HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Sign Provisions S , '
�� �,
��j P.(� BOX �70
j{�� t')� ?.875-lASrH S1� W
�O(� yj// y RC)SEMO[JNl MINNEiC)TA 5`�Utifi
v�„`�J��� 612-423-441 1
Agenda Item 6.
8:00 Public Hearing - Sign Ordinance
TO: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & CITY ADMINISTRATOR
�'1R�M: DEAN JOHN50N, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
D��E: MARCH 16, 1990
s�Y�J; SIGNS
MARCH 20, 1990 COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM #6
Att�ched is a March 9, 1990 tnemo from Mike Wozniak, regarding the
pul�l,ic hearing on the proposed, °compromise" sign provisions . The
purpose of my mema is ta summa�-ize the process we've been through and
identify the attachments .
As Mike's memo indicates, the formal review of the revised Zoning
Ordinance began in June, 1987 . In October, 1988 the Community
Development Department hosted a Business Forum at City Hall . The
purpose of the forum was to update the business community on the
functian of the department and review the basic plans, codes and
ordinances which� We admir�ister. It was announced at that meeting
that the "new" zon�.ng ordinance would be campleted by the end of the
year and availab�e for public znput.
In January, 1989, Mike contacted the Presider�t of the Chamber to let
him know the draft ordinance was completed and available for review.
. I� the spring of 1989, the City Council reviewed. the revised
ordinances at a series of workshops . At this same time, Mike
attended a Chamber meeting to provide an update on the status of the
revised ordinance.
Th�e City Council completed its review process in mid-summer, and
initiated the formal public review process in August. Based upon
input from the Chamber, the proposed sign provisions were not adopted
with the revised Zoning Ordinance. The City Council requested that
. s�taff work with a committee of the Chamber to re-evaluate the sign
provisions and resubmit thern for consideration as quickly as
possible.
GJith the range of opinior:s expressed from the start, the City/Chamber
Committee were quite realistic and honest in trying to complete the
task at hand. After several meetings, a "compromise" was reached
(December 19, 1989 committee meeting) . As Mike' s memo (dated
December 21, 1989) to the committee indicated, we were prepared to
submit the compromise to the Planning Commission on January 9, 1990 .
�s Mike's January 5, 1990 memo to the committee noted, the Planning
Commission reviewed was postponed to January 23rd because of the
Ch�mber Awards Dinner.
� � ��rch 20, 1990 Council Meeting Review
��h3�a �earing - Section 10 (Signs)
P�.g�e 7'wo
The review by the Planning Commission took place as scheduled on
January 23rd and continued on February 13th. Mike' s reviews and the
m.inutes from these two meetings are attached and bring us to date
with the hearing process .
5teve Jilk has just provided me with a copy of the March 13, 1990
lette-r from the Chamber of Cammerce . Based upon the process we have
been through, I don't know if it is appropriate for staff to take a
��sition on the suggestions submitted. I will review these issues
in more detail and respond at the hearing as the City Council
recommends.
In s�tmmary, this process has involved many hours of dedicata.on by the
Chamber committee members and staff. I only regret that what we
und�rstaod was an acceptable process and compromise to the Chamber
is abviously not the case.
7 I.
P Cl BdX ri10
���� <,) �f315-145iH Sf W.
r� n �ntn ROSEMOUM MINNESOTA 55t16$
vSG��"�'�-��'4� 612--423-aa�i
�Ot NtAYOR NAPPER AND CITY COUNCIL
Ffft01�: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CITY PLANNER
D�►TE: MARCH 9, 1990
SYJBJ: MARCH 20, 1990 - REGULAR MEETING REVIEWS
p�JBLIC HEARIN(� - ZONIrtG ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT - SECTION 10
�szaHs�
The purpose of this public h�aring is to allow City Council to
r�c�ive comment and to consider an amendment to Section 10 (Signe}
of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment represents a major revision
af ��e cu�rent sign provisions.
�,CKGROUND
The following background information on how the draft of the Sign
provisions (Section 10) being considered was developed will assist
Cour.cil in understanding the procedures which have been followed.
Wh�n I started w�rking for the City in May of 1987 one of my
principal dutie� was to complete the revision of the zoning
or�inance and to establish a review process with the Planning
Commission and City Council in pursui� of adoption of the new
ordinance. I started with a draft of the new zaning ordinance that
had been partially written by the followirig parties : Fred
Hoisington of the Hoisington Group, Roger Knutson (acting City
At�orney) , and Dean Johnson.
The sign provisions had been primarily drafted by Roger Knutson and
were modeled closely after the sign provisions of the City of
L�keville Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission conducted a lengthy review process
(approximately 18 months) of the proposed Zoning Ordinance
beginning in Jun� of 1987 . The Commission discussed and considered
tne sign provisions (Section 10) in September of 1987 . The
�lanning Commissions main concerns at the time focused upon
including adequate restr,�ctions on the use of portable advertising
signs and also centered around the issue of off-premise advertising
5igns . The Planning Commission was lobbied heavily by Naegele
Advertising to consider modifying the zoning ordinance to allow
billboards. The Cammission reached a consensus that off-premise
advertising should be allowed only on a very limited basis with no
signs exceeding 80 sc�uare feet in area.
The Planning Com�ission made its final recommendation on the new
Zoning Ordinance to City Council in August of 1989 .
7 .} ��r�h 20, 1990 Council Meeting Review
��blic Hearing - Section 10 (Signs)
�a�a �wo
�Ynile City Council considered adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in
August and September of 1989, several business people in Rosemount
voiced objections and concerns regarding the proposed sign
provisions . Enclosed with this letter is a copy of a memo fram a
committee of the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce identifying a series
of concerns or issues with Section 10 (stamped received Sept. 19) .
Based upon the cancerns expressed by the business community City
Council elected to pull from the proposed ordinance the sign
r�rcvisions which had been referred by the Planning Commission and
to readopt the sign provisions from the old zoning ordinance.
Council then directed staff to work with the Rosemount Chamber Sign
Ordinanc� Committee to try to addre�s the concerns of the business
community and to prepare a new draft for consideration by the
Planning Cammission and City C�uncil. Enclosed is a copy o� a list
of sign ordi�ance cammittee m�mbers .
St��f inembers Dean Johnson and myself inet with the Sign Ordinance
Committee on several occasion� to identify i�sues of cancern and
�� d�scuss them. I have incl�ded a copy of a memo da�ed October
1989 which referenc�s discussion i�sues and the position of the
committee and the City. A second memo dated December 21, 1989
references a December 19th meeting where staff negotiated a number
cf modific�tions to the proposed sign provisions td addre�e the
concerns of �he Committe�. I� we� agreed at this meeting� pc��ding
�ny other rebuttals, that thir "compromise" ordinance would be sent
`o the Planning Commission.
Encla�ed �Nith this letter is a draft of Section 10 dated 2/6/1990.
Thi�� draft �.ndiCates modifications to the draft of the sign
proviaions which wms originally referred to City Cauncil by the
�l�tnning commission. In the new draft � line has been drawn
thrQugh the provisions which, staff is recommending b� deleted and
highlighted with a �arker background are those provisions which
st�ff is proposing be added to the earlier draft.
�SwUES
The Planning Commission recently considered the proposed Zoning
A,�nendment at its January 23rd and F'ebruary 13th Regular Meetings.
The key issues discussed at those meetings related to the ordinance
language regarding portable signs and ribbons, banners and
pennants . Council Member Harry Willcox and Dick Corcoran, business
owner, both objected to the permitting requirements for these
temporary means of advertising. Both Mr. Willcox and Mr. Corcoran
suggested that the City should not require permits for these
�emporary means of advertising and further that allowing these
types of signage �o �e utilized only 4 times per year for 10 days
p�r pErmit may not be adequate to meet the needs of businesses:
Chuck Terry, owner of Coast to Coast Hardware expressed similar
�entiments .
� � a M�rch 20, 1990 Council Meeting Ravi�w
�ublic Hearing - Sectio� 10 (Signs)
P��a Three
7��e purpose of perm�tting signag� �eyond ensuring that signs are
ins;:alled in a safe mann�r is to pravide the City with some measure
�f control over the appearance of the community. The reason to
��quire a permit for temporary signs is to ensure the City is aware
ot where temporary signage is being utilized, to ensure that it
m�etb zoning ordinance dimensional requirements, to ensure that it
da�s not represent a safety hazard and finally, to allow the City
to m,onitor the length of time temporary signage is being utilized.
The question of how strictly a community should regulate the use
af temporary means of advertising is a difficult one. Many
com,manities strictly regulate the use of temporary, signs and
require permitting proceduxes �nd many communities do nQt. Council
Member� must in this instance utilize youx knowledge �nd feel for
tk:� Gommunity ta a���ae what degree of eontrol is right for
Ro���ount.
Regarding �this issue of temporary sfgnage, it is my own opinion
that portable freestanding signs, tend to have more visual impact
on the landscape than does the use of" ribbans, banners, and
p�nn�nts. From a practical �t�ndpoint it is easier to monitor the
use of portable freestanding signs than it is to keep tract of the
use of banners, ribbons �nd pennants. Also, the portable
fre�standing signs tend to become more of a permanent fixture in
the l�ndscape tha�" dQ ribbons, banners, and pennants (which are
mor$ subj�ct to wear and tear from weather) . If City Council does
chapes to consider modifying language regarding use af temporary
means of advertieing I would suggest retaic�ing the requirement for
pe�'m�.tting of temporary (portabie) freestanding signs and possibly
oonsidering relaxing permitti�g requirements for temporary banners,
ribbcans and pennants .
Another issue which was brought upon Planning Cammission
consideration of this Zoning Amendment was the idea that eigns with
flashing lights and revolving signs should be allowed. The intent
of not allowing this type of signage is to avoid a circus
r�tmosphere, to minimize long term maintenance and safety issue and
to �uard the aesthetic integrity of the community. One must
r�cognize that personal tastes differ and this issue, again, is one
�that Council Members must evaluate with respect ta community-wide
valu�s .
w '
� , " lMarch 20, 1g90 Council Meeting Review
P��lic �earing - Section 10 (fiigns}
P��e� �`our
PLPd�1NING C�MMISSION RFCOMMENDATION
Th� Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Section 10 at its
F'�b-ruary 13, 1990 Regular Meeting. The Commission recommended
agproval of the proposed sign provisions (draft attached with this
review) with one modification. The Commissian recommended that
Sub-Section 10. 2 . A. 7 . (page 4) Real Estate Sic�ns be modified to
r�ad as follows;
R�al Estate Signs: Signs displaying sale or lease of
property and contacts of owners or agents not exceeding
12 square feet in area, provided only one ( 1) sign is
erected per street frontage and all signs are removed
witrlin ten ( 10) days after the sale or lease of the
property; except in the RR Rural Residential, RL Low
Aensity Single Family Residential and R-1 Single Family
�esidential Districts where signs sha11 not exceed six
(6) square feet in area; : and, except in all Commercial
and Industrial Districts where up to two (2) signs per
street frontage shall be permitted not exceeding seventy
(70) square feet.
