Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/02/2008 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 2, 2008 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. November 20, 2007 b. December 4, 2007 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. 2007 Annual Report b. Comprehensive Plan Update - SWOT Analysis 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations December 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood December 27 Council Meeting: ?? Ms. Fischer January 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Martin January 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Boeser 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the rneeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Corn missioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Joseph Boeser Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ginnv Gavnor, Open Space Coordinator Alan Kantrud, City Attorney III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the amended agenda, deleting Item 6. b. Commissioner Hess seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. November 5, 2007 Commissioner Boeser moved approval of the minutes of November 5,2007, as submitted. Commissioner Martin seconded Ayes - Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser Abstentions - Desai, Trippler, Walton The motion passed. V. PUBLIC HEARING None Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-07 -2- VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Wetland Ordinance Update Planner Shann Finwall explained the proposed wetland ordinance update and introduced open space coordinator Ginny Gaynor. Open space coordinator Gaynor presented the staff report and details about the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Hess asked staff to comment on wetland properties that would be "grandfathered in" relating to buffer areas and also to expand on the Class A definition of streams in Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler said he felt it was difficult to review the staff report on this ordinance update since the commissioners got an updated staff report at the start of the meeting. Mr. Trippler stated that averages were not considered when the original wetland ordinance was assembled and asked staff why averages were included in the update. Coordinator Gaynor explained that the issue of averaging was discussed by the Environmental and Natural Resource (ENR) commission and they requested that staff research previous developments involving wetlands. Staff found that since 2003, 11 developments near wetlands were constructed with five developments using averages, five developments mitigating wetlands, and one development that met the setbacks. Ms. Gaynor explained that with half of the projects near wetlands mitigated, the ordinance needs to allow for averaging or it will allow for variances. Jim Beardsley, chair of the ENR commission, explained that only Classes A and B will be considered for averaging and then only a small portion of the wetland will be considered for averaging. Mr. Beardsley said that this proposed ordinance update, including averaging for Class A+ property, is the ENR's best effort to protect both the wetlands and the wildlife. Commissioner Walton asked whether the controlling agency would be Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) or Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM). Planner Roberts responded to his question stating that the language in the city ordinance would prevail for issues with wetland developments. If the language in the city ordinance is more restrictive, a developer would need to meet the standards in the city ordinance. Mr. Roberts said wetland quality and protection issues have become more important now and development rules in cities are changing with updated building construction codes and ordinances to reflect the current policy directions. Planner Finwall said there are conditions in the ordinance to require property owners to mitigate and restore wetlands when the buffer has been altered or to compensate for the impact to the wetland. Commissioner Walton asked staff about the use of pesticides in wetlands and in buffers and the definition of weeds to be removed. Ms. Gaynor responded that each wetland situation would be considered separately and that some noxious weeds such as poison ivy may be allowed to be removed. Commissioner Trippler suggested that more defining language be added under item 9. of the proposed ordinance relating to the city's holding of developer funds for completion of successful restoration. Mr. Trippler suggested requiring a final inspection approval for release of the funds. Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-07 -3- Commissioner Walton questioned what the process for review of any wetland variance applications will be. Planner Finwall responded that the ENR would consider the variance request initially and then make a recommendation for the planning commission's consideration. Mr. Walton suggested a review process for wetland variance applications be created. Commissioner Yarwood suggested several changes to verbiage in the ordinance. Mr. Yarwood said overall he feels the ordinance is well written and he does not have a problem with averaging being included in the ordinance. The commission was generally in agreement with the proposed wetland ordinance update and with the new buffer area requirements. The proposed ordinance and the planning commission comments will be reviewed next by the community design review board. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Sign Code Amendment - Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance Senior Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report and explained the changes to the proposed sign ordinance that were patterned after the Eagan sign ordinance. Mr. Ekstrand responded to questions from the commission. Commissioner Trippler noted that at the last planning commission meeting a motion was made and approved to recommend that the community design review board draft a dynamic display code amendment. Mr. Trippler asked if the review board had submitted this information. Senior Planner Ekstrand explained the review board tabled this item and requested additional information from staff. Mr. Ekstrand reviewed with the commission the additional information for the review board. City attorney Alan Kantrud explained that the community design review board does not have jurisdiction over the sign ordinance and the planning commission cannot delegate authority to the board as he had previously advised. Mr. Kantrud said the planning commission is required by state statute to make recommendation to the city council on this proposed sign code amendment within 60 days. Commissioner Martin requested a copy of the MnDOT highway crash study and the lighting study done by Clear Channel. Commissioner Boeser moved to table the dynamic display sign ordinance amendment until the next meeting. Commissioner Trippler seconded Ayes - all It was agreed that a friendly amendment be added to the above motion requesting comments on the dynamic display sign code amendment from the community design review board for consideration at the next meeting. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. November 26 Council meeting: Commissioner Boeser Planning Commission Minutes of 11-20-07 -4- b. December 10 Council meeting: Commissioner Yarwood c. December 17 Council meeting: Commissioner Fischer X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Joseph Boeser Present Present Present Present Present Present at 7:05 p.m. Present Present Present Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner Shann Finwall, Planner Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Hess seconded Ayes - all The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None V. PUBLIC HEARING a. Conditional Use Permit Revision - Schmelz Countryside Motors (1180-1200 Highway 36 East) Senior Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request for a revision to the conditional use permit for Schmelz Countryside Motors for a possible building expansion. Commissioner Trippler said he thought it was a violation of the conditions of their existing conditional use permit for transport trucks to park and unload vehicles on the service road and this condition should either be enforced or removed from the conditional use permit. Commissioner Boeser suggested the issue of transport parking on the service road could be addressed when reviewing the site plan for the expansion. Staff suggested a condition could be added to require the transport trucks to unload in the parking lot rather than on the service road or if the service road is posted for no parking the police could issue a ticket. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-04-07 -2- Commissioner Boeser noted there is not a condition in the existing conditional use permit that requires the unloading of vehicles to take place in the parking lot rather than the service road. Mr. Boeser suggested the city might add this condition to the permit at the time of expansion. Staff proposed this condition could be added to this request and enforced when the redevelopment plans are submitted. Commissioner Pearson said the conditional use permit conditions and requirements should be consistent and applied equally to all auto dealerships. The applicant, John Schmelz, explained that the city council at their review of the existing conditional use permit discussed truck parking on the service road, but did not require a condition to disallow parking on the road. Mr. Schmelz said the service road was recently widened and he believes the service road has a good safety record with few problems occurring there. Mr. Schmelz said the service road issue has not been and should not be a required condition for his existing conditional use permit. There were no comments from the public; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yarwood said he supports adding a condition to the conditional use permit revision to apply to a future expansion of the business that would require the unloading of transports on-site only. Commissioner Yarwood moved to adopt the resolution approving a conditional use permit revision for the expansion of an auto dealership with sales and service onto the property at 1200 Highway 36 (currently Ember's Restaurant property.) This revision incorporates the resolutions previously applied to the applicant's current site and the future use of the Ember's Restaurant property. This approval is based on the findings required by code and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community dovelopmont city planninq staff may approve minor changes. 