Loading...
1984-05-1594 May 15, 1984 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION The City Council and Planning Commission of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in a special .joint session on May 15, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. i.n the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood .Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Council- members Pinky Charon, Phy111s,Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson and Planning Commission Chairman Frank Weiland, Commissioners. Robert Byrnes, Li z. Jensen, Geoff Michael and Michael Vargo. .Commissioners George Kinser, William Meyer and Thomas Reese were absent. Also present were: City Manager Jon Elam, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, Planner Kirk Corson and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. The Mayor opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. The. purpose of this meeting is to go over the Preliminary Draft of the Mound Sign Ordinance (Revision dated: May 8, 1984). Commissioner Vargo explained the reason the Planning Commission got into this sign ordinance was that almost every sign in the City was over the 9 square feet of the present ordinance and the Commission was seeing sign variances constantly and there was some feeling we could improve the image of the community through effective control. Commissioner Jensen explained what you have in front of you is the cul- mination of a lot of time and effort. The Planner and his organization spent a lot of time pulling .together bits and pieces of information from other communities' sign ordinances; the Commission has looked at those and had meetings and talked about what we'd like to see or not like to see in terms of signage for the City---there is a lot of time and effort-put into this thing and what we want to look at is "does it do for Mound what we want in to do?, are. we going to enforce what's in here or are we going to let it ride?". If we're not going to spend time enforcing what the ordinance says, then let's not do anything with it, let's just let the prolif- eration of signs continue and go on. Commissioner Michael stated we have to do something, there is no sign ordinance. Jensen stated she hopes the Commission will spent fewer. of "our" hours talking to people about what they can use to communicate to their consumers. Chairman Weiland commented that the Council knows full well the hours spent on the ordinance draft and gave a special thanks to the Planner and the sub-committee for putting it together. The City Manager stated the height of frustration for the Council on the sign issue was when they looked at Orlando Bouti- que signs/they try to modify or work with people on signs and then Mrs. Peugh wanted to put up a variety of directional signs to her home and the Council turned it down; but really felt uncomfortable about that because of the inconsistency and the fact that people consistently .put up what are. in essence illegal signs to do this and to do that and the frustration of the Building Official trying to manage an uncontrolled situation. The Mayor commented that something has to be done about signs and that the unfairness of it is that we've treated people differently by allowing -- for instance, the Lakewinds signs that have popped up all over town all of a sudden -- the unfairness of it is that we've treated people differently; should be treated the same under the ordinance. He stated he wanted to say "thank you" for coming up with an ordinance that would treat people the same and he hopes this will be an ordinance that we can live with when it is finalized. City Planner Mark Koegler explained at the last Planning Commission discussion meeting, they came to the concurrence that this would be the draft and asked where did they go next. They want to go to the business community and obviously it has 95 May 15, 1984 to go to a public hearing also, Before either of those occurrences, they felt it reasonable to run the draft by the Counc.i~l to see if they were comfortable with it and if there were any major inconsistencies, the Council could send it back. Koegler then reviewed the Prelim-inary Draft of-the Mound Sign Ordinance, May 8, 1984 Revision. Some of the comments and questions brought up were as follows: Section 3.06 The Mayor asked how to limit it to hardship and asked that a paragraph be put in explaining criteria-of hardship; i,e. that economics is not con- sidered a hardship. The Building Offi.c.ial stated that if this is adopted as part of Chapter 23, Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance does spell out what the criteria of hardship is. Discussed briefly advantages and disadvantages .of .integrating the sign ordinance into the Zoning Ordinance. The City Manager thought it makes sense to integrate it together because you have one per-son administrating and overseeing both; when. a business comes in, the first thing they look at is what can they do in the busi- ness district or the zoning and the second part is what kind of signs f can have in the district and parking available, etc. All present were in favor of integrating the sign ordinance into the Zoning Code. 3.07 Change of business, wording or- name of company, etc. is considered an alteration. Discussed that nonconforming signs should be registered or dated to differentiate between new signage. • 3.10 Peterson stated he didn~t ii.ke to see imprisonment as a penalty. The Council wished to strike the portion after the word "misdemeanor". .The Planner mentioned it will be referenced to the Zoning Ordinance. .Discussed several definitions.. Koegler- stated in 4.02(4) area should be _1 acre rather than 2 acres. 