� , '
:T f
SECTION 10 SIGNS 02/06/90
SECTION 10.1 PURPOSE, DEFINITIONS, GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Purpose The purpose of [his provision shall be to achieve the following
objectives:
;.,,
•:.>::,.,:::. . .:::....:. ....,:.::.:.
�:�:<_:::«'�� �s?���i� s��n.��xs1S "�l�h �ert�ik.�t��!��;�...� 'ceaxQ����e:>::.a�a�
:::. ..
:.
���:���tl��ppQr�an�:.��x a:�uer�ise.
�...;;,;:.
�����`<��x�a� ��� ��`��C�;����'►f����i�z�� �du$���� �.d �c��.r��.����
;..,�� t�...:.�..4�':..���:��..�isc�t�c� �?�,.���.�.�.:�'�' .���!�'+�
�"�c.�c��.
3. To restrict the locations of advertising signs with messages which are
not exclusively related to the premises in which they are located, to
� areas where visual intrusions have the least impact on the resident
population yet allow maximum exposure to vehicular movement.
4. To create standards regulating the rype, size, number and location of
signs Co promoce unifarmity and protect the investment of the most
discriminating sign makers and users.
5. To prevent the use of signs from downgrading the appearance of
residential and commercial neighborhoods or depreciating property
values from the avercrowding or the oversizing of signs.
• � �
. � �}
���
B. DeCnitions
Freestandin Sign: Any sign that is attached directly to the ground or is
supportea verdcally by any structure having a source of support independent
of any building existing on the premises on which the sign is located.
Hei h : The height of a sign shalt be measured from the centerline of the
street or highway toward which the sign is principally displayed to the top
of the sign.
Identification Sign: A sign which displays only the name, address and title
of an occupant or the name and address of a building or development.
Non-Conforming Sign: Any sign lawfully in exis[euce on the effective date
of this ordinance or any sign lawfully in existence on the date of any
amendment to this ordinance which does not conform ta the regulations
affecting signs for the district in which the sign is situated.
Off-Premise Advertising Sien: Any sign Ihat directs attention to a business,
product, service, activity or entertainment not conducted upon the premises
an which such sign is located or to non-commercial speech.
i •
.
,
, j
On-Premise Sign: Any sign that directs altention to the name of the
building, premises, or to the name of the building management Cirm, or to
the business, principal product, service, entertainment, or activity conducted,
sold or offered upon the premises on which such sign is located or to non-
commercial speech.
Portable Sign: A sigr� so desigued as to be movable from one location to
another, and which is not permanently attached to the ground, sales display
device or structure.
Projecting Sien: Any sign which is affixed to the outside of the exterior wall
or soffit of any building and is not parallel to the plane of the wall or soffit.
i n: Any letter, work, symbol, model, printed, projected or affixed device,
pos[er, picture, reading matter, or other representation in the nature of an
advertisement, announcemen[, direction or informative device including
structural and component parts that is located outdoors and is larger than
one (1) square foot in area.
Sign. Reader Board: Any sign having letters not perrnanently affixed to the
sign face. The intent of the changeabte copy is to permit the owner of the
sign to place messages corresponding to promotions or events at his
establishment.
i Are�: The area of a sign includes the space inside a continuous line
drawn around and enclosing all letters, designs and background materials
exclusive of border, trim and structural supports. For the purpose of
calculating the area of multiple-faced or back-to•back signs, the stipulated
maximum sign area shall refer to a single face.
Traffic Si¢n: A sign which is erected by a governmental agency for the �
purpose of guiding vehicular traffic and providing iaformation to mo[orists.
W 1 i : A sign which is affixed to the exterior wall, mansard roof ar
soffit of a building and which is parallel to the building wall. A wall sign
does aot project more than twelve (12") inches from the surface to which
it is attached, nor extend beyond the top of the parape[ wall.
C. General Provisions
1. No sign shall be erected in or overhang upon a public right-of-way or
otherwise interfere with safe ped�s�rian or vehicular movement, except
traffic signs.
2. No sign shall contain colors, shapes, intermittent lighting or words such
as "stop," "warning," "caution," etc. which may be confused wi[h traffic
signing or controls unless such signs intended or appcoved for such use.
3. Electrical signs shall be installed according to S[ate electrical codes and
shall require underground wiring.
4. All permanent signs exposed to weather conditions shall be constructed
of materials to prevent norrnal deterioration Erom weathering. Further,
all signs shall be constructed and maintained in a safe, orderly
condition.
2
I �
,T k
5. Any sign or sigu structure which is defaced, deteriorated, improperly
maintaincJ c�r oth�rwise altcred from its original per�nilteci condili�n
shal! be repaired, replaced or rcii�oved upon wriUen aotice from tl�e
City.
6. Sign structures not used for signing or signs and/or si�;n strucwres not
properly maintained for six (6) consecutive months shall be removed.
7. No sign or sign structure shall bc permitted to interfere with the safe
access to doors, windows or fire escapes.
8. No�t#i;�;?�x freestanding or building mounted sign shall be supported
by guy wires.
9. No sign shall contain intermit[ent, flashing or other type of lighGng
which changes in intensity or color when arti�cially illuminated, except
time and temperature signs.
�
10. Flags displayed in commercial and indnstrial districts shall not exceed
in surface area the maximum permitted for freestanding signs,provided
further that the display of more than three (3) flags shall be debited
against the total freestanding signage area permitted.
11. Address signs shall bc required far each principal strueture in thc Clty,
cleazly legible from the street at which access is gaineci, except in non-
sewered areas where addresses shall be affixed to mailboxes or a
separate structure visible from the street.
12. No exterior sign shall pivot, move, rotate or display any moving parts
including electronic reader boards, except time and temperature or
other public information. Interior electronic reader boards visible to
pedestrians on the outside are allowed only by permit in Commercial
or Industrial Park Districts (See 10.2 E.4)
, 13. Portable signs or revolving beacons are allowed in addition [o
permanent signs only by temporary permit issued by the Community
Development Deparlment. The length of permits for revolving beacons
or similar devices shall not exceed three (3) days �nd;:�.�1�:;:;�ir;::��ti�c�
:.: < ��:;�:.:.... ,.:
:. .
�..��qt�#ltkk'i�f;�tiYiG�.�� ��e. Permits for partable signs shall mo�-�be
, .;.:...:::
�e:�ssu��,�.m�a'i3�x
�`:;: r.i .: ,...;:.:.,'.::�;.<.:.>�,�ri�ii�:
;;::.:�..:::. ,>::.:,:.:::::,>;::;;::<:<. .... ...:.:�..
���r� �tx��.�'rr�a��for a m�ua�n�� Q�t�a ��.A���..�:.:.�.:..::...:.
�'��.,An� ��?r�t�l�..�i8�.P�r:�o�maX.�.:���t���
14. No sign shall be painted direcdy on the exterior surface of any
building.
15. Projecting signs are prohibited in all districts.
16. Ribbons, banners, pennants, strings of lights and similar devices are
�'4�����d�d.t��,����e�u s�gn�o�t�r t�t��►par�r����s��ss�we�
�r:#�►� +�t��?nau�i�r U�y�ic�gmeaE Depar�m���xc���vvhen E��ga�rar�y
used for non-commercial purposes. T�t�l:��Xtt. oF p�i'r�ik�s �b��.�t
��er„��d i��.�1Q� c�a3r�.,��id.sl�ati be �ssue�.a..�!�umum �f�'aur.��}..ti�e�
p��::;:�e��.
3
Y 1
17. Signs whi�h advertise a business, ac[ivity, product or service not located
exclusively on the prernises are prohibited except as regulated herein.
18. No signs shall be closer than ten (10) feet from any property line or
corner lots except u�,the.0 2 D�str�eC and as otherwise regulated herein.
m�vemen�:
19. No sign may contain more than two (2) sides.
20. Roof[ap signs are prohibited in all districts.
. ,
,
�
SECTION 10.2 PERMITTED SIGNS
A. All Districts: The following signs are allowed without a permit in all zoning
districts, but shall comply with all other applicable provisions of th�
ordinance.
1. Traffic Si�ns
2. Public Siens: Signs including public information, points of interest,
memorials and other non-commercial information provided such signs
are erected by or on the order of the City or othcr public agency
having jurisdiction.
3. Directional Signs: Signs giving direcdon for pedestrian and vehicular
movement on the premises in which the signs are located, not
exceeding four (4) square feet in area nor [hree (3) feet in height.
4. Commemorative Signs: Signs or plaques stating the name, date of
construction, etc. of the building itself as opposed to the name or
nature of a business, unless they are one in the samc.
5. I�oliday Siens: Temporary signs or displays relating non-commercial
messages associated with national, state or local holidays or festivals.
6. �ampai.�n Signs: Signs or displays naming candidates or issues to be
voted upon at public elections, pravided such signs are posted no
sooner than ninety (90) days before an election and are removed ten
(10) days after an election.
7. Real Estate Si�ns: Signs displaying sale or lease of proQerty,and
con[acts of owners or agents not exceeding twelve-{��j t:�':�::fat�#;
��� square feet in area, provided only one (1) sign is erected per
street frontage and all signs are removed within ten (10) days after the
. . <;..;:::�.:
sale or lease of the �roperty, exee�t rn ��Ynmercia�nd�trtal �re�
����.�p.tn:ti�..(.2).;5�g�s:per..str�et fxo�t��e slu�]1 Ue.A���t�ci.�n��
�.�eeding seve�ty f'�Q� �quare fee.t. _
4
't �
8. Rummage Sale Si�ns: Signs announcing rummage or barage sales noC
exceeding four (4) square feet in area, provided such signs are located
nn private property and are removed immediately after the sale. •
9. Address Siens: Signs displaying letters or numbers naming only the
owners and/or address of the property not exceeding one (1) square
foot located at the street frontage property line, exce�t on corner lots
where such signs shall be set baek at teast Fifteen (15) feet from either
property line, or on the principal structure.
g, fiinn. A lowed bv Permlt ln All Districts
1. Construction Sig�s: Signs naming a project, owners, contractors, etc.
not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet in area or ten {10) feet in
height, provided such signs contain no other advertising and aze
removed upon completion of the project or two (2) years from
erection, whichever is sooner.
2. Develonment Si�ns: Signs promo[ing subdivision developments under
construction not exceeding 100 square feet in area or twenty (20) feet
in height, provided such signs are located on the development site and
are removed after ninety percenl (90%) of the lots have been sold.
3. �stitutional Signs: Signs displayin�; names, addresses or directions for
schools, churches, public buildings, parks, public events, ete. not
exceeding three (3) square feet in area or six (6) feet in height.
C, �, �IA�ow�d �Y �'erml�i��ic�lturc Di�tr�ets
1. One (1) sign per farm identifying the name of said farm not exceeding
twenty-four (24) syuare feet.
2. One (1) sign per farm advertising agricultural products raised in part
on the premises not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet.