2. The construction of the proposed addition to the Saab building must be started within one year of the city council approval or the approval for this addition shall end. The city council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. There shall be no automobile access, except emergency vehicles, to or from Duluth Street. 4. Automobiles shall only be parked on designated paved or engineered porous surfaces. 5. The applicant will enter into a formal easement agreement with St. Paul Regional Water Services and the City of Maplewood which satisfies both agencies' conditions for access to the public utility easements for water main (SPRWS) and sanitary storm sewer (City of Maplewood.) 6. The city council shall review this permit in one year. Conditions Applicable to the Countryside Volkswagen, but specific to the 1200 Highway 36 Expanded Site (formerly Ember's Restaurant) 7. No buildinq permit shall be issued for the auto dealership expansion onto 1200 Hiqhway 36 until the applicant receives city approval of all required plans. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-04-07 -3- 8. This conditional use permit shall be reviewed by the city council in one year as required by ordinance. The city council may qrant extensions of this permit for the commencement of this proiect. Normally one one-year extension is permitted by ordinance. Since the applicant has no specific desiqn plans prepared at this time. the city council may qrant UP to three one-year extensions. for a total of four years of permit approval, to allow the applicant time to present plans for city approval. If the city has not issued a buildinq permit, or construction has not substantially started by that time, this permit shall expire. 9. The proiect plans shall be desiqned to be sensitive to nearby residential properties in reqards to aesthetics, liqhtinq and noise. 10. This permit allows the use of this site for a new or expanded automobile dealership with sales and motor-vehicle service with outdoor motor-vehicle sales. 11. The loadinq and unloadinq of vehicles shall take place on the applicant's property. Commissioner Desai seconded Ayes - Boeser, Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood Nays - Martin The motion passed. Commissioner Martin said his nay vote reflects his objection to proposed Condition 11 without having an engineering evaluation or traffic study for the frontage road. b. Conditional Use Permit - Clear Channel Outdoor Billboard Height Increase (1790 Gervais Ct.) Senior Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report. Commissioner Trippler suggested tabling this item for review until the dynamic sign code amendment is adopted by the city council and it is known how the code will be modified. Commissioner Hess agreed with Mr. Trippler's suggestion to table. Mr. Hess said the sign's size and location on the freeway entrance of Highway 36 is a safety issue. Commissioner Boeser said this item is scheduled for consideration by the city council at the same meeting the dynamic sign code amendment is being considered by the council. Mr. Boeser suggested the sign code amendment should be scheduled for consideration before the conditional use permit request. Commissioner Desai said he does not think this issue should be in front of the planning commission again. Mr. Desai explained the city council has already completed a legal agreement with Clear Channel on this sign issue and he feels the settlement agreement has made this issue a done deal. Commissioner Trippler referred to the city's legal agreement with Clear Channel and asked Clear Channel's representative to comment on the agreement pertaining to if the settlement agreement will be void if the sign code is not modified. Tom McCarver, representative of Clear Channel, explained the request for a conditional use permit to increase the height of the existing billboard sign an additional 15 feet. Mr. McCarver said the Federal Highway Transportation staff have reviewed this sign height increase proposal and have reported there are not any safety concerns. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-04-07 -4- There were no comments from the public; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Trippler moved to table this request until after adoption of the Dynamic Display Sign Code by the city council. Commissioner Hess seconded Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Walton, Martin Nays - Boeser, Yarwood The rnotion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Sign Code Amendment - Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance Senior Planner Ekstrand introduced this item for consideration. Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report. Ms. Finwall reviewed additional information requested by the cornrnission at their last meeting relating to St. Paul's sign code, Maplewood's existing billboards and their locations, and Clear Channel's lighting studies. Ms. Finwall updated the comrnission on the dynamic display sign ordinance review and action recommended by the community design review board at their meeting on November 27. Commissioner Trippler asked staff whether a particular time period was included in the code amendment language for the five hours of community messaging time. Ms. Finwall responded that there is no time period designated in the proposed language. Commissioner Trippler suggested that if the ordinance requires that the sign should not produce glare or other lighting nuisances, then the city should designate an authority to evaluate