5.02 This prohibits .bill board type off premises advertising signs (except real estate) and is something for the City Attorney to look at to make sure everything is germane. _ 5.09 Jessen questioned why people should put phone number on garage sale sign. Discussed that alternative would be some sort of registration of garage sales; but decided it might be too cumbersome. 5.09(68) Change occurrence to occasion to correspond with verbage in 5.09(6e) Councilmember Jessen left the meeting.- 5.09(7) Vargo stated he. thinks 32 square foot too large for seasonal signs and that the City being inundated with signs (Commission agreed); thinks 3 by 6 foot sign more appropriate. Paulsen in favor of having signs that meet industry standards and that "seasonal" should be defined. The Council felt 32 square foot signs are acceptable. 5.10 It was felt there was an inconsistency here - fail to see difference between portable and seasonal signs. 6.05(3) Discussed signage for mini-mall and that one wall sign is permitted for each business with at least 2000 square feet of gross floor area and saw no problem. May 15, 1984 96 6.05(4) Weiland thought the Fire Ordinance should be looked at to determine if a sign 5 feet above the roof line was acceptable. 6.08(1) This reference should be back to Section 6.05 rather than 6.06. Commissioner Michael demonstrated a changing sign which showed the difference be- tween a flashing sign and a changing sign. 4.02 These definitions would be integrated into the standard zoning definitions. Peterson asked if the re .has been a survey made of present signs; thinks it would be worthwhile to review the Central Business District signs.. Koegler stated there should be a photographic record/survey of all existing signage. Peterson stated that before the, public hearing, it would be good to .have a slide show of examples of conforming signs, so people can make a judgment; for instance, that sign is appropriate, meets guidelines/ordinance, etc. Vargo asked if some money could be .found to provide design grants to encourage people to upgrade their signs. The City Manager stated signage is eligible expense. Discussed stressing the positive when presenting draft to business people. Koegler stated this ordinance very average and not overly restrictive. The City Manager thought-that the group that would be affected and that Staff wants to reach would be the Retail Merchants of Mound (not the Chamber as that takes in .other areas) and that George Stevens is the President. After that, it should go back to the Commission with any suggestions and ideas; then go to Council for a . date to be set for a public hearing about in December. The Mayor thanked the Commission for their work .and at 9:10 p.m., the Council got up and left the Council Chambers. 97 May 15, 1984 The Planning Commission continued the .meeting with a discussion of the Comprehensive Guide Plan Outline Draft after the Joint Meeting with the Council. Chairman Weiland opened the discussion at about 9:15 p.m. starting with "Housing". Commissioner Jensen asked if City is required to .have certain percentage of low and moderate income housing.. Planner Kirk Corson explained that he is being filled in on the Section 8 requirements and will get that information together for the Commis- sion. It was felt that Mound has her fair share of low and moderate income housing. On Page 9, Jensen asked relative to "Identify residential areas in need of improve- ment", how are we going to identify what needs .improvement and why are we going to do this? Corson stated City never has targeted any areas and thought maybe specific areas should be targeted for improvement. Discussed briefly. Jensen thought on page 10 under. "Policy".that something was missing in paragraph ".... provision of garage....". ,Garages not required. On page 11, under "Imple- mentation of Housing Policies" at end of paragraph, strike portion .after "..range". Next sentence, change to read,"Mai.ntain participation in....". Bottom of page 11 and top of page 12, Jensen doesn't want lots to be able to be divided up. Discussed and agreed to change statement to read, "....standards that accommodate small lot construction." Corson reviewed the Section, Transportation, starting with Maps T-l, followed by the definitions, the inventory of local roads, what they are and how they are classified. On page 5, the Commission thought there should be_4 zones (Island Park should be in- cluded. On page 6, Jensen questioned if numbers correct; didn't seem consistent. Vargo stated he had a problem with the statistics, too. Corson reviewed bikeways. Vargo.fee~ls we need to include biketrails to our schools and thinks we should try to accomplish a goal of working with the Community of Minne- trista to connect the bikeway to the high school. Discussed pedestrian crosswalks; there are at least two places on Commerce with no signage. _ The Urban Environmental Protection Section is pretty well drawn out; pretty basic. The Chairman asked if anyone had anything to change. There were some typo's to be corrected, but it was agreed to accept the content of this section .with the exception of on page 4, 1,000 feet from the shorelines of designated takes doesn't apply as Mound was established before at 50 feet. Corson would like to bring back "Housing Section" one more time because of the changes. It was asked if the statistics could be checked. Also discussed that Corson will be done about the end of June. At 9:55 p.m., Jensen moved and Michael seconded a motion to adjourn this discussion. All in favor, so meeting adjourned.