D. ;I�ns Alowed bv Permit in Residential Districts
i. Permanent identification signs for residential dcvelopments not
exceeding twenty-four (24) squarc teet per si�n with a maximum of two
(2) signs at each principal entrance.
2. Otte (1) identifica[ion sign for multiple family dwellings not exceeding
twenty-four (24) square feet, set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from
all property lines not exceeding three (3) feet in height.
3. One (1) temporary freestanding sign per residential development
advertising the sale or lease �f d�velling units on the premises not
exceeding ]00 square feet nor twenry (20) feet in hcight.
4. One (1) identification sign per each permitted public aud institutional
principal building or use not �xceeding thirty-six (36) square feet or six
(6) fee[ in heig,ht.
E. �;�{;ns A.11owed bv �'ermit in Commercial and IP Districts
1. One (1) freestanding sign for eaeh principal structure not exceeding
eighty (80) square feet nor twenty (�0) feet in height.
2. One (1) freestanding sign for each principal structure with ten (10) or
more businesses not exceeding 100 square feet nor twenty (20) feet in
height. �
5
, �
3. Wall signs not exceeding fifteen percent (15%) of the Cotal area of the
wall on which the signs are afCixed, provided that structures with more
than one (1) sign be signed accorciing to an approved sign concept plan
in which al! signs have complimentary designs, similar shapes and sign
areas. Consideration may bc made by PUD to permit variation in
size and design of signs for major tenants or anchc�r businesses in
larger complexes. No sign may face an abutting residential district.
4. Changeable letter reader boards provided the sign area is included in
the total sign area permitted. Electronic reader boards may be
displayed from the inside of buildings to be visible through windows
by pedesErians. Maximum size for electronic reader boards displayed
in this fashion shall be determined by the Planning Commission; in
general, such displays should be Gmited to a size which does not
represent a distraction to passing motorists.
5. Temporary signs as permitted in residential districts, provided not more
than one (1) such sign is permitted on any one (1) parcel nor located
any closer than 150 feet from any other freestanding sign.
6. Public and institutional identiCication signs as permitted in residential
districts.
F. Signs Allowed bv Permit in iC Districts
1. One (1) freestanding sign for each principal structure not exceeding 80
square feet nor twenty (20) feet in height.
2. Wall signs not exceeding fifteen (15�'/c) perceat of the total area of the
waU on which the signs are affixed. '�
3. Temporary signs as permitted in residential districts, provided noCmare I'��
than one (1} such sign is permitted on any one (1) parcel nor located ,
any closer than 150 feet from any other freestanding sign. !
4. Public and institutional signs as permitted in residential distric[s.
5. Off premises advertising signs, provided such signs are located adjacent
to principal arterials as definecl in the Coraprehensive Guide Plan.
Such aff-premise advertising signs shaA not exceed 80 square feet in
area nor twenty (20) feet in height, nor be located a[ intervals
exceeding 2500 feet radius; provided further such signs shall not be
located closcr than 500 feet from any residence, public or institutional
use or municipal corporate limits. Off-premise advcrtising signs are
considered a separate use of property and not an accessory use, and
may only be located on a parcel which meets zoning requirements for
the IG District. No off-premise advertising sign shall be illuminated
between the hours of 1200 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
G. Siens Allowed bv Permit in PUB DistricEs
1. One (1) frcestanding sign for cach principal strwcture not exceeding
eighty (8U) square feet nor lwe��ty (2U) feet in height.
2. Wall signs not exceeding fifteen (15%) percent of the total area of the
wall on which the signs are affixed.
' H. Sipns Allowed b�Permit in FW Districts
1. Navigational signs including barge ship iden[ification and directional
signs.
2. Park identification and interpretation signs.
6
.�
SECTION 103 PERMITTIIVG PROCEDURE� ,AND ORnINANCE
CQMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
A. Permit Reauirements: Except as otherwise provided in �his chapter, no sign
or structure shall be erected, constructed, altered, rebuilt or relacated until
a permit has been issued by the City.
1. �,policat�Requiremenis: Applicants should contact the Community
Development Depaztment to obtain the necessary application form.
Information requued includes sign dimensions,height,colors,materials
of construction, method of anehoring, content and location. A sketch
or photograph of the proposed sign is required as well as a site plan
which adequately illustrates the proposed location of the sign.
2. A.�nlication Review Procedure: Upon the filing of an application far
a sign permit,Community Development Departrnent Staff shall examine
the plans and specifications and the premises upon which it is proposed
to erect the sign. If the proposed sign is in compliance with this
ordinance, the building code �f the City and all other laws and
ordinances of the City the sign permit will be approved.
3. Fee: The required fee as established by resolution of City Council
shall be paid to the City before issuance of a sign permit.
g, Qggoin,�Ordmance Com�liance Reauirements for New and ExistlnQ_�'�
1. i lnsafe Si�ns. Notice: If [he City fmds that any sign or other
advertising structure regulated herein is unsafe or insecure, a menace
to the public, or in violation of the provisions of this ordinance, the
Director of Community Development shall give written notice to the
holder of the permit. The holder of the permit shall remove or alter
the structure so as to comply with the standards required by this
ordinance and indicated by the Director of Community Development
within ten (10) days af[er issuance of such notice.
2. ��cistine Si¢ns: Any sign legally existing on the effective date of this
ordinance which dces not conform to the requirements set forth in this
ordinance shall become a nonconforming use. Nonconforming sigt�s
shall be allowed to continue, but shall not be rebuilt, relocated,
replaced or altered without being brought inCo compliance with all the
requirements of this ordinance. Maintenance of nonconforming signs
shall comply with provisians of Section 14.3 of this ordinance.
3, �gmoval of Signs: The Director of Community Development shall
order the removal of any sign erected or maintained in violation of this
ordrn�nce. Thirty (30) days nouce in writing shall be given to the
ownec of such sign, oc of the building, structure or premises on which
such sign is located, to either comply with ordinance or rcmove the
sign.
7
.
, _ .
��/ � 1't� I��iv ,
��' � /lljf �� 9R;�..i,1!�If� �.l �,
F�O�;E-Mo��NT nnrr�r�f r;n� • .,
.. r,�ser���i.ou.n� ,;,:� , �: ,,
Tt): ROSEMOUN�' BUSlNESS UWNERSJEMPLUYEES
FRUM: MICNAEL WOZNIAK, AIC!', CITY PLANNER
UATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1989
SU�J: COPY OF REVIEW �'OIt CITY CtItINCIL FOR SEPTFMBF.R 19TH PUBLIC
HEARING TO CUNSIUER PROP(>SEU ZONING ORI)lNANCE: SIGN
PRUVtS10NS
One Thursday, Septemher 7, 1�89, I mel wilh a group c�f R�semount Business
()wncr� & �I11�IC)YCCS lo diticuss thc sign pravisic�ns of thc Prt��osed Zoning
Ordinance. Thnse prescnt at that mectin� v��iced some valid concerns regarding
lhc cl'fcct �hc orclinance c��uld have on thcir abiiity to use signage to bring
:illcn(ic►n I�� thcir busincsscs.
1 infc�rmed lhose p�esenl a1 the meeting th�it 1 would happy tc� incorporate their
comments inlo my review for C:ity Council pric�r to conlinuation of lhe Puhlic
Hcarin�; tc� consider lhe Zc>ning Ordinance on September 1�)th. At our meeiing
on Septemher 7th we re��iewed the entire section of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance relating to signs and identified those sub sections which the business
c�wners/employees present lhought should be char�ged or al least further
discussed by the City Council. tn this review I have indicaled which sub-
sections of Section !0 are of concern tca the husiness community and further,
have lrieJ ta summarizc what thc concerns or problems involve. Lastly, I have
given a staff response as ta why the la��guage was drafted and also, have
included recommendations fr�m City Stal'f as to whether any changes should be
made hased c�n my Scptemher 7th mceting with business ownersJemployees.
SUR-SE(:TIONS OF CONCERN TU TNE BUSINESS COb1MUNITY �
SuU-src�ion lU 1 C 2 • No sign shall contain colors, shapes, intermittent
(ighting or words such as "stop", "warning", "caution", e1c. which may be
confused with traffic signing or contrals unless such signs are inlended and
approvcd fc�r such use.
The concern of those business owncrs present al [he September 7th meeting
rcgarding this nr��vision was thal il ma�� prcclude the use of signage where the
use af the wnrJs stop, w�irning, cautiou, etc., would n�t represent a traffic
hazard that could he con(used with public sal'c�y signs.
Bused upon discussinn at thc September 7�h meeting slaff �vill recommend to
C:ouncil �hat Sub-section I(1.1. C. 2. be modil'icd to read as follows:
No sign shall cc�ntain cc�lors, sh�►pcs, wc�rds such as "stop", "warning",
"caution", etc. which U1Jy clearly (�e confuseci will� traffic signing or
controls unless sucl� SI�l7S are inlended and have been approved by the
C:ity for such use.
• , �
� t
Sub-section IU 1 C 9• No sign shati contain intermittent, flashing or other type
of lighling which changes in in[ensity or color when artificially illuminated,
except timc and temperature signs.
"t'hose busincss owners/empluyees prescnt at the September 7th meeting had two
main issues with this provision. First, their appeared to be a c�nsensus that the
use af flashing lights shnulcl nat be excluded. Secondly, their also seemed to be
agreement that businesses shoutd be allotived �o use electronic reader boards.
Firsl, I should clarify the posilion af E'ily Staff regarding this provision. The
utic �►f fla�hin� li6hls �►r li�,hls which chan�;c c�►I��r in ('hrislmas Dcc��alions
would nc�1 hc in violalion c�f Ihis pr�►vision. Furlhcr, thc display c�f christmas
li�;l�i� whirh m;�y I�lash or ch.ingc colur, and arc fc�r rclail tialc would nol hc in
vi�►I;�li��n ��I� Il�iti pn►visi�►n pruvidr�l IhrV ;irc cic,irin�; as�ncialcd wilh Ihc
t'hrislmns floliJay. Thc only reslriclion c�n li�hling assc�ciateJ with Christmas
would br il' exccssivc li�;hting is uscJ which cicarly is a distraction lo motorists
and a safety hazard.
C'ily Stufl` continues ln recommend ta City Cc�u��cil Ihat tlic use of flashing lights
u� lightti which chan�;c colur for n��rn�,s�s «Il�cr lhan C'hris�mas dccoralinns is
in�►pproprialc and should nut he allowed. I�urther, City Staff recommends tl�at
exlerior elcctronic reader boards dc� represent a dislration and p�tentional hazarcl
tc� mc�torists that should nc�t be all�wecl. This does not precluJe the use of fixed
reader boards that do not move electronically.
��U-section 10.1 C 1U• Business sig�s may cfnly Ue illuminated during business
hours.
E3usiness c�wr�ers/empioyccs present al tl�c September 7th mceting thought that
tbis pravisir,n was excessive and shoulJ be removed.
After review City Stafi has recognized that this provision was inadvectently left
in thc current draft of thc Proposed Zoning Ordinance and that it should be
rcmovcd. Not �nly woulcl this provision be unfair to businesses bul it would also
be difficult lo enforce.
