HomeMy WebLinkAbout8. Continuation of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Review , � . , � �
1 P.O. BOX 510
Zl� � 2875-145TH ST. W.
^�Q,�AOu�� ROSEMOUNT. MINNESOTA 55068
V G I!'i� 612-423-4411
Agenda ltem 8
T�: Mayor, City. Council, City Administrator
FROM: Dean Johnson, Director of Community Development
DATE: September 15, 1989
SUBJ: Item 8 - Zoning Hearing
Pd like to take the opportunity to provide you with a summary, oa the Zoning
Ordinance adoption procedure to date.-As yau are well aware, we have completed' an
intense, detailed and lengthy review process by the Planning Commission and'' City _
Council over the past two years.` We have held two separate public hearings in-August
to receive public input. We have a third hearing opportunity on the 19th for the
"new" testimony, which is in response to concerns about the sign provisions of the
proposed ordinance.
Based upon comments received at the past two hearings, staff have no
recommendations for additions or modifications to the ordinance, other than those
minor procedural revisions outlined by Mike Wozniak at the hearings. We have had
two meetings with the business community since the last hearing, which have resulted
in suggestions for revisions to the sign "ordinance." There are some recommendations,
based on this input, that I would like to put forward at this time.
Mike hosted a meeting last week with several business teaders. The comments ranged
from rather hostile objeetions to literally-any type of regulation to some very genuine
and constructive suggestions for revisions. The latter allows the City the opporiunity
to understand concerns and suggest appropriate revisions, while the former doesn't ,
present an opportunity to respond at alL
Mike has outlined the comments from the business community in a memo to"the Gity
Council, dated September 11, 1989. The comments are rather limited in scope when
compared to the entire content of the sign provisions. I wonld hope that these
comments are an indication of the extent of the concerns, since the City Council
extended the comment period specifically for this purpose. Staff have made every
effort to encourage input from the business community and be prepared to respond
in time for the remaining public hearing. Obviously, new testimony is acceptable at
the hearing as well. We are simpiy attempting to address all issues in a timely
fashion and avoid unnecessary delays in the adoption of the ordinance.
There are nine specific issues identified in Mike's 9/11/89 memo. I would like to
briefly comment on each one.
The first regards a provision intended to avoid a public safety issue. Mike has
suggested language revisions that address the concerns of the business coramunity.
The second regards "flashing" signs and electronic reader boards. This is a subjective
ordinance provision. The current language prahibits flashing lights and "moving
messages." It is strictly an aesthetic consideratioa; although, there are strong
arguments that in certain lacations and with certain signs, the disxractions represent
potential hazards. These types of regulations are intended to provide consistency in
signage use rather than restrictions. Are blinking signs and message boards aeeded
to promote retail and service uses in the community? This is the question that the
Council must address. It's an all or nothing provision. There is no mid ground.
' , ' ` September 19 1989 �cil Agenda Item $ �
Zoning Hearing
Page Two
The third regards hours that business signs may be illuminated. This reference comes
from other city ordinances implemented in the late 70's and early 80's. It was
specifically related to trends responding to the energy crisis. "Purpose ao. 7" in the
beginning of the sign provisians accounts for this wording. At this point in time we
recommead deleting this provision in its entirety.
T�e fourth regards window signage. This is also a subjective standard, but it is not
either/or. Windows and skylights are architectural treatments which guarantee
natural light and aesthetic considerations. This type of regulation is meant xo prevent
total visual intrusion thraugh signage coverage. It is not meant to be overly
restrictive and eliminate advertising potential. Whether the regulation is 35%
coverage and 12-inch lettering or 25% and 6-inch lettering, I believe there is need for
a particular standard to provide consistency and uniformity.