the sign and make that determination. Ms. Finwall responded that this language is what exists in the current lighting code. Commissioner Trippler said in talking with a member of the community design review board he learned the board favors adding language to the sign code amendment recommending dynamic signs be prohibited in wetlands, nature preserves, parks and historic areas. Matt Ledvina addressed the commission representing the community design review board. Mr. Ledvina explained past discussions of the board regarding the proposed sign code amendment and the board's recommendation. Mr. Ledvina mentioned the community design review board recommended increasing the minimum display change time from eight seconds to twelve seconds. He also explained that the board recommended deleting Incentive Option B from the code because the board believes it is not good public policy for government to be involved in activities that this government agency is regulating. Mr. Ledvina said the community design review board intends at the board's future review of the on-site sign code to add language prohibiting signage from wetlands and nature preserves. Commissioner Boeser suggested in the interest of continuity, the minimum change time might be set at eight seconds so all of the signs are operating under the same standards. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-04-07 -5- Commissioner Hess said he prefers twelve seconds for a more static sign. Commissioner Fischer said she is comfortable with the community design review board's recommendation. Commissioner Trippler suggested the sign code language be revised under number one of the brightness standards section to add that a city representative will arbitrate lighting standard disputes and also to add "not to exceed one hour" in place of "immediately" under two and three of the brightness standards section. Commissioner Yarwood moved approval of amendments and additions to the Maplewood Sign Code as follows: 1. Section 44-737(3): (Additions are underlined) "On-premise signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness or color. Signs that give public service information, such as time and temperature are exempt." 2. Section 44-735: (Additions are underlined) "On-premise siqn means anv siqn identifyinq or advertisinq a business, person. activitv. qoods, products, or services, located on the premises where the siqn is installed and maintained." 3. Adopt dynamic display sign code language modeled after the Eagan code amendment as follows (text added to the Eagan ordinance are underlined and text deleted are stricken; text changed by the community design review board at their November 27, 2007, meeting is in bold): a. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing message, Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers are also distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People have a natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end. Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are generally more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and becorne inaccurate without frequent changes. Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely impact residential character. Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity to use such technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is the potential for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display can be seen from a given location Planning Commi,ssion Minutes of 12-04-07 -6- on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant movement. This impact would obviously be compounded in a corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory overload. Therefore, a longer display time is appropriate. A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last-second lane changes, stops, or turns, which could result in traffic accidents. Accordingly, dynamic displays generally should not be allowed to occupy the entire copy and graphic area of a sign. In conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on off- premise signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public health, safety, and welfare. b. Dynamic display sign means any sign desiqned for outdoor use that is capable of displayinq a video siqnal. includinq, but not limited to, cathode-rav tubes (CRTs), liqht-emittinq diode (LED) displavs, plasma displays, liquid-crvstal displays (LCDs), or other technoloqies used in commerciallv available televisions or computer monitors. O)(Cept govornmontal signs, '/lith dynamic display characteriElics that appoar to have movomont or that appear to chango, causod by any method othor than physically removing and replacing tho sign or itc compononts, whother tho apparent movomont or change is in tho display, tho sign ctructure itsolf, or any othor componont of tho sign. This includos a display that incorporatos a tochnology or mothod allowing tho sign surfaco to chango the imago without having to physically or mochanically replaco tho sign surfaco or its componontc. This also includes any rotating, rovolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or animatod display and any display that incorporatos rotating panols, LED lights manipulatod through digital input, "digital ink" or any other mothod or technology that allows tho sign surfaco to prosont a serios of imagos or displays. c. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions: (a) Dynamic display signs are allowed on subordinato to off-premises signs.QD.]y, monumont and pylon signs, and businoss signs. Dynamic display!: must not bo tho predominant f{)aturo of tho sign surface. Tho romoindor of tho sign must not havo tho capability to havo dynamic displays evon if not used. Dynamic display signs mo allowod only on monumont and pylon signs for conditionally pormitlod usos in residontial districts and fDr all usos in othor districts, subjoct to tho roquiremonts of this Soction 11.70. Only ono, contiguous dynamic display moa is allowod on a sign surfaco; (b) A dynamic display siqn is permitted by conditional use permit onlv.may not change or move more ofton than onco overy 20 minutes, e)(cept one for which changos aro nocossary to correct hour and minuto, date, Planning Commission Minutes of 12-04-07 -7- or tomporaturo information. Timo, dato, or tompomture information is considorod one dynamic display and may not be incluElod as a componont of any othor dynamic display. .^. display of time, dato, or temporature must remain for atloast 20 minutos boforo changing to a different display, but tho timo, dato, or temporaturo information ilcolf may chango no more ofton than once ovory throe soconds; (c) The images and messages displayed must be static and each display must be maintained for a minimum of 12 seconds, and the transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects; (d) The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign; (e) Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must be at least seven inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, nine inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more. If thoro is insufficiont room for copy and graphics of this size in tho aroa allowod undor clauso (a) abo'/e, thon no dynamic display is allo'Nod; (f) Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards of this ordinance; (g) Dynamic display signs must comply with the brightness standards contained in subdivision e. below; (h) Dynamic display signs existing on (insert the effective date of this ordinance) must comply with the operational standards listed above. /\n oxisting dynamic display that doos not moot tho structural requiromonts in clauso (b) may continuo as a nonconforming dovelopmont subject to soction (insort ordinanco soction numbor). I'.n mEisting dynamic display that cannot moot tho minimum sizo roquiremont in c1auso (0) must uso tho largest size possible for ono Ii no of copy to fit in the availablo spaco. ~ Exceptions. Rocognizing that somo dynamic displays, such as thoso ucod in point of sale dispen60rG, inter-acti'Jo vending machinos and ^ TMs, ofton nood to chango imagos more froquontly than dofinod by this or-dinance in or-der to porform their intondod function and that such imago changos can occur in a mannor in which thoy do not creato distractions for drivors, dynamic displays 'A'ith a total area of loss than 180 square inchos at any point of sale disponsor, intorac{ivo vonding machinos or /\ TM may bo fully animatod, provided thoy do not flash or blink in a mannor cloarly visiblo from the roaElway and pro'/idod thoy Planning Commission Minutes of 12-04-07 -8- oithor moot or oxceod the building sotbacks for tho zoning district in which thoy aro locatod or are at loast 30' from tho public right of way, whichevor is greator. d. Incentives. Off-premises signs do not need to serve the same way-finding function as do on-premises signs; they aro rostrictoEl in numbor by tho city; and they are in themsolvos distracting and their removal serves public safety. This clause is intended to provide an incentive option for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of off-premise signs in certain settings. This removal results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentives. These provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentives create an opportunity to consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the community and expand the function of off-premises signs to serve a public purpose by providing community and public service messages. (1) Incentive Option ^ Reduction of Sign Surfaces (a) A person or siqn operator may obtain a conditional use permit for an onhancod dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off-premises sign if the fOllowing requirements are met: 1) The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-premise sign surfaces by one by permanently removing, within 15 days after issuance of the permit, one surface of an off-premises sign in the city that is owned or leased by the applicant and is dopicted in table I'. (which follow{; this soction), which sign surface must satisfy the criteria of parts (2) and (3) of this subsection. This removal must include the complete removal of the structure and foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign surface if the applicant does not timely do so, and the application must identify the sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's costs for that removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has no right to compensation for the removed sign surface under any law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off-premises sign with an onhanced dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of a sign surface. 2) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. 