�ub-section 10 1 C 11 • Window sign ar lettering shaU not exceed 25% of the
total window area in which they are displayed, provided further that lettering
dc�es nc�t exceed six (6) inches in height. Exeeptions witl only be permitted
when window signs are used in lieu of olher permitted signage.
The cc�nsenus of those business owners/emplc�yecs present was this section should
be eliminatcd and [hat their should not be restrictions on the use of window
si�nagc or letlering, ln �articular �hcrc w:�s a concern that the 6 inch timit on
Ictter sizc w as lo reslriclive.
The Gity St.�ff response to the idca of climinating rest�ictic�ns on window signage
is this: the limi►ing of windc�w signage tc� 2S"lo of windaw area is fo� aethetie
rcasons. In rece�t monlhs thcre has been increasecl awareness by City Council
and by �he Community in general of urban design issues and specificaUy the
desire to have an allractive downtown. This awareness stems largety from the
Sludy and Presentations oi' the Staff of the Center far Urban Design of the
University of Minnesata which was conductecl several manths aga. Allowing
wind�w�; of cc�mmcrciaF I�uildings l�� he com��lctcly c�vered with signage would
e t
negativcly c[fect lhe ap�carance of those I�uildings and woufd detract [ram the
°Small-Town" Characler which is so deae ta the hearts of residents of
Rosemount. Further, if window signagc is uscd in licu of other permilted
signage (wall signs, pr freestanding signs) ttian more that 25°�0 of window area
could be devoted to signage. Regarding the limit Io a 6 inch letter size, the
intent of limiting tetter size was to avoid excessively sized lettering which would
he detract from lhe appearance of a commercial bui}ding. Clearing windocv
signage is geared to the pcdestrian and nc�t motorists. Wall and Freestanding
signs wl�ich do not have limiled letter size may clearly be more effectively used
for atlracling the attenlion of motorisls. Staf f w�uld suggest that the 6 inch
lelter size for Window signage is a reasonablc standard that pr�vides busincsses
with ample opportunity to catch the attention oI pedestrians without negatively
affecting the appearance of commereial buil�lings. Staff welcomes Ci[y Council
to consider this matter further if there is not consensus regarding this sub-
sectic�n. �
�ub-seclion 10 1 C 15• Portable signs or revolving beacons are allowed in
addilion to permanent signs only by temporary permit issued by the Community
Development Departmenl. The length of permits for revolving beacons or similar
deveices shall �ot exceed rhree (3) days and shall be issued a maximum of twice
per year. Pcrmits for portahle signs shall be issued a maximum of twice per
year for a maximum of fourteen {14) days per permit. Only one portable sign
per lot may be permitted.
Those husiness owners/em�loyees present at the September 7th meeting
recognized that some portable signs are unat�ractive in appearance but showed a
consensus that there should be more flexibility in the regulation of portabte
signs.
City Staff shc�uld note lhat onc of the biggcsl aesthctic probtems within the City
of Rosemounl in terms of number of complaints would be the yellow portable
signs used by many businesses. Both the Planning Commission and City Council
have clearly indicated that the use <�f those �ypes of signs should be restricted.
Tbe reslrictic>n on the use of lemporary or portable signs in thc Proposed Zoning
Ordipance is comparable to reqwirements of other area communities; specil'ically
it has been mc�deled closely after a com�arable �rovisi�n in the City of Lakeville
Zoning Ordinance. Rosemount is not alonc in having a growing awareness in
ec�mmunily �ippearanee ;u�d in laking inereasinb pride in promc�ting atlractive
commercial areas and regulation of portable signs is an importanl meehanism to
avoid visual clutler in lhe R�semounl's Commercial Districts.
Sub-scction 1O.,1, C�16: No sign shalt be painted directly on the exterior of any
building.
The business owners/employees present at the 5eptember 7th meeting did not
seem to understand the meaning of this provision.
This suU-section, just as it says, would preclude painting a sign directly onto a
wall surfacc. Thc main reason for this is t� avoid having signs painted onto
surfaces which are not suilable for signage and u�on which the painted sign will
rapidty fade or deteriorale so as to be unattractive or undesirable in appearance.
This section does not preclude a wall sign to be used where an appropriate
malerial is mounted on a wall upon which a si�n �vould be painted.
. 5
�t�b-section lU.l C; l8• Ril�hons, banners, pconanls, strings c►1' Iighls and sin�ilar
devices are allowed in acldition tc� permancnt signs only by temporary permit
issued by the Communily Ucvelormenl D�partmcni excert when temporarily used
for nan-commercial purposes. The length of permils shall nol exceed three (3)
Jays aud sltialt be issued a maximum of twice per year.
The business owner/employecs present at the Seplember 7th meeting voiced
concern thut this provisinn was ovcrly restricted and that i! should either be
me�Jificd or remcaved from the urdinance. Specificatly ihey recognixed that these
means of drawing attenlion to their businesses are very important in catching
the altention of the public.
In Jcvctc�pin� sub-se�tion 1t1.1 C'. 1A,� ('ity Slaff, the Planning Gommission, Anc1
C:ily ('uunci) concludcd thal Ribbc�ns, Banncrs, Pennants, Strings o[ Lights and
si�nilar devices are most a r� riat 1
e used to dver 's s eci v r I
pp p y a ti e p al e ents o sa es.
There was agreement that the carnival atmosphere they create is not appropriate
as a permanent fealure of the landscape in Rosemounl's Cc�mmercial Districts.
City Staff welcomes City Council to consider whether the proposed regulation of
this mcans of advertising is appropriate or whether this section warrants
modiCication. !t should be noted, again, that this section also is modeled closely
• after a similar provision o[ the City of Lakeville Zoning Ordinance.
�,y,¢��gctig�n• 101 C 19• Signs which advertise a business, activity, product or
service not located exclusively on the premises are probibited except as regulated
herein.
Those business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting asked
queslions as to why the City is so slricl in regulating nff-premise sign.
The City of Rosemount since its incurporation in 1972 has strictly regulated the
use of off-premise signs. ln reviewing tlie Proposed Zoning Qrdinance the
Planning Conimission and thc City Council recngnized that off-premise advertising
signs have a pptential adverse effect on the enviromen/, particularly ia how they
may effect residential districts. Because ot their overiding concern for the
appearance of the community the Planning C�mmissian and the City Council in
their review of the Proposet) Zoning Urdinance chose to Iimit the use of off-
premise advertising signs soley to praperly zoned (ieneral (ndustrial which does
n�l havc a t��eatandin� �ign fc�r an exi�ilin� huslnca� an the praporty, City
Staff sh�uld point out lhat thcre is a natic�nal awarencss c►f the blight whlch
billboarJs cause to our nations highways and that communities throughout the
country are now taking action to reslrict lhe use ot nff-premise advertising
signs.
S�b-scclion 101 C 21• The Plannin� C��mmission may impase stricter
restricliuns fcrr the I�cation c�f si�;ns whcn lhere is reasonahte evidence that any
such sign otherwise permitled may interfere with safe pedestrian or vehicular
movement.
The business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting asked
questions rcgarding the nced for this provision.
City Staff woulci comment that there are certain pro}�erties such as corner lots
where guaranteeing sight lines for motorists are not interupted is crucial for
^ �
ensurin� tratfic safety. Thc Planning Comniission would only choose to apply �
standard stricter than dictated by ordinance in an extreme situtalion where it
was determined that allowing signage that conformed to the ordinance could
cause a dunger t� the health, safct or wclfare �f th ul�lic. C'it ' ff w
Y e Sta oulci
P Y
nol rccommcnd that this sub-section be changcd.
C'ONCGUSION
As City Planner 1 have made an effort to summarize some of lhe concerns of the
Business C:ommunity regarcling the sign provision of the Proposed Zoning
Urdinance in order to relay these concerns to Cily Council prior to the
continuation af lhe public hearing to consider the ordinance on September 19th
($:UU �.m. - City Nall). I have also pr�vided a staff response to City Council
re ardin thes
g e uestions or concern
� s of lhe busines c mm n't
9 s o u �
Y•
I'I� Those business owners/emplc�yees who rnet with me on September 7th and ail
�ther members of the Rasemount Business Community should bear in mind that
! you a�e all welec�me to attend the Septembcr l9th Public hearing to comment
I� directly to Cily Council. !t is helpful tor Council to be aware of issues and
concerns of the public prior to a meeting so that they may better respond to
questions and also so lhat they have a better understanding of the issues.
I would like to thank those business awners/employees who taok time to meeC
with me on Sep�ember 7th. Your comments and questions regarding the
ordinance were very het�ful and have caused City Staff to ctosely exam the
reasoning hehinJ many �f the sign provisions included within the Proposed
2oning Ordinance. I appreciate the fact that thase present at the meeting
�aliently allowed me to explain the City's position regarding ihese sign
regulalion issucs even though many of your person�l oninions on the issues are
in cc�nflicl wilh the ardinancc. 1 am cert�in C`ity Cc►uncil will seriousl•y consider
yc�ur comments and concer�s anJ ynur hest way to ini'luence the process is to be
present at lhe Put�lic Hearing and to make comment to City C'ouncil. I urge you
to �ear in mind that City Council has na desire to be overly restrictive to
businesses regarding the use of signage, but, also that Council has a
responsiblity to protect the heaUh, safety and welfare af the public and must act
in the brst inlerest of the entire community.
I
�
, _.�---- �i . ..._ -
1 ,�O ' C_G�G>�C/G-- '
_ , °� �rv�y sL✓-�z,�,� ��r..�� �.�� �-- � G,�% ��v �oA,�s �� . �
`�� -?"�f is - - ,��0/�7 ;������v,�,/T` �rfA�I j�� �cz T�,� i���-T-�,r/�
�A� _`'- T.r/��Gi�
��l` Taking into consideration the curr�nt Sign Ordinance and the
revisions contemplated by the September 11, 1989 City Staff' s �--�-
(michael Wozniak' s) recommendations , a committee of the Rose- �
mount Chamber of Commerce makes the following comments , sug-
gestions and requests :
The ordinance be prefaced by a positive statement . We endo�se
the language in the current ordinance and object to the nega-
tive wordage (i.e. , "restrict" , "regulate" , "prevent") and
numerous provisions. Present language is concise and adopts
the purpose of the business community.
Provisions
C. 2 and C. 9 -- Business owners feel strong need for flexibility
in use of "read-out" type signage and intermittent lighting.
C. 10 -- �Strongly opposed; request be omitted. � .
� C. 11 -- Strongly opposed; too restrictive; business community
cannot tolerate this provision.
C. 12 -- Request be omitted; an �alternative might be a clarifi-
cation; strongly opposed to having flag area deb3.ted from any
other signage.
C. 14 -- Strongly opposed; request be om3.tted. �f reader
boards are scceptable far public notices, etc. , they should
alsa be acceptable to prc�mote business . •
C. 15 -- The maximum time limits are not realistic; much too
restrictive, The provision does not provide for seasonal use
or remote area use.
