01-03-96 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
8 P
OTSEGO CITY HALL
JANUARY 3, 1996
1. Chair will call meeting to order.
Roll Call: Carl Swenson, Ing Roskaft, Arleen Nagel, Eugene Goenner, Bruce Rask, Jim
Kolles; Suzanne Ackerman, Council Representative.
Absent: Richard Nichols
Staff. Bob Kirmis, Assistant Planner; Elaine Beatty, City Clerk/Zoning Administrator;
Judy Hudson, Deputy Clerk.
Consideration of the Planning Commission Minutes,
Ing Roskaft motioned to accept the November 15, 1995 Planning Commission
Minutes. Seconded by Arleen Nagel. All in favor. Motion carried.
Mr. Kirmis reviewed the history of proposed sign amendment. This was pursued at the
direction of the City Council. They asked the Planning Commission to examine the sign
regulations specifically to construction and real estate signage requirements.
NAC has provided a draft amendment attempting to:
1. Make an allowance for construction signs in all zoning districts as exempt signs.
Signs allowed without a permit. The amendment would allow larger signs along
principal arterial streets (Highways 101 and 94).
2. Amend the real estate development project sign requirements in residential
districts to allow larger signs along principal arterial streets.
3. Amend the commercial/industrial district sign requirements to:
a. Establish a maximum sign height for real estate signs.
b. Make an allowance for real estate development signs.
(currently allowed only in residential zoning districts).
Mr. Kirmis noted these issues were discussed at the November 1, 1995 Planning
Commission Meetings and the issues raised there are addressed in the NAC Memo of
November 15, 1995. Concern was raised in regard to height and area of signs for other
freestanding signs types besides the construction and real estate developments signs. The
City Council directed the Planning Commission to address only construction and real
estate developments signs issue at this time.
Chair Swenson asked about setting a hearing date for this item even though it is a single
item. CM Ackerman said it was her understanding to go ahead with the hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting of January 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 2.
Staff went through the proposed amendment changes with the Planning Commission.
Section 1. Street -Principal (Major) Arterial:
Mr. Kirmis stated the need to define Principal Arterial Streets and read the proposed
definition.
Street - Principal (Major) Arterial: Major arterials provide a high level of
mobility between sub -regions, serving medium to long distance trips. Principal arterial
are grade separated or have high capacity controlled at -grad intersections. No parking
is permitted, the posted speed limit is typically 40-55 mph; and traffic volumes range
from 10,000 to 50,OOOADT. Major arterials are typically spaced one to three miles
apart (see City Transportation Plan).
Planning Commission Comments_
Ing Roskaft questioned the 40 - 50 mph speed, noting that it might be changing. Bruce
Rask stated it is currently 65 mph on Interstate 94.
Bob Kirmis noted this and will check this part out.
The Planning Commission agreed with the rest of the definition.
Section 2. No permit is needed.
Mr. Kirmis read the proposed amendment.
14. Construction signs. A non -illuminated construction sign confined to the site of the
construction, alteration or repair. Such sign must be removed with two (2) years of the
date of issuance of the first building permit on the site or when the particular project is
completed, whichever first occurs. One sign shall be permitted for each street the project
abuts. No sign may exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area and six (6a) feet in height,
except signs abutting principal arterial streets which may not exceed sixty-four (64)
square feet in area and fifteen (15) feet in height.
All agreed with Section 2.
Section 3. Real Estate Development Project Signs.
Mr. Kirmis read the amendment, which would be amending 3.a.(1)
One(1) sign not to exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in surface area and a maximum
height of fifteen (15) feet, except signs abutting principal arterial streets which may not
exceed one hundred (100) square feet in surface area and fifteen (15) feet in height.
Planning Commission Comments_
Eugene Goenner asked what would be done if residential is along a major road. Mr.
Kirmis explained the only two Principal (Major) Arterial Streets are 101 and 94.
The Planning Commission agreed with the proposed amendment for Section 3.
Planning Commission Meeting of January 3,19%, cont'd. Page 3.
Section 4. Commercial/Business and Industrial District Sign Regulations.
Mr. Kirmis read the amending portions.
C.2.d. The sign shall not exceed fifteen (I5) feet in height.
3. Real Estate Development Project Signs. Signs involving temporary
identification of a new subdivision of development located upon the project site.
a. Each subdivision or development shall be allowed the following signs by
permit:
(1) One (1) sign not to exceed sixty-four (64) square feet in surface area
and a maximum height of fifteen (I5) feet, except signs abutting principal
arterial streets which may not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in
surface area and twenty (20) feet in height.
(2) Directional signs as authorized by sub -section 5.B. 4 of this Section.
b. The permit shall be renewable annually and conditioned upon documentation
allowing such sign or structure by the property owner upon which it is to be
located, and a vacancy rate of the subdivision greater than ten (10) percent.
Planning Commission Comments.
All agreed with the proposed amendment.
There were no changes for Sections 4. 5. and 6.
Ing Roskaft asked for a update of the chart to show the proposed amendments.
Eugene Goenner asked how the City defines semi -trucks with signage and how this
signage falls into this Ordinance. An example is a construction company leaving a semi at
the construction site.
Mr. Kirmis said this would fall under the prohibited signs on page 198.
Chair Swenson noted the purpose of the truck is for construction and not for signage and
doesn't feel it is in violation of the Ordinance. He stated this would be part of the
construction operation and used as a office.
Mr. Goenner stated he didn't agreed with that. He personally doesn't have a problem with
it but under the current zoning ordinance, it is not a permitted use.
Ing Roskaft stated signage on the truck is a way of identifying the office at construction
sites.
Mr. Kirmis stated this particular issue of construction companies parked on construction
sites during construction is not addressed in the Ordinance but common sense should be
used.
Ing Roskaft motioned to set the Public Hearing for considering amending the
Zoning Ordinance Sign Regulations for February 17, 1996. Seconded by Eugene
Goenner. All in favor. Motion carried.
Planning Commission Meeting of January 3, 1996, cont'd. Page 4.
Elaine Beatty reported that another four parcels are asking to be annexed into Albertville
and these requests have been approved by Albertville.
Elaine also informed the Planning Commission that the City is appealing the Kenco and
D'Aigle Annexations.
Bruce Rask noted he will be gone for the next Planning Commission Meeting but this that
should be the last time for this year.
Ing Roskaft motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Bruce Rask. All in favor. Motion
carried.
Adjourned at 8:35 PM.
Arleen Nagel, Secretary
Recorded by: Judy Hudson