The fifth and seventh items are similar issues, relating to temporary sigaage and
advertising 'gimmickry. Presently, these sections require temporary permits' for
po;tabte signs and banners,; beacons and the like. We have suggested two 14-day
permits each 'year for the portables and two 3-day permits for the others. As in the
case of the window signs, some type of regulation is necessary to maintain consistency
and avoid unregulated and unIimited use of such devices. 0ur recommendations came
from other city ordinances. Many cities are more restrictive, some are less restrictive.
Apple Valley is similar to our language, while Lakeville suggests three IQ-day permits
rather than two 14-day permits. : This is an item that simply requires consensus on a
particular standard.
The sixth regards painting sigas directly on `the exterior surface of a building. I
don't believe there was as much objection to this provision as there was a request for
clarification. This is a rather standard provision in sign ordinances and is intended
to prevent the worst case from occurring. We allow wall'signs to be affixed in all
commercial districts, up to 15% of the total wall area. This language does aot prevent
advertising opportunity, it simply sets a minimum standard to protect other's
investments and the public interest.
Tre eighth xegards the °location" of business signs. ` In our existing ordinance we do
not allow signs to be located off the site of the business itself. We are not progosing
any change to that. This is an "either/or" provision with little or no mid ground. An
example is when a business has frqntage on a "back street" and wants a sign on the
main roadway. In order to be fair and consistent in sign regulations, all businesses
would be given this opportunity. The businesses along the main roadway will have
their own permitted signs and then the City must set standards for the location and
spacing of a conceivably unlimited number of other signs. Our restriction is typical
of sign ordinances, including our existing provision.
The ninth and last regards a safety provision. As is the case with all other provisions
of the zoning ordinance, public health, safety and welfare is the basis for regulation.
This particular reference gives the Planning Commission the authority to �uarantee
public hea2th, safety and welfare. If an applicant feels the Planning Commission has
outstepped its authority, there is an appropriate appeals process in place to protect the
rights of the applicant. I can't recommend any changes in this provisioa.
I am aware that the Chamber of Commerce has made a recommendation to adopt the
Zoning Ordinance, with exception to the sign provisions. It would appear that the
in t think
ma'orit of the ro osed si n lan ua e is not in dispute. It is disappoint g o
J Y P P � g 8
that the time and effort of the Planning Commission and City Councii over the past
two years is met with this conclusion. It appears that efforts of city staff during the
past two weeks to resolve conflicts are unsatisfactory. It simply hurts to get this far
and not seek resoluCion.
� . = September 19, 1989 �Incil Agenda Item 8 *
Zoning Hearing
Page Three
I respect the awareness of the Chamber to keep the balance of the Zoning Ordinance
adoption on track. I also believe that the Chamber is interested in reasonable,
consistent regulation which not only protects the non-business community, but protects
invest�ent by the business cammunity. My remaining concern is when we can resolve
the issues.
If the comments at the public hearing suggest that there are many ather issues in the
sign ordinance that have not been presented to staff, the Council must evaluate the
pros and cons of not taking action on the sign provisions. Perhaps the issues can be
resolved at the meeting itself. In any event, I agree with the Chamber that the
Cocncil should not delay action on the balance af the Zoning Ordinance.
As noted in the beginning of this memo, we have no recommendations to cause the
revisions to the balance of the Zoning Ordinance. If the Council feels uacomfortable
adopting the proposed sign provisions, then you must incorporate the existing controls
into the proposed ordinance. We can expand upon these scenarios at the meeting if
desired.
. ' � ,
P.O. BOX 510
1�'�j Q 2875-145TH ST. W.