C. 1$ -- Strongly opposed; need ability to be creative and
flexible. The time limit it too restrictive (suggestion for
time use: 8 weeks per year) . _
C. 19 -- Strongly opposed; must have ability to be creative and
flexible. �
C. 21 -- Simply redundant.
C. 22 -- Request be omitted - see no merit in this provision.
The committee felt a need for additional
R E C E IV�D time to review this ordinance in depth
and glean information from other munici-
palities. The business community wishes
SEP 1 91989 to cooperate and coordinate with the
Gity management for a worlcable ordinance.
CL�RK'S OrFtCE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
SIGN COMMITTE� - MAILING LIST
Lucy Holzer
Floral Express
14495 South Robert Trail
Rosemount, MN 55068
John & Ann Loch
Loch Pharmacy
2975 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Diane Elling •
Dakota Central Ltd.
14450 South Robert Trail
Rosemount, MN 55068
Chuck Terry
Coast-Ta�Coast Hardware
14555 South Robert Trail
Rosemaunt, MN 55068
, Marie Jensen
Jensen Associates
14325 Cameo Avenue
Rosemount, MN 55b68
Richard Sens
Rasemount Marine
3316 151st Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Richard Corcoran
Corcoran Equipment & Appliance
2925 145th Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Paul Eggen
14450 South Robert Trail
, Rosemount, MN 55068
Sandy Gades
A-1 Rental & Sales
3320 151st Street West
Rosemount, MN 55068
Richard Carlson
Carlson Tractor & Equipment
15125 South Robert Trail
Rosemount, MN 55068
, OCT�BER 1889 MEMO FROM MEETING BETWEEN CITY STAFF AMD SIGN OFiDINANCE COMII`TEE
SIQN ORDINANCE REVIEW ,
DISCUSSION ISSUES
�ssu� ���,� s��
POS��ION �OS��ION ,
Purpose of Ordinance Proposed two Add purposes
( 10. 1 A. ) new purposes proposed by
� Chamber keep
3, 4, and 5
from City
Draft
Definition of Window Delete Retain
Sign ( 10. 1 B. )
Support of signs with Delete Retait�
Guy Wires ( 10. 1 C. 8. )
Use of intermittent, Delete Retai»
flashing or other type
of lighting which
changes intensity or
color when artificially
illuminated ( 10. 1 C. 9 . )
Regulations pertaining Delete Retain
Flags
Requirement of Address Delete Retain
Signs ( 10. 1 C. 13. )
Requirement excluding Delete Retain
Pivoting, moving,
rotating signs
�io. i c. i� . �
Restrictions on use Proposed 4 - 14 2 - 14 day
of portable signs day periodsJyear periods or 3 -
(10. 1 C. 15) 10 day periods
per year
No sign shall be . Delete Retain
directly on the
exterior surface of
any building
( 10. 1 C. 16)
• . ,
ISSUE �GREED UPON SOLUTION
1. Purpose of Ordinance Add two statements of purposed
(10. 1 A. ) proposed by the Committee and
keep purposed 3, 4, and 5 from
the City Draft.
2 . Definition of Windaw Sign Delete
(10. 1 B. )
3 . Support of sign with Modify as follows: 8. No
Guy Wires (10. 1 C. 8) permanent freestanding or
building mounted sing shall be
supported by guy wires.
4 . Use of intermittent, Retain
flashing or other type
of lighting which changes
intensity or color when
artificially illuminated
(10. 1 C. 11. )
5. Window signage area and Delete
letter size requirements
(10. 1 C. 13 . )
6. Requirement of Address Retain (Fire Code Requirementj
Signs (10. 1 C. 14)
7. Requirement excluding Retain
Pivoting, moving,
rotating signs
(10. 1 C. 14 . )
8. Restrictions on the use of Modify to allow: (4) 10 day
portable signs (10. 1 C. 15. ) period per year.
9 . Use of Ribbons, Banners, Modify to allow: (4) 10 day
Pennants, Strings of Lights, peridds per year.
etc. (10. 1 C. 18j
10. Regulations regarding Retain
Off-Premise Advertising
Signs (10. 1 C. 19)
11. No signs shall be closer Retain: except C-2 District
than ten feet from any
property line (10. 1 C. 20. )
Projecting signs are Delete Retain �
prohibited in all �
Districts
( 10. 1 C. 17 )
Use of Ribbons, Proposed 14 days
Banners, Pennats, 6 tifies per year
Strings of Lights,
etc. ( 10. 1 C. 18)
Regulations regarc�ing Delete Retain
Off-Premise advertising �
signs ( 10. 1 C. 19)
No signs shall be Delete Retain
closer ten feet from
any property line �
( 10. 1 C. 20 . )
Planning Commiseian Delete Delete
authority to impose
etrioter regs .
( 10, 1 C, 21) '
Landscaping require- Delete Delete
ment for signs
( 10. 1 C. 24
Rea1 Estate Signs Proposed (2 )
70 sq. ft. per
frontage for comm.
or ind. prop. (2)
• 24 sq. ft. signs
residential lot
frontage
` , �.j P CI BOX St0
� ��I�� � � � 2875-145TH ST W.
0������� ROSEMOUNT, MINN�SOTA �i5068
I &12-423-441 1
TO: ROSEMOUNT SIGN ORDTNANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAR, CITY PLANNER
DATE: DECEMBER 21� 1989
3UBJ: SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 19, 1989 MEETING TO DISCU88 SIGN
ORDINANCE ISSUES
This memo includes a list of the issues (sub-sections of Ordinance)
relating tp the proposed Sign Ordinance which have been recognized
as cancerns by the Sign Ordina�ce Committ�e. With ea�h issue is
lis�ed a mutually acceptable position which was agreed upon by
Commu,�ity Development Department Staff and Sign Ordinance Committee
Member� at the meet�.ng held on December 19t1�. The meeti�g included
excellent discussion about needs and inter�sts of> Rosemaunt
Businesses in regard to the use of signs for advertising. The
questions posed by the Committee and the cqmments and suggestions
have strengthened the process of drafting the sign ordinance.
Members of the Committee hav� challeng�d both technical details
regarding specific standards in the ordinance as well as more
philosophical issues of pressrYing apportunities for freedom of
speech. Although, �n�mbers of ti�e committee have expressed the fact
that they all hav� a personal stake in the sign regulations which
affect their busin�ss; a11 those who have been involved should be
commer�ded for a willingness to get involved in the pro�ess.
Assuming the Sign Ord�.nance Committee is in agreement with the
positions agreed upon at the D�cember 19th meeting th� next step
in the prQcess would be a r�yiew of a revised Sign Ordinance
(draft) by the Planning Commiss�.on tentatively at their January 9,
1990 Meeting. Following a Planning Commission recommendation the
n�xt step would be to reguest City Council to set a date for a
public hearing to consider amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
include the new sign seetion. Tf the Planning Commission makes a
recommendation at its January 9th meeting the sooriest the Council
would consider the amendment would be on February 6, 1990. Sign
Ordinance Committee Members will be notified by maii when the
meeting dates have been set. Every effort will be made to
entertain all questions and comments when the Sign Ordinance is
considered by the Planning Commission and City Council.
Listed below are the issues discussed and resolved by the Sign
Ordinance Committee and the Community Development Department Staff:
ISSUE AGREED UPON SOLUTION
1. Purpose of Ordinance Add two statements of purpose
(10. 1 A. ) proposed by the Committee and
keep purposed 3, 4, and 5 from
the City Draft, as modified.
ISSU� AGREED UPON SOLUTION
2. Definition of Window Sign Delete
(10. 1 B. )
3. Support of sign with Modify as follows: 8. No
Guy Wires (10. 1 C. 8) permanent freestanding or
building mounted sing shall be
supported by guy wires.
4 . Use of intermittent, Retain
flashing or other type
of lighting which changes
intensity ar color when
artificially illuminated
(10. 1 C. 9. )
5. Window signage area and Delete
letter si2e requirements
(io. 1 c. ii. )
6. Requirement of Address Retain (Fire Code Requirement)
Signs (lo. l C. 13)
7. Requirement excluding Retain
Pivoting, moving,
rotating signs
(�0. 1 c. 14 . )
8. Restrictions on the use of Modify to allow: (4) 10 day
portable signs (10. 1 C. 15. ) periods per year.
9. Use of Ribbons, Banners, Modify to allow: (4) 10 day
Pennants, Strings of Lights, periods per year.
etc. (10. 1 C. 18)
10. �egulations regarding Retain
Off-Premise Advertising
Signs (10. 1 C. 19)
11. No signs shall be closer Retain: except C-2 Uistrict
than ten feet from any
property line (10. 1 C. 20. )
12 . Planning Commission Delete
authority to impose
stricter regulations
(10. 1 C. 21. )
13. Landscaping requirements Delete
for signs (10. 1 C. 24)
ISSUE AGREED UPON SOLUTION
14 . Real Estate Signs Modified to allow: (2) 70 sq.
(10.2 A. 8. ) signs per street frontage for
commercial and industrial
properties and (1) 24 sq. ft.
signs per street frontage for
residential properties.
,
The changes and deletions to the original draft of the Sign Section
of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10) referenced above will be
incorporated into a new draft as quickly as possible, which will
be prepared for review by the Committee, Planning Commission and
City Council. If any Committee members have any questions about
the items referenced in this memo please feel free to contact me.
Many concerns expressed by the Committee have been addressed with
changes or deletions to previously unacceptable provisions. The
Sign Ordinance Committee has lobbied diligently for the rights of
businesses to effectively advertise and yet has shown a willingness
to compromise so that an Ordinance could be drafted to protect the
rights of the general public. The Sign Ordinance Committee should
bear in mind that the Planning Commission and City Cauncil may
modify the proposed Ordinance as they see fit and that Committee
Members are free to express any further concerns to the Commission
Members or Council Members. We look forward to prompt adoption of
a new Sign Ordinance and commend the members of the Sign ordinance
Committee for your patience and cooperation.
P O. $nX St(�
� ;���tf C)� � �r��s i�tirH s�i w �
� �(� � ROSEMUUN i. MINNES07A !,!�U6tl
`''������� 612--42:5 4411
TO: SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, CITY PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 5, 7,9�9 1�q�
/
SUBJ: MEETING DATE FOR PLANNING COMMI$SION REVIEW OF REVISED SIGN
ORDINANCE
Bec��se of a conflict with the Chamber of Commerce AWards Dinner
on �T�nuary 9th, review of . the revised Sign Ordinance by the
Pl��ning Comt�tission will �� pl�ced on the J�nuary 23, 1990 Planning
Commission 1�+I�eting Agenda. The meeting b�c�ins at S: pQ p,m. in the
Cou���,1. Chambers of City; Hall. Copi�� of the revised Sign
Ord�,nance will be mailed tq Committee Members prior to �he meeting.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding the
City review and adoption pracess.
