipal property or upon property owned by the school district. 5. Section 2.c.v. No signs shall be posted on utility poles, fences or trees. 6. Section 2.c.vi. No signs shall be posted on vehicles or trailers located on the street. 7. Section 2.c.vii. All signs that are posted on property other than the premises on which the sale is conducted shall have permission from the property owner. 8. Section 2.c.viii. Posting of garage sale signs shall be permitted one day prior to the sale, during the sale event, and all such signs shall be removed at close of sale. 5 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 2003 9. Section 2.d.i. Such sign shall not exceed six square feet in area or three feet in height. 10. Section 2.d.ii. Eliminate in its entirety. 11. Section 2.d.iii. Such signs shall be set back a minimum of five feet from the back of the curb and not be located on the public sidewalk. 12. Section 2.d.iv. Such signs shall not be located on municipal property or upon property owned by the school district. 13. Section 2.d.v. No signs shall be posted on utility poles, fences or trees. 14. Section 2.d.vi. No signs shall be posted on vehicles or trailers located on the street. 15. Section 2.d.vii. All signs that are posted on property other than the premises on which the sale is conducted shall have permission from the property owner. 16. Section 2.d.viii. Open house signs may be posted only during the open house event. Commissioner Oelkers questioned why a sign could not be placed on school district or municipal property. Brixius stated that language is in the current code. A suggestion was made that provisions 2.c.iv and 2.d.iv regarding municipal property or school district property be removed. Motion Motionseconded by Commissioner Oelkers, by Commissioner O’Brien to amend the provisions as read by Mr. Brixius, except delete provisions 2.c.iv and 2.d.iv. Voting in favor: Barrick, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken Motion carried. Second Original seconded Commissioner Buggy the original motion made by Motion Commissioner Barrick. Voting in favor: Barrick, Buggy, Landy, O’Brien, Oelkers, Svendsen Voting against: None Absent: Anderson, Brauch, Hemken Motion carried. Landy stated that this planning case would be considered by the City Council on October 27. Design and Review Svendsen reported that the Design and Review Committee did not meet in September. Committee Item 5.1 Codes and Standards Barrick reported that the Codes and Standards Committee met in August to provide recommendations on the temporary sign issue. Committee Item 5.2 OLD BUSINESS Landy reported that the City Center Task Force would be meeting on October 9. Brixius added that the task force would be reviewing comments Miscellaneous Issues from the open house, discussing design guidelines, implementation strategies, and outlining the next steps in the process. The Commission briefly discussed the Navarre, Woodbridge, and Sinclair projects. NEW BUSINESSMotionseconded was made by Commissioner Svendsen, by to approve the Planning Commission minutes Commissioner Barrick, of August 6, 2003. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 2003 to approve the Planning Commission minutes Commissioner Barrick, of August 6, 2003. All voted in favor. Motion carried. City Council minutes were reviewed. ANNOUNCEMENTSOn behalf of all the commissioners, Landy extended his deepest sympathy to Kirk McDonald on the recent loss of his father. th He also announced the city’s 50 anniversary celebration open house to be held at city hall on Saturday, October 11, from noon to 3 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pamela Sylvester, Recording Secretary 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 2003