Q��n M ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068
�SG 1I'L��11�� 612-423-4411
TO: ROSEMOUNT BUSINESS OWNERS/EMPLOYEES
FROM: MICHAEL WOZNIAK, AICP, CITY PLANNER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1989
SUBJ: COPY OF REVIEW FOR CITY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 19TH PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE: SIGN
PROVISIONS
One Thursday, September 7, 19$9, I met with a group of Rosemount Business
Owners & Bmployees to discuss the sign provisions of the Praposed �oning
Ordinance. 'Those present at that meeting voiced some valid concerns ;regarding
the effect the ordinance `could have on their ability to -use signage "to bring
attention to'their businesses. `
I informed those present at the meeting that I would happy to incorporate their
comments into my review for City Council prior -to continuation of the Public
Hearing to consider the Zoning Ordinance on September 19th. At our meeting
on September 7th we reviewed the entire section of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance relating to signs and identified those sub sections which the business
owners/employees present thought should be changed or at least further
discussed by the City Council. In this revi,ew I have indicated which sub-
sections of Section 10 are of concern to the business community and further,
have tried to summarize what the concerns or problems invalve. Lastly, I have "
�iven a staff response as to why the language was drafted and ' alsa, have
included recommendations from City Staff as to whecher any changes should be
made based on my September 7th meeting with business owners/employees.
StJB-SECTIONS OF CONCERN T0 THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY
� �ub-section 10.1. C. 2.: No sign shall contain colors, shapes, intermittent
lighting or words such as "stop", "warning", "caution", etc. which may be
confused with traffic signing or controls unless such signs are intended and
approved for such use.
The concern of those business owners present at the September 7th meeting
regarding this provision was that it may preclude the use of signage where the
use of the words stop, warning, caution, etc., would not represent a traffic
hazard that could be confused with public safety signs.
Based upon discussion at the September 7th meeting staf f will recommend to
Council that Sub-section 10.1. C. 2. be modified to read as follows:
No sign shall contain colors, shapes, words such as "stop", "warning",
"caution", etc. which may clearly be confused with traffic signing or
controls unless such signs are intended and have been approved by the
City for such use.
` � �
u - i n 10. C. 9.: No sign shall contain intermiitent, flashing or other type
� af tighting which changes in intensity or color when artificially illuminated,
except time and temperature signs.
Those business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting had two
main issues with this provision. First, their appeared to be a consensus that the
use of fIashing lights should not be excluded. Secondly, their also seemed to be
agreement that businesses should be allowed to use electronic reader boards.
First, I should clarify the position of City Staff regarding this provision. The
use of flashing lights or lights which change cotor in Chrisimas Decorations
would not be in violation of this provision. Further, the display of christmas
lights which may flash or change color, and are for retail sale would not be in
violation of this provision provided they are clearing associated with the
Christmas Holiday. The only restriction on lighting associated with Christmas
would be if excessive lighting is used which clearly is a distraction to motorists
and a safety hazard.
City Staff continues to recommend to City Council that the use of flashing lights
or lights which change color for purposes other than Christmas decorations is
inappropriate and should not be allowed. Further, City Staff recommends that
exterior electronic reader boards do represent a distration and potentional hazard
to motorists that should not be allowed. This does not preclude the use of fixed
reader boards that do not move electronically.
� Sub-section 10.1 C. 10.: Business signs may only be illuminated during business
hours.
Business ownersJemployees present at the September 7th meeting thought that
this provision was excessive and should be removed.
After review City Staff has recognized that this provision was inadvertently left
in the current draft of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and that it should be
removed. Not only would this provision be unfair to businesses but it would also
be difficult to enforce. :
,� Sub-section 101 C. 11.: Window sign or lettering shall not exceed 25% of the
total window area in which they are displayed, provided further that lettering
does not exceed six (6) inches in height. Exceptions will only be permitted
when window signs are used in lieu of other germitted signage.
The consenus of those business owners/employees present was this section should
' be eliminated and that their should not be restrictions on the use of window
signage or lettering. In particuiar there was a concern that the 6 inch limit on
letter size was to restrictive.