3) If the removed sign surface is one for which a state permit is required by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state upon removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subject of the dynamic display sign permit cannot begin to operate until proof is Planning Commi,ssion Minutes of 12-04-07 -9- provided to the city that the state permit has been surrendered. (b) If the applicant meets complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city will issue an onhancod dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-premises sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every 12 ei{lht-seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. (2) Incentive Option 8 Provision of Community and Pulllic Service Messaging (a) .'I. person or siqn operator may olltain a conditional use permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off premise sign if the f()lIowing requirements are met: 1) The enhanced dynamic display sign replaces an existing surface of an existing off premise sign; 2) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit based on the replacement of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. 3) The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city to provide to the city no less than 5 hours (2259 eight second spots) per month per eRhanced dYRamic display sign ~ in the city for community aRd pulllic service messages at such times as shall lle determinedlly the city. (b) If the applicant meets complies with the permit requirements noted allove, the city will issue an enhanced dynamic display sign permit for the designated off premise sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 1 gg percent of the potential copy and graphic area of an existinq siqn face and to change no more frequently than once e'/ery eight seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. e. Brightness Standards. (1) All signs must meet the following brightness standards. City staff shall be designated as the arbiters of whether a sign meets the brightness standards of city code: (a) No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility. Planning Commission Minutes of 12-04-07 -10- (b) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle. (c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal. (2) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediatoly within one hour upon notice of non-compliance from the city. Tho porson owning or controlling the sign may appoal tho city's dotormination through tho following appoal procoduro: (a) .^Jlor making tho adjustmont requirod by tho city, tho porson owning or controlling tho sign may appoal the city's dotormination by delivoring a writlon appeal to tho city clork within 10 days uftor tho city's non complianco notico. Tho written appoal must includo tho namo of a person unrelntod to tho porson and businoss making tho apponl, '....ho will sorvo on tho appoal panel. (b) Within fivo businoss days aftor recoiving tho appoal, tho city must namo a person who is not an official or omployeo of tho city to sorve on tho appoal panel. Within fjvo businoss days aftor tho city names its ropresontativo, tho city's reprocontativo must contact the sign ownor's ropresontativo, and tho two of thom must appoint a third member to tho panol, who has no relationship to eithor party. (c) Tho appoal panel may dovolop its o'J\'n rulos of procodure, but it must hold a hoaring within fivo businoss days after tho third membor is appointed. Tho city and the sign ownor must bo givon tho opportunity to prosont tostimony, and the panel may hold tho hoaring, or a portion of it, at tho sign location. Tho panol must issue its docision on '....hat 10'0'01 of brightnoss is noodod to moet the brightnoss standards withiA fivo business days aftor the hoaring commoncos. Tho docision will bo binding on both partios. (3) All dvnamic display signs installed after (insert the effective date of this ordinance) that will have illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a means to immediatoly within one hour turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by the city that it is not complying with the standards in this section. (4) In addition to the briqhtness standards required above, dynamic display siqns must meet with the citv's outdoor liqhtinq requirements (section 44-20(1)). Planning Commission Minutes of 12-04-07 -11- Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes - Boeser, Desai, Fischer, Hess, Martin, Pearson, Walton, Yarwood Nay - Trippler The motion passed. Commissioner Trippler said he voted nay because he does not think the city should be getting into the business of providing television for drivers and that dynamic signs are the wrong thing. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. November 26 Council meeting: Commissioner Boeser reported on this meeting. b. December 10 Council meeting: Commissioner Yarwood c. December 17 Council meeting: Commissioner Fischer d. January 14 Council meeting: Commissioner Martin X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Reschedule 1-1-08 meeting to Wednesday, 1-2-08 b. Senior Housing Study - Parking Needs and Unit Sizes Staff presented information on this study and briefly discussed it with the commission. It was agreed by the commission to review the report and then further discuss this item at their next meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Planning Commission's 2007 Annual Report December 24, 2007 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council by their second meeting in February. This report should include the planning commission's activities from the past year and the major projects for the upcoming year. 2007 ACTIVITIES The commission considered the following requests as noted: 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 changes to the comprehensive plan 3 4 5 10 8 changes to the zoning map 2 4 4 7 4 preliminary plats 3 7 7 12 5 ordinance changes 3 3 0 1 3 conditional use permits and revisions 11 14 19 21 18 vacations 2 11 8 5 5 variances 6 2 12 2 4 miscellaneous reQuests and presentations 20 13 8 11 14 Total 50 58 63 69 61 In 2007, the commission, in addition to the items listed above, took a tour of development sites. The commission also reviewed their Rules of Procedure, the South Maplewood Study Executive Summary, and the Gladstone Neighborhood Streetscaping Plans. NOTE: For all the items listed below, the planning commission recommended approval ayes all, unless noted otherwise. 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES The commission considered three changes to the comprehensive plan in 2007. Chanaes PC Action Council Action Gladstone Neighborhood Approved Approved (English Street and Frost Avenue) (4-2) From M-1, BC, BC-M, LBC, R-3(M), R-2 and R-1 to GM, GH and GMU This change was to amend the city comprehensive land use plan maps to make them consistent with the Gladstone Neighborhood Master Plan. Peterson Dental Clinic Approved Approved (1670 Beam Avenue) This change was from L (library) and OS (open space) to BC-(M) for the former Ramsey County Library on the southeast corner of Beam Avenue and Kennard Street. The applicant proposed this change to allow the reuse and remodeling of the building into a dental clinic and office space. The Shores Senior Housing Approved Approved (940 Frost Avenue) This land use change was from R-3(M) (medium density multiple dwellings) to GH (Gladstone High) for the proposed Shores Senior housing building. (Note: The city made this change during the adoption of the Gladstone Master Plan). 2007 ZONING MAP CHANGES The commission considered two changes to the zoning map in 2007. Chanaes PC Action Council Action Peterson Dental Clinic Approved Approved (1670 Beam Avenue) This zoning map change was from F (farm residence) to BC-M (Business Commercial- Modified) for the conversion of the former Ramsey County Library building into a dental clinic and office facility. Pond Overlook Approved Approved (2161 County Road D) This change was from F (farm residence) to R-2 (single and double dwellings) for the 10-unit twin home (town house) development approved for this site. 2007 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND REVISIONS The commission considered the following conditional use permits and permit revisions in 2007: PC Action Council Action Ramsey County Correctional Facility Approved Approved (297 Century Avenue South) This request was for a revision to the existing permit for the correctional facility so Ramsey County could expand and remodel the facility. St. Paul's Monastery PUD Approved Approved (2675 Larpenteur Avenue East) This request was for the PUD for the redevelopment plans for the Saint Paul's Monastery property. This plan allows a variety of multiple-family housing on the site. Costco Approved Approved (Country View Drive and Beam Avenue) This request is for the new fuel sales facility and a retail store with a tire service center on the former Country View Golf Course on the north side of Beam Avenue, east of the new Country View Drive. 2 Keller Lake Convenience Store Approved Denied (2228 Maplewood Drive) This request was for a revision to the existing permit to allow for the addition of a large propane tank on the site for the refilling of smaller propane tanks. Corner Kick Soccer Center Approved Approved (1357 Cope Avenue) This request was for a revision to the existing permit to allow for the expansion of the indoor soccer center, including the addition of a retail center. The Shores Approved Approved (940 Frost Avenue) This request was for a PUD to allow 180-units of senior housing on the site of the former Saint Paul Tourist Cabin site. The Regent at Legacy Village Approved Approved (Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street) This request was for a revision of the Legacy Village PUD to allow for the construction of a new senior housing building with 150 units instead of the 120 units as previously approved by the city. Salvation Army Approved Approved (2080 Woodlynn Avenue) This request was to approve a revision to the conditional use permit for the Salvation Army to add a children's day care center to their facility. Commercial Truck Approved Approved (1003 Century Avenue North) This request was for a conditional use permit to allow the property owner to keep a commercial truck on his property. Schmelz Countryside Motors Approved Pending (1180 and 1200 Highway 36) This request was for a revision to the existing permit to allow Schmelz to expand their motor vehicle sales business onto the site of the former Embers Restaurant. Clear Channel Billboard Tabled Pending (1790 Gervais Avenue) This request was to allow Clear Channel Outdoor to raise the height of a non-conforming billboard 15 feet. MEMBER WHO RESIGNED IN 2007 Michael Grover MEMBERS APPOINTED TO THE PC IN 2007 Joe Walton, Joseph Boeser, Robert Martin 3 2007 ATTENDANCE Name Lorraine Fischer Joesph Boeser Tushar Desai Robert Martin Michael Grover Gary Pearson Dale Trippler Jeremy Yarwood Harland Hess Joe Walton ApPointed 1970 07-09-07 07-22-02 07-09-07 05-24-04 12-10-90 06-08-98 04-11-05 02-23-06 02-12-07 Term Expires (12-31) 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 (Resigned) 2008 2009 2008 2009 2009 2007 Attendance 18/19 9/9 15/19 9/9 1/4 19/19 17/19 16/19 18/19 14/18 As a point of comparison, the planning commission had 18 meetings in 2001,17 meetings in 2002, 20 meetings in 2003, 18 meetings in 2004, 20 meetings in 2005 and 21 meetings in 2006. 