��`�'� P.O BOX Si0
`./•�� (J 2$75-1457H ST W,
OS�7�'l UZ��� ROSEMOUNI. MINNESOTA 55068
��
612-423-d471
TO: PLANNIN(3 COMMI88ION
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CITY PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 17, 1989
SUHJi JANUARY 23� 1989 - REQULAR MEETINa REVIEWS
5c. �o�inq ordinance Amendment - Siqn Provisions
As tl�e Planning Cammission wi11 recall, City Couneil when it
adc�pted the �oning Ordinanc� �.� September, 1989, e�ected to pull
out �he proposed Sign Provisions and to retain the provisions from
the old Zoning Ordinance. This was do1�� because of concerns
expXessed by the business community that the new prov�.sions were
not fair and equitable for business.
Since that time City staff has worked With a Sign Ordinance
Committee appointed by the Etosemount Chamber of Commerce ta address
the concerns and come up with an acceptable compromise. �
Attached to this review are the �ollowing three items: copy of
!`�` �ign Provisions originally recQmmend�d by th� Planning Commission,
copy of inemo dated 12/21/89 to Sign Ordinance Committee explaining
issues of concerr� and agreed upon solutions, and copy of revised
Sign Provisions.
This information will also be copied to the 10 members of the Sign
Ordinance Committee and to Mayor Napper and City Coun��,l.
I will explain the changes which have been made at th� meeting and
it is exp�cted that member� af the bu�inea�s acmmunity �nd City
Council Membe�rs may be pre��snfi �t �he m�eting tc� ma}�� �omment or
ask questions of the Commission.
It is requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation
to City Council regarding the revised Zoning Ordinance Sign
Provisians.
This item will be discussed at 6: 00 p.m.
�
� TNE COUNTRY 5TORE
�ACTORY DtSTRIBUTORS
AND MFG. OF
FINE OAK FURNITURE
612-423-t 242
12000 So. Robert Trai1 Rosemount, MN 55068
January 23, 1990
Planning Cammission
City of Rasemount
Roaemaunt City Ha11
287� 145th Stre�t We�t
Rosemount, Minnesota ��068
Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment-Sign Provisions
Greetings:
The Country Store began business operations in 196.7 irt an area
zoned as an Industrial District by both the Village of Rosemount
and the Township of Eagan. At that time the area between Highway
3 and the buildings on our property was covered with old signs,
brush, boulders, and high banks of dirt. We literally spent
thousands of dollars to construct a safe driveway into our
property and to develop a lawn, which we have kept up since 1983.
In 19.76 we installed the signs at our location, but they were
small and not easily noticed. We tried to complement the signs by
advertising in newspapers at costs of up to $371.00 for a single
ad, however, newspaper advertising resulted in less than a 10�
increase in our sales. In May 1978 we replaced the old signs by
installing new high grade, quality signs of exterior hard core
plywood with a painted automotive finish and professional
letterinq to facilitate easy reading. Our sales doubled within
six weeks. Many of our custamers told us that they were draw� to
our location because of the presence of our signs. They also told
us that they had driven by our location many times without
realizing that a store selling exceptional wooden furrliture was
located here. This is understandable considering the fact that
our store is lacated 410 feet from the highway and in an area
that does not contain a great amount of retail space.
The Country Store is a family operated business and employs
members of three generations of our family. As a result of th�
increase in our business from our signs, our son left New Jersey
and purchased a home in Rosemount in order to participate in
running the store. Our employee payroll exceeds $30, o00.0U
annually.
� i THE �(�UNTRY STORE
�ACtORY DISTRIBUTOR�
AND MFG. OF
FINE OAK FURNITURE
612-423-1242
12000 So. Robert Trail Rosemount, MN 55068
Of the six signs which f'�ce Highway 3, four are located within
the city limits of Eagan and two within the city limits of
Rosemount. Our location is not surrounded by residential
development. The Gun Club adjoins our property on the North, the
Rosemount V.F.W. is located across the Highway to the West,
railroad track to the East, and several commercial establishments
are located nearby. We make fine quality oak furniture which we I
sell at affordable prices. Although a significant percentage of
our customers are from the Rosemount-Eagan area, many 'of our
customers stop-b� and purchase furniture 3tems as a direct result
of driving past our location and noticing ou signs. Indeed, it
would be difficult to predict how our businesa would fare without
our advertising signs. I am certain that if we are allowed a
variance to continue u�ing our present signs, we would be able to
keep our high quality and affordable prices.
Sincerely,
E"�JmCar��°- /��a�--
Clinton Kolb
�. .
�;;• � ,
;:�;
+ �l w c� �c>x y�o
� �,�lli� C) � 2a�s-ia5�rr��s7 w
p ,/ 130SEMUUld, MWNFSOTA ���.1)Ff'i
1 '� _ � ��G��(������ ti12 -423 �1.111
� + ,
L .
I;;`.
,:;
f'' Planning Commission
'i,��;;
!"; REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - Jf1NUARY 23, 1990
1;''�
ii; Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular Meeting of the Plannin� Commission was duly held on
j;;� January 23, 1990 at 5:00 p.m. Chairman Toombs callcci the meeting to order with members Hathaway,
�� � Huntington, Meyer and Jacobson present. Also present was City Planner Michael Wozniak, Community
��;'� �evelopment Director Dean Johuson and Building Official Ron Wasmund.
,
�
�`� � MOTION by Jacobson to approve the January 9, 1990 Regular Meeting Minutes as printed. Second by
'�C��' Meyer. Ayes: 5. Nays: O.
,�� : ,
j�� Hans Abrahamsen has submitted a rezoning petition to rezone two abutting metes and bounds parcels from
;� AG Agricultural to AG-P Agricultural Preserve. The praperty, cansisting of 110 acres, lies north of 160th
+4`; Street East and immediately east of Coates and is cantiguous to other properties owned l�y Mr.Abrahamsen
i(4;l currently enrolled in lhe Agriculture Preserve program. The Ag Preserves program guarantees agricultural
f�;:.• use of the properly for eight years and pravides a tax break for the owner. Staff has no concerns with this
�±;�� request and recommends approval of lhe rezonin�;. 'fhis is subject to C��uncil acdon subscquent to a
�'' required public hearing.
:' ' MOTION by Huntington recommending to City Council approval of the request of Mr. Abrahamsen for
!�' rezoning of the properties from AG Agriculture to AG-P Agricultural Preserves as submitted. Second by
!';'
;; ; �— Meyer. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. •
�;
��,
};�� City Planner Wozniak discussed an appGcation submitted by Herb Wensmann and his partnerstup [o amend
�'" the Com rehensive Guide Plan to redesi nate a roximatel 4b acres situated between Shannon Parkwa and
i ; p g PP Y Y
,,,, the westerly boundary of R,osemount from Agriculture to General Commercial and to add the property to
i'� the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Wozniak reminded the Commission that a similar request
�''! was brought before them in April, 1989 and ak that time it was recognized that the proposed site was in
��r�: �
Ih; �ot�tlict with the Comprehensive Guide Plan, hpwever, the Commission recommended further study of the
' " proposal by staff and Council. Council determined that it eould not consider a Comprehensive Guide Plan
� ,� Amendment citing concern for the potential of a negative impact in allowing commercial not contiguous to
�,::
�'i` existing commercial areas.
i'�+
��`� City Planner Wo2niak advised that the Commission analyze the goals, policies and objectives of the
��` Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan and dete'rmine whether the request for redesignation of the subject
��.';
�i''�� property to allaw a majar retail center use conforms t� or is in conflict with the guide plan and City of
;�
i�;:V Rosemount es[ablished policies. Specific issues to be addressed as identi6ea by Wozniak were as follows:
(i.;,;. 1) Is there a negative impact to the existing downtown and South Rose Park retail areas? 2) Is there an
� adequate mazket to support the proposed retail center? 3) Is the necessary infrastructure in place to serve
,;;
+'�"! the ro osed develo ment?
, P P P
� �� Tim Whitten and Rick Christensen, architects from Heise,Reinen,MacRae& Associates,and represent�tives
��I:',
��� fram Kraus-Anderson, a construction and management company, have joined in partnerslup with Herb
�.i Wensmann for development of the proposed retail center and were present to discuss their proposal. Mr.
�; Whitten maintained that their proposal does not deviate from the guide plan noting that, although presently
-` the site is not condguous with existing retail, the development represented a timing issue and that it is only
i;� a matter of time for retail uses to "fill in" along CSAH 42 between the South Rose Park center and the
''�� � subject property. The partnership believes that the retail center proposal is consistent witb the Star City five-
+I�� year plan to promote recail development and the Hoisin�ton-McComb report which suggests a retail use of
�`�� the property immediateiy to the west of South Rose Park is likely to be developed in the future and that
�� this proposal represents only a timing issue in being contiguous to other retail deveTopment.
i
;
i' .
� � � ` Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
i; �� •
� - January 23, 1990
; '
Page 'hvo
i� � �
i '� �
a;.' '
,:,,
�,;:; Rick Christensen briefly reviewed the proposed site plan for the retail center describing access, parking
f� � alignment, general design of the plat which includes two outlots, the "smatl town" architecture style and
'''� proposed phasing. Bruce Halbausch, Vice President of Marketittg for Kraus-Anderson, discussed the type
't"� of tenants they faresee and how they will compliment existing retail centers.
��I;
��� Therc wete sev�ral Rosemaunt businesses represcnted in tht audience and Ghai.rtnan Toocnbs opened up
y,, ; the Aoor to their comments. Ron Carlson, developer of South Rose Park, stated that he is currently working
�''�' on securing tenants for his approved center and finding tenant marketing very difficult. Another center
�` I
; woWd create a large retail inventory in Rosemount and represents a burden for anyone attempting to procure
occupants in exisling project areas. John Loch, Loch Pharmacy,indicated that, although competidon is goad,
�N�; , ariother pharmacy at this time could endanger his e�tisting business if the market is not there.
G�� i •,
'
Marie Jensen,land development realtor for Jensen and Associates, contended chat there i�a marke[for retail
�`�� � " space in Rosemount noting that people have been turned away be�use Rosemouat dpes not oller available
,E(� � ar ad�quate retail space. Mr. Whitten added that the developm�nt group sees reality in marketing of this
�' &i�e for tetail development. Mr. Halbausch stated there has been uo formal markeG evaluation at this dme.
�"�
�.
' ' , Cou3missioner Jacobson stated the Rosemount Comprehensive Guide Plan is the framework for decisions
��;';; in community development and that an amendment such as the one requested would diminish our "small
���� ' town" chazacter and should be opposed. He stated further that it is the Planning Commissiods responsibility
, to strengthen the "downtown" retail center and uphold the Rosemount Camprehensive Guide Plan unless our
citizens tell us otherwise.
��''
' Community Development D'uectar Dean John.S4n stated that the Citizen's Advisory Committee report has
��,; :--. not been formally acted on by Council, however, their findings would strengthen the goals of Rosemount's
� ;� comp plan.