The City Staff response to the idea of eliminating restrictions on window signage
is this: the limiting of window signage to 25% of window area is for aethetic
reasons. In recent months there has been increased awareness by City Council
and by the Community in general of urban design issues and specifically the
desire to have an attractive downtown. This awareness stems largely from the
SCudy and Presentations of the Staff of the Center for Urban Design of the
University of Minnesota which was conducted several months ago. Allowing
windows of commercial buildings to be completely covered with signage would
. ' � �
negatively effect the appearance of those buildings and would detract from the
"Smali-Town" Gharacter which is so dear to the hearts of residents of
Rosemount. Further, if window signage is used in lieu of other permitted
signage (wall signs, ar freestanding signs) than more that 25% of window area
could be devoted to signage. Regarding the limit to a 6 inch letter size, the
intent of limiting letter size was to avoid excessively sized lettering which would
be detract from the appearance of a commercial building. Clearing window
signage is geared to xhe pedestrian and not motorists. Wall and Freestanding
signs which do not have limited letter size may clearly be more effectively used
for attracting the attention of motorists. Staff would suggest that the 6 inch
letter size for Window signage is a reasonable standard that provides businesses
with ample opportunity to catch the attention of pedestrians without negatively
affecting the appearance of commercial buildings. Staff welcomes City Council
to consider this matter further if there is not consensus regarding this sub-
section. �
� Sub-section 10.1. C. 15.: Portable signs or revolving beacons are allowed in
additian to permanent signs only by temporary permit issued by the Community
Development Department. The length of permits for revolving beacons or similar
deveices shall not exceed three (3) days and shall be issued a maximum of twice
per year. Permits for portable signs shall be issued a maximum of twice per
year for a ma-ximum of fourteen (14} days per permit. Only one portable sign
per lot may be permitted.
Those business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting
recognized that some portable signs are unattractive in appearance but showed a
consensus that there should be more flexibility in the regulation of portable
signs.
City Staff should note that one of the biggest aesthetic problems within the City
of Rosemount in terms of number of complaints would be the yellow portable �
signs used by many basinesses. Both the Planning Commission and City Council
have clearly indicated that the use of those types of signs should be restricted.
The restriction on the use of temporary or portable signs in the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance is comparable to requirements of other area communities; specifically
it has been modeled closely after a comparable provision in the City of Lakeville
Zoning Ordinance. Rosemount is not alone in having a growing awareness in
community appearance and in taking increasing pride in promoxing attractive
commercial areas and regulation of portable signs is an important mechanism to
avoid visual clutter in the Rosemount's Commercial Districts.
� Sub-section 10.1. C. 16: No sign shall be painted directly on the exterior of any
building.
The business owners/employees present at the September 7th meeting did not
seem to understand the meaning of this provision.
This sub-section, just as it says, would preclude painting a sign directly onta a
wall surface. The main reason for this is to avoid having sigas painted onto
surfaces which are not suitable for signage and upon which the painted sign will
rapidly fade or deteriorate so as to be unattractive or undesirable in appearance.
This section does not preclude a wall sign to be used where an appropriate
material is mounted on a wall upon which a sign would be painted.
• ' , � ,
� Sub-section 10.1 C. 18: Ribboms, banners, pennants, strings of lights and similar
devices are allowed in addition to permanent signs only l�y temporary permit
issued by the Community Develapment Department except when temporarily used �
for non-cammercial purposes. The length of permits shall not exceed three (3)
days and shall be issued a maximum of twice per year.
The business owner/employees present at the September 7th meeting voiced
concern that this provision was overly restricted and that it should either be
modified or removed from the ordinance. Specifically they recognized that these
means of drawin� attention to their businesses are very important in catchin�
the attention of the public.
In developing sub-section 10.1 G 18., City Staff, the Pianning Commission, and
City Council concluded that Ribbons, Banners, Pennants, Strings of Lights and
similar devices are most appropriately used to advertise special events or sales.
There was agreement that the carnival atmosphere they create is not appropriate
as a permanent feature of the landscape in Rosemount's Commercial Districts.
City Staff welcomes City Council to consider whether the proposed regulation of
this means of advertising is appropriate or whether this section warraats
modification. It should be noted, again, that this sectioa also is modeled closely
after a similar provision of the City of Lakeville Zoning Ordinance.