2008 ACTIVITIES The following are the possible activities of the planning commission for 2008: 1. Have an annual tour of development and other sites of interest. 2. Have in-service training sessions or provide educational materials for the planning commission. This might include training or information to help prepare the commission for the update of the comprehensive plan or about redevelopment topics. Other training topics might include sessions about in-fill development, conditional use permits, wetlands (their classifications and buffer areas) the new city tree ordinance, sustainable/green development, septic systems and/or wells. Request that city staff update the planning commission about possible upcoming training opportunities on a quarterly basis. 3. Work with the consultants and city staff on any city code or land use plan changes that result from the Gladstone Area redevelopment plan and studies. 4. Work with city staff and other advisory commissions on any city code or land use plan changes that result from the South Maplewood moratorium and study. 5. Work with the consultants and city staff on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. 6. Review the PUD ordinance for possible changes. 7. Provide input to the HRA on housing redevelopment and program issues. 8. Study the area west of Hazelwood (along the new County Road D) for land use and transportation issues. 9. Have a tour of the Legacy Village development as construction progresses and of the Gladstone neighborhood as part of the redevelopment study. 10. Study the unit sizes and parking needs for senior housing and possibly propose code amendments or city policies for city council consideration. 4 RECOMMENDATION Accept the Planning Commission's 2007 Annual Report. P:lplanning commission pclpc Annual Reports\2007 ann report 5 ~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - SWOT Analysis December 21, 2007 INTRODUCTION As part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, city staff and the city-hired consultants have started a process for identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) for the City of Maplewood. City staff and the consultants want the input and the comments of the city council and the volunteer board and commission members to help guide the focus and direction of the comprehensive plan update. DISCUSSION The planning consultant prepared the attached form for use by the city in doing the SWOT analysis. Please fill out the form and be prepared to discuss your comments and those of the others on the commission. City staff is planning on having the city council and all boards and commission members do this exercise. We will then compile the findings and prepare a summary of the most consistent themes and thoughts as submitted by the participants. RECOMMENDATION Please complete your SWOT analysis and bring it to the next meeting. Also, be prepared to discuss these matters during the next meeting. City staff and consultants will use your input and comments in the preparation of the 2008 comprehensive plan update. P:compplan/swot memo - commissions Attachment: SWOT Yisioning Form 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood Visioning Exercise If the City of Maplewood were to prepare and adopt the optimum plan and implement it to successfully achieve all of its opportunities and avoid the factors that threaten it, what will the community look like in 20 years? Feel free to describe this future in any way that is comfortable to you and be as general or as specific as you like. Cm'OF,'l-HPLEWOOD 9n9n 2030 Comprehensive Pian City of Maplewood Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats When you think of the City of Maplewood, what do you believe are its greatest strengths? These are assets or characteristics that should be maintained or enhanced as the community plans for the future. What characteristics or aspects of the City that you believe to be weaknesses? These are things about City that you think should be corrected, improved or eliminated in the future. cm'OFMAPLEWOOD 2n?n 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood What do you see as opportunities available to the City of Maplewood in the future? What do you perceive as threats to a successful future for the City of Maplewood? CITY OF ,lHPLEWOOD 2n!1n 2030 Comprehensive Plan City of Maplewood Topic Area Questions Land Use What do you see as the biggest issues in terms ofland use in the City? (i.e. land use conflicts, redevelopment, available land, etc.) Finance What opportunities do you see for expanding and diversifying the tax base in the City of Maplewood? Parks In your opinion, what opportunities exist for the City's park system? How do you define the park system? Implementation What do you foresee as the largest roadblock to successfully implementing this Comprehensive Plan? cm'OF,1L-1PLEWOOD 2n~n