���� � Th� Commission concurred that this matter be tabled to provide [hem rnore time for evaluation and invited
,f� Rosempunt businesses to attend their ne�rt. meeting for additional comment.
i���� ` ' ;
1V�O�UIY by Meyer to table action on the Rosemount ComprehenSave Guide Plan Ame�tdment Application
�, ,.. ° submikted by Herb Wensmann until the next t�gular meeting. Second by Jacobson. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
I�rI ° ; .
City Planner Michael Wozniak presented a revised sign ordinance for adoption into the new zoning
������ � ordinance. At the public hearing held by Council to adopt the new zoning ordinance significant concerns
�''" were expressed by members of the business community regarding the sign ardinance section. At that time
1;;,1 .
;,,; it was the decision of City Council to adopt the new zoning ordinance and retain the previous sign segment.
!r' A sign ordinance committee, comprised of communiry business representatives and city staff, was appointed
�' � to address concerns and revise the recommended sign ordinance for incorporadott into the new zoning
�,�'' re�ulations. Planner Wozniak highlighted the significant modificatians to the original sign regulations
.���.
�'�' � resolved by staff and the committee.
�
���
r
±,�.
The Sign Ordinance Committee and several community business representatives and City Councilmembers
were presettt in the audience for camment. Issues were raised regarding restrictions on the following: 1)
��;� fl ennants fla 2) clarification of strin s of li hts holida li hts • 3) time limitations on ortable si s•
�, P � 85s g g ( Y g )� P Sn �
i;�' 4) the absence of an appeal procedure; and 5) rotating/moving signs.
i i,; MOTION by Jacobson to defer action on the revised sign ardinance to allow further Planning Commission
�j; examination of the new draft ordinance amendment. Second by Meyer. Ayes: 5. Nays: 0.
��I
�;:.; �.
�:.;
�; .
�,�.�
,�;
i:;�
i''
;
�;
;:;,; •
���' ,', Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
� . .
i . .
' January 23, 1990
1.;�; ; P�ge Three
, ;,
; ,
; .; .
�, City Planner Wozniak thanked the sign committee for their participation in [he preparation of the sign
' ' ordinance and reiterated the Commission's invitation to the audience to attend the nex[ regular meeting at
, which time it is hoped that a recommendation will be made to Council regarding the sign regulations.
��i�
�i.�,!' MOTION by Toambs to adjourn. 5ecoad by Huntington. There being na further business to come before
� ; this Commission and upon ttn�nimous decision this meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
�'�
� Resp fully submit
� � � , � � '
�
, , �
i" �, +
�
,�k � Donna Quintus
���`# ' `� Recording Secretary
"�t � �� � � � � �
:i: ,
� .
�' ;
, �.
��
�
1 �.
,�i
;� '
1!(!� i �
{+ k..
lli�
i � `
i,��{
,�,� �
i��� �
,� � � � � �
4 :, . ,. . . . . .
� ,�ti' .. ' . .. � � � �. . �
�:�,,'. . . . .... � . .
).._.�. - . . . . �� �
�,.�� . � . � . . .
i)�:' .. � � � � � . .
� '' � . . . �. . . � .
��� .... � .... . .
��i i'i:'
:,�,:',, . .
�,i�
��:
fi��
�1%� •
�{iki�' � � �
,�i
� �
II�i`!' ; ;
I!'E�`
�`:ti; ;
i��
j;.�il . ��. . • .
.�,�.ilr j .
,�1�.1�, i� ._ .
��.
i��P,���� � .
I��',�., ' . . .
lil,��. . . .
:'id'
�.�,�.�.i' ' - .
,','f
..:'i,.�: .
.F'
,;I�. � �
i,i•'.
'�i
i�j„•
• ,�
��j F't7 f3t�X S10
���1 l �j� 2&75-1-�5�iH ti f W �
�y� t� y,��� ��y NOSEt�1C)Uhd� ti11tJNESOTA !i�u6p
V�G�I'��lL�-��� 6l'1.� 423�a•ilt
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP� CITY PLANNER
DATES FEBRUARY 8, 1990 •
�3
SUBJ: FEBRUARY ,$; 1990 - REt3ULAR MEETIN(3 REVIEWS
4a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Sign Ordinance Provisions
On January 23rd the Commission considered a Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment involving modification af Section 10 (Sign Provisions) .
Action on this proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment was tabled to
allow for further discussion at this meeting. The draft of a new
Siqn Sec�ian reviewed by the Commission was prepared by City Staff
after warking with a Sign Ordi�hance Committee composed of Rosemount
Business Owners and Operators.
At the last meeting I identified a few errors in the draft of
Section 10 which had been provided to the Commission and provided
correct copies. To assist the Commission in understanding the
changes which have been made to the original draft which was
referred to City Council by the Commission last summer I am
proyiding a copy of Section 10 (dated 2/6/90) which indicates all
language which has been deleted (with a line through it) and all
new language (with a dark background) .
The key issue discussed at the last meeting was the ordinance
language regarding portable , signs and ribbons, banners and
pennants, Council Member Ha�'ry Wilcox and business owner, Dick
Corcoran, both objected to the permitting requirements for these
temporary means of advertising. Both Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Corcoran
suggested that the City should not require permits for these
: temporary means of advertising and further that allowing these
types of signage to be utilized 4 times per year for 14 days per
permit may not be adequate to meet the needs of businesses.
The purpose of permitting signage beyond ensuring that signs are
inst�ll�d in a safe manner is to prov�.de th� �ity with �ome measure
of control over the appearance of the community. The language
requiring permits for portable signs or ribbons, banners and
pennants utilized for advertising is loosely written as does riot
specifically reference size limitations for these types of signage.
: It is the staff interpretation that the temporary advertising signs
would be required to meet the size criteria far permanent signage
in the zoning district the �ign wrruld be situated within. For
examp�.�: an Coxnm+arc�.al Zoned p=ap�rty � poxt�able �re����$anding
sign could be a maximum of 80 square feet in area and 20 feet high.
The reason ta require a permit �or the use of temporary signage is
i ---_
--
� w
` '
to ensure the City is aware of where temporary signage is beir►g
utilized, to ensure that it meets ' zoning ordinance dimensional
requirements, to ensure that it does not represent a safety hazard
and finally, to a11ow the City to monitor the length of time
temporary signage is being utilized.
Without a permitting procedure it is very difficult to enforce
zoning ordinance standards for use of temporary signage.
The question of how strictly a community should regulate the use
of temporary means of advertising is a diffi�ult one. Many
communities strictly regulate the use of temporary signs and
require permitting procedures and many communities do not. The
Planning Commission must in this instance utilize your knowledge
and feel for the community to decide what degree of control is
right for Rosemount.
Another is�ue which was brought up at the last meetinq was the idea
that sigr�s with flashing lights or revolving signs should be
allowed. The intent of not allowing this type of signage is to
avoid a circus atmosphere, to minimize long term mairttenance and
safety issue and to guard the aesthetic integrity of the community.
One must recc�gnize that personal tastes differ and this issue again
is ot�e the Commission must evaluate in respect to your own
individual values.
City staff recommends that the Planning Cc�mmission consider
recommending appraval to City Council of the draft of Section 10
(Signs) which is attached to this review.
� A
� •
P O BOX ",10
� � ��� �7� 2875-4457M5[ W
(' ROSEMUUt�I MINNESOTA 55ti6A
s-�
�v���'����� 612--423-4411
Planning Commission
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES - FEBRUARY 13, 1990
Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission was duiy held on
February 13, 1940 at 5:00 p.m. Acting Chairman Hunting�on called lhe meeting to order with members
Hathaway, Meyer and Jacobson present. Also present was City Planner Michael Wozniak and Community
Development Director Dean Johnson.
MOTION by Hathaway to approve the January 23, 1990 Regular Meeting Iviinutes as printed, Second by
Meyer. Ayes 4, Nays 0.
The Agenda was amended as fallows: Item 4b. DELETED (rescheduled to February 27, 1990 Regular
Planniug Commission Meeting at request of petitioner).
Upon receipt of a corrected draft of the propos�d revisions to SecCion 10 discussion of the Zoning Ortlinance
amendment regarding sigu ordinance provisions resumed fram the previous meeting. At that time severa}
Rosemount business represeniatives identiCied areas of concern of the proposed sign ordinance. Key issues
regarded lhe necessity for temporary signage permit and fee requirements, minimum duration and quantity
of times per year for temporary signage allowed and the use of ftags, banners, ribbons and pennants as a
temporary means of advertising. Cammissioner Jacabson conveyed Councilman Willcox's concurrence with
these issues as he had expressed at the previous Planning Commissiqn meeting.
City Planner Wozniak stated that although the Sign Urdinance Committee, cc�mprised of City staff and City
� of lt4semouut business delegates, did not reach a consensus on all issues, a compromise was reached with
the majority of [he committee comfortable with the regulations as presented. Planner Wozniak further
explained that the purpose for requiring the permitting of temporary signs is to assure safety in sign
inskallation, to examine whether vehicular or pedestrian safety is jeopardized, and to provide awareness to
the a�plicant of th� zaning ordinance dimensional standards.
Commissioner Jacobson expressed objection to increasing the minimum dimensional standards of real estate
signs to 24 square feet and, further, thal the original standard of 12 square feet was too excessive for real
estate signs.
MOTION by Jacobson to modify Section 10.2.7 of the draft praposal sign ordinance to reduce the allowed
square foolage of residential real estate signs from 24 square feet to 6 square feet. Second by Meyer.
Community Development Director Dean J�hnson discussed the potential for hardship to a few properties
that abut other uses ("busy areas") and that consideration should be given �o multiple residential districts
where larger sigiis may be warranted.
Commissioner Jacobson withdrew his MUTlON and Commissioner Meyer withdrew his Second.
MOT[ON by Jacobson to modify Section 10.2.7 nf the draft proposal sign urdinance to allow a maximum
of six (6) square feei for residential signs in the R-1 District; and to allow a maximum of twelve (12) square
fcet for residcntial sibns iit thc R-2, R-3 and R-4 Distrirls. Secund Uy Mcy�r. Ayes: 4. Nays: t).
�+,, Mr. Chuck Terry, Coast-[o-Coast Hardware, was in attendance and reiterated his and other business owner's
objec[ions to sign permit fees and the use of ribbons, banners, pennants, and strings of lights as temporary
signage only. tie slaled that some businesses rely on this lypc of adverlising �lue to obscure location of their
businesses.
� ` ' Regqlar Ptanaing Comrnission Meeting Minutes
� } February 13, 1990
Page 'hvo
The Planning Commission concurred that a reasonable c�mpromise had been reached by staff and the Si�n
.- Ordinance Commi[tee on the use of this �ype of tem�orary signage cansidering the original draft prohibited
them except when [emporarily used for n�n-commercial purposes.
Commissioner Jacobson reminded those in attendance that they will have the opportunity for furcher input
and comment at a required public hearing to be scheduled by City CounciL
MOTION by Huntington [o recommend to City Council approval of Section 10 Signs for inclusion in
Ordinance B - City of Rosemount %ning �rdinance. Second by Jacobson. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0.