� Sub-section: 10.1 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
questions as to why the City is so strict in regulating of f-premise sign.
The City of Rosemount since its incorporation in 1972 has strictly regutated the
use of off-premise signs. In reviewing the Proposed Zoning Ordinance the
Planning Commission and the City Council recognized that off-premise advertising
signs have a patential adverse effect on the enviroment, particularly in how they
may effect residential districts. Because of their ov�riding concern for the
appearance of the community the Planning Commission and the Gity Council in
their review of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance chose to limit the use of off-
premise advertising signs soley to property zoned General Industrial which does
not have a freestanding sign for an exisiting business on the property. City
Staff should point out that there is a national awareness af the blight which
billboards cause to our nations highways and thaL communities throughout tke
country are now taking action to restrict the use of off-premise advertising
signs.
J� Sub-section 10.1 C. 21: The Planning Commissiqn may impose stricter
restrictions for the location of signs when there is reasonable evidence that any
such sign otherwise permitted may interfere with safe pedestrian or vehicular
movement.
The business owners/emptoyees present at the September 7th meeting asked
questions regarding the need for this provision.
City Staff would comment that there are certain properties such as corner lots
where guaranteeing sight lines for motorists are not interupted is crucial_for
. ! . � , � �
ensuring traffic safety. The Planning Commission ,would anly choose to apply a
standard stricter than dictated by ordinance in an extreme situtation where it
was determined that allowing signage that conformed to the ordinance could
cause a danger to the health, safety or welfare of the public. City Staff would
not recommend that this sub-section be changed.
CONCLUSION
As City Planner I have made an effort to summarize some of the concerns of the
Business Community regarding the sign provision of the Proposed Zoning
Ordinance in order to relay these concerns to City Council prior to the
continuation of the public hearing to consider the ordinance on September 19th
(8:00 p.m. - City Hall�. I have also provided a staff response to City Council
regarding these questions or concerns of the business community.
Those business owners/employees who met with me on September 7th and all
other members of the Rosemount Business Community should bear in mind that
you are all welcome to attend the September 19th Public hearing to comment
directly to City Council. It is helpful for 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 that they have a better understanding of the issues.
I would like to thank those business owners/employees who took time to meet
with me on September 7th. Your comments and questions regarding the
ordinance were very helpful and have caused City Staff to closely exam the
reasoning behind many of the sign provisions inCluded within the Progosed
Zoning Ordinance. I appreciate the fact that those present at the meeting
patiently allowed me to explain the City's position regarding these sign
regulation issues even though many of your personal opinions on the issues are
in conflict with the ordinance, I am certain City Council will seriously consider �
your comments and concerns and your best way to influence the process is to be
present at the Public Hearing and to make comment to City Council. I urge yau
to bear in mind that City Council has no desire to be overly restrictive to
businesses regarding the use of signage, but, also that Council has a
responsiblity to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public and must act
in the best interest of the entire community.
` /�,�C�/�c�.�
. 9/9��
S ept ember 19, 1989 �q> �5��c ��,g,�i,�f
�
Hazardous Waste Ordinance
I would like to put into the records the fallowing new reasons
not to accept the proposed ardinance.
1, Only non-haaar�ou� waste will go in there. I repeat that U
circuit boards from computers contain lead, tin and copper which
fs hazardous when allowed to corrode. Paint waste is also
hazardous.
2. The t3 million 1989 c�ollars given to the city aver 30 years
to maintain the site, when inflation is factored in, wi11 be
wvrtY� only 2 million dallars which I doubt will caver any real
pxoblems. The environmental surcharge income for the county will
}�r'•. L�;`•_3;!; +�t)t) ytic=� #�t�' �}i� s_If;� WI�. 1 l�i� �=,�� �f���7 ��s��. i3Y`�; ��Y' ��BY Wl�}7
a waste stream input of 45, 000 tons per year. The county out of
p�cket expenses per year is estimated at 10, 000 dollars and the
city 's at 5000 dollars, therefore the county 's income is about
7. 5 times the city Js with only 2 times the expense. W�iY 3S THIS
A GOOD DEAL FOR THE RESIDENTS OF ROSEMOUNT?
