Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 5, 2010 P & Z MinPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 5, 2010 7:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 7:00 pm by Chair-Marlaine Szurek. Commission Members present- Thompson, Schmitt, Peterson, and Szurek Members Absent: Fiorendino Also present were Gary Peterson (Council Liaison), Jeff Sargent (City Planner), and Shelley Hanson (Secretary). Motion by Thompson, seconded byPeterson, to approve the minutes from the meetings of November 3, 2009. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2010-0101 APPLICANT: City of Columbia Heights LOCATION: City Wide REQUEST: Zoning Amendment for LED Signs BACKGROUND On July 13, 2009, the City Council issued a six-month emergency moratorium on the issuance of LED sign permits throughout the city. The rationale behind the moratorium was to study whether newly adopted language pertaining to LED signs was consistent with the intent of the ordinance that the City Council passed. The intent of the LED sign ordinance was to permit dynamic LED signs only as an integral part of a monument sign, with the exception of motor fuel stations, which may utilize such signage on existing pylon signs in order to display fuel prices only. It was discovered that the language specifying that motor fuel stations may only utilize dynamic LED signs as a part of existing pylon signs to display only fuel prices was inadvertently omitted from the ordinance. At this time, Staff recommends amending the City Code as it pertains to LED signs to allow for motor fuel stations to only be allowed to utilize LED signage on an existing pylon sign if the message of the displays motor fuel prices only. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and enhance the existing viable commercial areas within the community, and to promote reinvestment in properties by the commercial and industrial sectors. Allowing dynamic signage is a way to enhance economic vitality by giving the commercial owners a mechanism to advertise their business in an efficient and aesthetic manner. Limiting the use of the LED signage to monument signs only will help keep will contribute to the aesthetic appeal of the commercial sectors. ZONING ORDINANCE Section 9.106 (P)(8)1 currently states that "Dynamic LED signs are allowed only on monument signs for conditionally permitted used in all zoning districts, with the exception of motor fuel stations, which may display LED signs as a part of the pylon sign. Dynamic LED signs may occupy no more than fifty percent (50%) of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic LED signs, even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face". Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 2 January 5, 2010 The proposed language would limit motor fuel stations to display only fuel prices as LED signs on existing pylon signs. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (F) of the Columbia Heights zoning code requires that the City Council make each of the following four findings before approving a zoning amendment: 1. The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to preserve and enhance the existing viable commercial areas within the community, and to promote reinvestment in properties by the commercial and industrial sectors. Allowing dynamic signage is a way to enhance economic vitality by giving the commercial owners a mechanism to advertise their business in an efficient and aesthetic manner. Limiting the use of the LED signage to monument signs only will help keep will contribute to the aesthetic appeal of the commercial sectors. 2. The amendment is in the public interest and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. The proposed amendment would affect all commercially zoned properties throughout the city and is not solely for the benefit of a single property owner. 3. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, the existing use of the property and the zoning classification of property within the general area of the property in question are compatible with the proposed zoning classification. The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property. 4. Where the amendment is to change the zoning classification of a particular property, there has been a change in the character or trend of development in the general area of the property in question, which has taken place since such property was placed in the current zoning classification. The amendment would not change the zoning classification of a particular property. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Zoning Amendment. Questions from members: Szurek asked if the language on page 2 of the staff report is how the current Ordinance reads. Sargent stated it was. He then went on to explain how the language revision would affect what type of advertising messages businesses could display. Schmitt asked if pylon signs were still allowed along University Avenue, and if so, would this prevent those businesses from having LED displays as part of their signs. Sargent stated they could have a LED display of the dollar amount only. He went on to say if this proves to be a problem, the Commission could re-address this at a later time. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes Page 3 January 5, 2010 She then asked if Jeff, Bobby & Steve's is still planning on changing their sign. Sargent stated they haven't obtained their permit to do so yet. He said the CUP for a full dynamic display was approved by the City Council prior to the moratorium being put in place, and prior to this change in language to the Ordinance. Schmitt asked if he hasn't obtained the permit by the time the Ordinance becomes effective, would they still be able to get one. Sargent said he has to check with the City Attorney for the answer to that question. Public Hearing Opened. No one was present to speak on this matter. Public Hearin~ Closed. Motion by Schmitt, seconded byPeterson, that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the proposed zoning amendment. All ayes. MOTIONPASSED. The flowing draft Ordinance will go to the City Council at the January l lth meeting for the first reading. DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ~;XXX BE1NG AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1490, CITY CODE OF 2005 RELATING TO LED, DYNAMIC, AND OTHER SIGNAGE WITHIN THE CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS The City of Columbia Heights does ordain: Chapter 9, Article I, Section 9.106 (P) of the Columbia Heights City Code, is proposed to include the following additions and deletions: § 9.106 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. (P) Sign regulations. (8) Dynamic LED signage. (a) Regulations. Dynamic LED signage is allowed as a conditional use in those zoning districts specified in this code. All dynamic LED signage is subject to the following conditions: 1. Dynamic LED signs are allowed only on monument signs for conditionally permitted uses in all zoning districts, with the exception of motor fuel stations, which may display dynamic LED signs as a part of the pylon sign to promote motor fuel prices only. Such motor fuel price signs do not require a Conditional Use Permit. All Dynamic LED signs may occupy no more than fifty percent (SO%) of the actual copy and graphic area. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have dynamic LED signs, even if not used. Only one, contiguous dynamic display area is allowed on a sign face. Section 2: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 30 days after its passage. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES PAGE 4 JAN UARY 5, 2010 NEW BUSINESS- None OTHER BUSINESS Parkin~ Stall Len~th Discussion- Commission member Thompson had a concern that an 18 ft length for parking stalls may not be adequate especially when there is an adjacent sidewalk between the parking space and the building. He wanted the Planner to bring back some information so the Commission could re-address this situation. Sargent reminded members that an Ordinance was passed in April 2007 that changed the minimum length for a parking stall from 20 ft to 18 ft. He attached notes from the meeting where this was discussed and decided. The decision was based on the fact that we are a built out community and we have some very small lots, especially along Central Avenue. Therefore, some businesses need setback variances to meet the requirement of the 18 ft length of parking stalls. If we increase the length, it may prohibit business development due to the size of the lots. He also reviewed the memo enclosed in the packets showing that most of the surrounding communities have the same 18 ft requirement. Szurek said the City Council had no problem with the 18 ft length and she sees no real problem leaving it at that. It eliminates the need for excessive variances. Thompson said he is not opposed to the present length requirement, but is concerned that if cars and trucks are backed into spaces, they overhang the sidewalk area and thereby create too narrow of an access. The issue is the width of the sidewalks more than the length of the stalls. He said that maybe by looking more closely at future site plans for sidewalk width would be the best place to focus on this issue. Sargent agreed that each case should be looked at to ensure they meet all the minimum requirements. Schmitt suggested looking at the handicapped spots and sidewalks adjacent to these spots more closely in the future. She also thought angled parking would eliminate the overhang issue. Gary Peterson thought the Commission should look at one case at a time. If the site is pressed for space in the first place, to e~tend the length of parking stalls would make the sidewalk areas narrower. Therefore, this does not help make the sidewalk access situation any better. Thompson agreed. He just wanted to make the members aware that they should be taking a closer look at this in the future. The meeting was adjourned at 7:27 pm. Respectfully submitted, Shelley Hanson Secretary