MOTION by Jacobson recommending ta Council consicieration of eliminating fees for sign permits or the
es[ablishmen[ of a minimum si�;n permit fees necessary for compensation in offsetung administrative costs;
and, further, recommended Council authorize the creation of a list of businesses for distribution of the
proposed Sign Ordinance for thcir review and subsequent camment at a puhlic hearing. Second hy Meyer.
Ayes• 4. Nays; 0.
City Planner Michael Wozniak reviewed�+ith the C�mmission a request from 12CD Real Estate Partnership
fo�' a tnetes and bounds division of property. The resulting 10-acr� �arcel is situated on the north side of
lb(}L� Street �tnd east of the new AAA Auto S�lvage property. The purpose of this reguest is t4 allow
Kn���on Rubbish to purchase this parcel for deY�lopment of a proposed recycling center. The property in
question is currendy zoned AG Agriculture and the proposed division is consistent with Zaning Ordinance
frontage and lot area requirernents far the Agricullure District.
MOTION by Huntington to approve the request from RCD Real Estate Partnership for a metes and bounds
parcel division as submitted. Second by Meyer, Ayes: 4. Nays: 0.
City Planner Wozniak discussed an application submitted by Daniel Sowles of L.H..Sowles, Inc. for a
'~� Rosemount ComprehenSiY� Guide Plan Arnendment to redesignate SS acres from Agriculture to General
Indus�rial. The property is located between County Road 42 and County Road 38 just west of STH 52. The
in��t�t of the applicant is 4o subsequently subdivide the 55-acre parcel for induslrial development.
Mr. �d Dunn, properly owner, inU�aduced Dan 5owles whc} descriUcd his company which manages and
operates tower cranes used in high-rise construction. The company �rects stcel framing on major buildings,
builds bridges and places large equipm�ent for industrial develapmeni. Presently, Mr. Sowles is proposing
ta ukilize only five acres of the site for equipment storage and as a maintenance facility for his business.
In evaluating the Guide Plan Amendment Applicalian staff did not identify any conflict with Community
Developm�nt Gaals, Objectives and Policies; howcvcr, th� prescnt guid� plun does no[ have a provision for
extension of public water and sanilary sewer to the sile in question. This c�uld become a signiCicant issue
in addressing the 6re suppression needs of future industrial development. The proposed industrial subdivision
raises some implicaqons regarding fire protection, streets, potable water and the capacity of the Rosemount
Sewer Trea[ment Plant for potencial future provision of sanitary sewer.
Commuruty Development Director Dean Johnson informcd the Commission that at a City Council and staff
"goals session° thc issuc of in�iuscrial dcvelopmtnl in castcrn Rc,semouut was adciressed as a priority issue.
Cnncc;ra was cxpress�d al lhis s�ssioir that appropriu�c �I��vcl���>iu�nt is accunu��u�atcd in et�slcrn R<�scmc�ui�t.
An upclale and revisions to Che Roscniaunt Coinprcl�en,ive Guide Plan is scli�duled to begin this ycar wilh
anticipated campletion in June, 1991. Staff recommends deferm�nt of any guide plan ameadraents in eastern
Rosemount until a more in-depth scudy of this area is held by Council, staff, Planning Commission and lhe
public to determine what uses are appropriate for this area.
Commissioner Jacobson stated he felt the request was directly contrary io the guide plan objective to
r^ promote and encourage long-term agriculture uses of which this property has been designated. Mr.Jacobson
concurred with staff's recommendation to defer this request until further stuJy identifies whether industrial
development of this site is appropriate or if long-term agricultural use should be promoted.
' � , Regular Plannic�; Commission Meeting Minutes
, � �'ebruary 13, 1y90
Page Three
,--- MOTION by Huntingtan to recommend to City Council that considerati�n of the L.H. Sowles Comprehensive
Guide Plan Amendment application b� deferred until the City has completecl revision of the Goals, Policies
and Objectives of the Rosemount Comprehensive Guicic Plan. Second by Jacobson. Ayes: 4. Nays: 0.
The Planning Commission was in agr�ement that the designation of uses fc�r easEern Rosemount be a priority
item in scheduling the guide plan revisions for preliminary indication to [he applicant for future approval or
disapproval of his redesignation request.
Solberg Aggregate Company has submitted a Ftosemount Comprehensive Guicie Plan Amendment application
to redesignate a 10-acre parcel fram AG Agriculture ta IG General Industrial. This parcel is situatecl
immediately east of STH 52 and narth of County Road 42.
Bob Solberg, property owner, stated his sand and gracel mining and bituminous paving business currently
opezates frQm an 80-acre parcel south of Koch ReGning. K�ch Refining has purchasec� his present site and
he is leasing the property for three years. Mc, Solberg stated he wants to relocate his qtf'ice and equipment
storage t4 the subject 10-acre site. He stated further that his operation does not reguire fire suppression,
nor �re they � higl� water and sewer user with only six full-time employees. Mr. Solberg also stated that
the City should consider that large industries control a majority of the inciustrial property with very few
industrial use parcels available for small industry acquisitian.
Community Development Director Dean Johnson stated that, although this rcquesl differs from that of L.H.
Sowles because it is a straight land use question, slaff recommends defermenc of action. The evatuation
of this request should relate to the process of the total revision of the Rosemount Comprehensive Guide
Plan, especially in regard to induslrial land use issues for eastern Rosemount.
Commissioner Huntington reiterated thc Planning Commission recommenda�itm that eastern Rosemount land
use be a priority ia the review and revisi�ns of lhc guicle plan.
MUTIOlw1 by Jacobsan rec,ommending to City Counci( thal consideration of the Solberg Aggregate Company
Compreheusive Guide Pian Amendment application be deterred until'the Ciry has completed revision of the
Goals, Pplicies and C?bjectives of the Rosemot�nt Comprehensive Guide Plan. Second by Hathaway. Ayes:
4. Nays: 0.
Comxnissioner Jacobson apprised the Commission of a �ublic hcaring w�hich was held February 12ch
regarding the Dakota County incin4ratar issue� He stat�d that the Cily 4f Rosemount shauld consider the
objectives of our commtuxity in which the Rosemount Cc�mpr�hensive Guidc Ylan promotes the eontinugtian
of the University property as being consistent wilh agricultural uses and lhat the use of the University
property as an ittcinerator site represents a significant deviation from that objective.
MOTION by Hathaway to adjourn. Second by Hunting�c�n. There being no further business to come before
this Commission and upon unanimous decision this mecting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
Res ctfully submitt
, �
Donna Quintus
Recarding Secre[ary
� r�„'"
, �,
� �
� �� NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY
� �
CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
,�� ' 130t Corporate Center Drive It116
��`� ' � Eagan, Minnesota 55121 612-452-9872
� � ` , Serving
�� Eagan Chamber of Commerce �
; �T Mendofa Heiyhls Chambc�r ol Commarce
� � � Ho;umourH Chamber of Comrnerce �
� � Wesl S1. Paul Chamber of Comrnorce
ancl Ih� Citic�s of Lilydat�, Mendot.� and Sunhsh L.aku
M:it c,li 1;1, 1l1�)(!
Mayor Vernon Napper
Council Member Dennis Whipperman
Council Member Sheila Klasson
Council member Harry Wilcox
Council raember John Oxborough �
City Staff
City af Rc�semount
2�375 West 145th Street
12asemot�nt, Mn 55068
ilc�norF�blc� M<<yc�r and Council M�mbar�:
A1'1.er rcvicwinb tAc� 2'in�t1 druYt of the prop�sed Sign Ordin.inec,
Lhe Hosemc�unt ChamUer �P CommercQ is raquestin�; the �ollowin�
ch.�n�•es bc� c�nsidorod:
1 . Acid a definition �or "ribl�ons, banners, pennants
and strings of lights".
2. Section 1p. 1 - (C), ,�r�er�eral Provisions, #�`17• Delete
restrictions and permit requirements for ribb�ns,
banners, pennants ancl strings of lights ar•d substi-
ttite a provision to require removal if not properly
maintained.
:3. Section 10. 1 - (C) General Pr�visions #14: Allnw
beacons ior three 3 days each, six fi times a
year. Al1ow portable signs up to ten ( 10) days
each, six (6) times a year.
4. Section 10.2 - (A,) All Districts; "Real Estate
Si� T,�ns'`: Change total square Yootage allowed in
commercial/industrial areas fram seventy (70) square
feet to ninety-six (96) square Yeet to allow use
of standard 4 x 8 signs.
5. Section 10.2 - (E) Si;gns Allawed By Permi� In
Commercial and IP Districts #1t Change free
� A«, '
� ��:�
J� I����
, T�1�e 2
standin� sign for each principal structure to
nne-hundreci ( 1Q0) square Yeet with a maximum hei�ht
o� twenty-five (25) f�et.
G. Scr.tic�n 1O.2 - (�: Si�;ns Aliowed I3y permit Tn
Comru�r�i,�1 uncl IP Districts #�3: Ch�ingo wull si�;ns
tc� �i�lc�w u�� t� twonty 2� poreQnt c�f tho total
urcu oP Lhc: w�tills. Hcsmc�va �he re:Coronco to c�mpli.-
inc�nl.:iry cic�c�i.�na, �imilur stiat��c�s �ind �i�n �ir�Fis ( Lc�o
vuhuc� <<nci mt.c�l�uclin�) .
7. Sc�r.Lic»1 1().'l - (I�) Si �►s Ax.lowc�c! Ii� Pc�rmit l.r� Tc;
I)��Lx�ic4:�, #�: (�,hitn�� ttio troc� st��ncilnK t�i�n Yc�r
u.►c:ti ��rin�i��t�l t�tructurc� to caaa t�undrod ( 1(1l)) r�c�u.�rc:
('eet w.�th ;� maximum hui�ht oY twenty-Yivo (25) fc�r.t..
8. Section 1(�.2 - (F) Si ns Allt�wed B Permit In �G
Districts, #2: A11ow up to twenty 2� per cent of the
tatal are i�the wa11 for sign.
9. Section 10.2 - (F.) Signs Allowed By Permit Tn IG
Districts, #5: Eliminate the time restrictions of
illuminat3.on of the off-premises signs as in mast
instances tho signs are controlled by phato-electric
eyes uutomatically.
1U. Allow temporary sigri permits to be ot�tained by pt►one ut
no charge.
Wc Cc�r�l i.hesc� chunges aro requir�ci t� a11ow �is thc Yloxi l�i 7 i ty <<nci
cre.�tivi Ly i.c� Qf�octivc;ly �[rx�te Uoth thc� existing busi�ic::��es iii
ltosc:mc�ttnL �unci uny new busines€� th<it would like to lc�cate herc
withc�ut �i�lm���;ing or diminishing tho intent of the Sign Or�i.in�ince.
7'hunk yc�u �or your considoratir�n in this m�►ttcr.
Sincerely, . �
�20S�MO[)NT CUAMBER OI�" COMMERC�
,Q , �/ �
l►-���"'i �,''v��s'"l
Richarci Carlson, �den�
}2C:db
,