3. The storm water drainage that USPCI refers to is only their
idea of what it' should and would be. In view of the f act that I
sat on the storm water AD HOC committee that drew up the master
�t�rm water plan for the �city of Rosemount, this proposal was
never presented to us for approval. - Is it consistent with what
we want far the city? The staff when giving Barr Engi,neering and
the committee the assignment, tald us t� do only the W�st h�lf �
f rc��i Akrc�n Avenu� we�t tQ the App 1 e Val 1 ey barder. A i so tMat
when the East half of Rosemount started developing that they
would initiate a study on that.
4, The gundZe liner that is used claims on site testing, both
destructive and non-destructive seams tests and that they are
100% vacuum chamber tested. I find this to be false due to the
fact that it is extrusion welded on only one side and it comes in
22. 5 foot widths which when rolled out in the lengths required to
line the cell it would be impossible to find that large a vacuum
chamber.
�• T�re l�ach�t�, which is ca�sed either by rain, snowfall,
runaff or percolation, can became contaminated and then either
pet�hle lime, quick lime andlor lime kiln dust and can be used to
bring back the PH balance of the water befare it ent�rs the svil
�r the Mississippi River. It, however, goes undetected and
Ieaches into the soil and upsets the PH of the soil which in turn
allows electrolysis to work on the many buried gasoline and LP
gas pipelines that I referred to at the last meeting, W� then
Y53J� � good chan�e fc�r an explosion that waul�l make Shareview 's
explo�ion very srnall by camparison. That accident claimed, I
believe, 2 Iives and about 3-4 houses, nat including the
suffering and pain. Is this pro�ect worth that kind of risk? I
think not.
i
6. I think that the council should keep in mind that BFI has a
proposal before the MFCA for a permit to burn hazardous medical
waste and store it at the site of the present landfill which is
in that area. I bel�eve that the legislature has accepted the
ruies and regulations for the handling of inedical waste. The
people that cap these cells predict that to be able to cap them
when full, whether it is the ash or the waste itself, maybe 20
years away for a safe solution. Do we want this in our backyard
too? I think not. Remember that there are companies today that
go around and clean up and cap the cells that were started ar
filled up 20 years ago and thought to be safe only to find out
that today we have a much iarger problem than was originally
envisioned.
7. May I suggest to you that you re.]ect atzy type of waste
management ordinance because we are doing our part for the state
as a whole. For example, the polluti�n at Kach Refa.nery where
th� state gets a large part af tf�Pir gasoline. Tf�at is t�Qt
u�_{�ift:`{i ���:. T��ei� 4_:S_iTl�=��-�: t��� ������{_i�+�=�i� �.�� ���.{:titi�}i�erti c�f
Infe�.tian Gontrol �n:� g�4 th� ��c�sit�.oii ��.�.��� �t�a�y wr�}+:� i,ti
�=vu�.rs��c��� rg���3i�.as w��+�. T}i�n �:.ai�t�.�t EtivirL-:r�n�nt�l R��:o�a�;� Co
tENRECO INC. ) the Fisk Buiiding, P. Q. Bo� 9838, Amarillo, Texa�
''�1�J� �,rea Gc�dP 8c7�-;.s'73-�424. Find out what tt��ey have to say
about the final costs and problems we may i�cur with such a
f��:i�it;. Ple3se do and make an informed decision. ;
8. Even though the Met. Council, the MP�A, and Dakata County
say th� �i+e is suitabl�, may I remind you that they c�o nat
govern th� city i�.n�i �:rz�i tl�z:�t c�n3y Yt�U tl�� c:�tt:�c:i� �r�
• responsible to the wishes of the peopl.e that elected you. AND WE
SAY NO ! ! ! ! trt
Thank you.
Harry R. Willcox