Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 02-03-20211 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 Approved Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 2021 Chair Anderson called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on February 3, 2021. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Marc Anderson, Commissioners Michael Boo, Julie Pointner, Bryan Oakley David Witte, Donovan Saba and Justin Markell. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Community Development Director Steve Juetten, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, and Community Development Coordinator Matt Lupini. OTHERS PRESENT: Chair Anderson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Plymouth Forum Approval of Agenda Community Development Director Juetten requested that item 6.2 approve liaison to the Park Recreation Advisory Commission for 2021 be added to the agenda. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to approve the agenda as amended. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on January 20, 2021. Motion was made by Commissioner Saba and seconded by Commissioner Witte to approve the Consent Agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings (5.1) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to add a Dynamic Display Billboard Definition and Allow Dynamic Display Billboards in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts (2019072). 2 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 Community Development Director Juetten stated that the public hearing was opened at the January 20, 2021 meeting and continued to this meeting for both 5.1 and 5.2 and once staff has finished presenting each report and the Commission has asked questions the Chair should move directly to introducing the speakers from the public who wish to speak. Community Development Coordinator Lupini reviewed the staff report. Commissioner Saba asked for clarification on the removal and the relationship to one or both companies. Community Development Coordinator Lupini responded that there are two companies with billboards in Plymouth currently and as written only those two companies would be able to have these types of signs. He stated that if a Clear Channel sign were to be removed for example, Clear Channel would need to ensure that the new dynamic display is a minimum of two miles from any other dynamic display in the city and at least one quarter mile from any other billboard, which would include their own and those of other companies. Chair Anderson asked how many dynamic billboards would be possible within the city. Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied there could be up to five dynamic displays with the ordinance as written. Chair Anderson asked if the size would be identical to the existing signs. Community Development Coordinator Lupini confirmed that the allowance would be similar to those signs, noting that there would be a cap of 700 square feet. Commissioner Witte commented that there is a large billboard along 494 that does not seem to appear on the map. Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that the sign on the Home Depot property is indicated on the map. Commissioner Witte referenced a comment received from Mr. John Bodger with Outfront Media related to spacing on the same side of the road and whether that could be one mile. He asked staff for their thoughts. Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that as written, billboard spacing would be one quarter mile whether on the same side or opposite sides. He stated that the intention is to ensure that there are not dynamic signs on either side of the road changing at similar times. He stated that the direction of the Council is to ensure that dynamic display boards are they would safe and do not impact traffic. He stated that Mr. Bodger’s other request was to reduce the spacing of dynamic signs from two miles to one mile noting that staff’s justificationfor the two- mile spacing was addressed in the presentation. Commissioner Witte asked if this technology would allow someone to have a digital display on both sides and whether the city would limit the dynamic display to one side. 3 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that the technology does allow for both sides and as written the ordinance would allow for dynamic display on both sides of a structure. Commissioner Witte referenced the eight second industry standard and asked if that is also the best interest of the city, or whether a longer period would be safer. Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that eight seconds is based on average vehicular speed on these roadways. He explained that the theory would be that traveling at average speeds a driver would only see one message during that length. Commissioner Boo stated that the ordinance speaks specifically to these two companies and that they must swap their own sign in order to have a dynamic display. He stated that it does not appear that the ordinance would allow the companies to swap spaces with each other, which may in turn reduce the overall number of signs. Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that was not considered by staff. He stated that staff brought this forward to the council for a study session with a few options for the ordinance. He stated that one of those options would have allowed placement of boards on a parcel that does not currently have boards and the thought was that could create additional inventory of boards while the intent is to reduce the overall number of billboards. Commissioner Witte asked if there is any record of the number of accidents that could be attributed to billboards in the last 10 years. Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that he does not have that information on hand but noted that the former police chief attended the City Council’s study session and did not have any safety concerns with dynamic signs. Chair Anderson continued the public hearing. Chair Anderson introduced Mathew Weiland, Clear Channel Outdoor, 3225 Spring St. NE, Minneapolis who stated that they own 12 structures in Plymouth and have about 1,300 faces throughout the metro. He stated that they have worked with 16 or 17 communities to create ordinances that allow for dynamic displays noting that the closest would be in Rogers or Minnetonka. He stated that Minnetonka was the first community to allow the dynamic signs in 2006. He commented that they have webcams constantly recording the signs and if there are issues the signs can be shutdown immediately. He stated that the signs are permitted by the Federal Highway Department and State of Minnesota but recognized there are also local controls. He stated that they would like to update their technology and advised that digital signs offer more local advertising opportunity without adding additional signs. He stated that they do provide community messaging on the signs, noting that Minnetonka chooses to use it for education and water quality. He stated that they also display messages for emergency management services and Amber alerts, providing additional information on their partnership with Hennepin County. He stated that they also work with nonprofits and local chambers of commerce to support local businesses. He commented that they believe this would also help to meet the goals of the city to have the signs located in the right locations and lower the number of signs. He thanked staff for their work and cooperation on this matter. He stated that he submitted comments on the proposed ordinance in writing to staff prior to tonight’s meeting. He 4 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 reviewed those comments with the commission, noting that the comments were technical in nature, and it was confirmed that those comments were a part of the commission packet. He commented that staff did a great job creating a fair and reasonable ordinance and they are excited to continue to work with the city. Chair Anderson welcomed any additional questions the commission may have for Mr. Weiland. He stated that once the public hearing is closed, he will ask the commission to discuss each item brought up by Mr. Weiland individually. Chair Anderson referenced the mention that was made earlier in relation to one company buying the sign of another company and asked if Mr. Weiland supports that idea. Community Development Coordinator Lupini read language from the ordinance as written, on page nine, subsection eight, number two, which addresses that issue. He commented that the business would need to be the owner or lessor of a particular billboard in order to change that specific board to a dynamic sign. Mr. Weiland replied that there is nothing that prohibits one company buying another companies sign, noting that as an industry businesses buy and sell structures if that makes economic sense. Chair Anderson introduced Bradley Birnberg, 510 Evergreen Lane, owner of West Park, 2405 Annapolis Lane N., Plymouth who stated that he has been a Plymouth resident since July 2004 and purchased West Park in December of 2012. He stated that West Park has a double-sided printed billboard and believe it would be a good location for a digital billboard. He commented that the goals of business owners, billboard companies, and the city are aligned in this activity as it would result in less billboards, increased local advertising opportunity and potential revenue. He recognized that this is not an easy process and thanked staff for all of their work. He referenced section three, subdivision one, relating to the spacing of 1,320 feet. He stated that to the extent it is possible to have that viewed on the same side rather than opposite sides, he believes that makes sense. He stated that as a property owner or business, they do not have control over competitors and other businesses. Chair Anderson introduced Barry Birnberg, 2620 Garland Lane, owner of West Park, 2405 Annapolis Lane N., Plymouth who stated that he has been a Plymouth resident for the past 25 years. He commented that they believe their business location would be a great opportunity for a digital billboard. He agreed that the ordinance would meet the goals of businesses, billboard owners and the city. He commented that the community messaging would provide a benefit to the city and its residents and also shows that the city is open for business using that technology. He thanked city staff for all of their work. He referenced section three, subdivision nine, related to the distance between billboards and asked if that if distance was reduced to one mile and one- half mile it would allow more conversions and still reduce the number of billboards. Chair Anderson asked, and received confirmation that the Birnbergs own the land that a billboard is located on and that they support the change to allow dynamic billboards. He asked if it would be possible that a dynamic billboard is placed down the road which then removes the billboard on the Birnberg property. 5 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 Mr. Birnberg confirmed that he understands that there are 12 billboards owned by that company and recognized that some will need to be removed in order to support this change. He commented that they believe they have a good site and opportunity but understand that their site may not be converted. He commented that even if that were the situation, he would still prefer to have the dynamic billboards as a citizen of Plymouth. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Commissioner Witte stated that this is an exciting business that has evolved a lot. He commented that the process to change messaging is much easier than previous years. He stated that he would like to hear more information about the emergency services messages and how quickly those messages are posted. He commented that there are issues to discuss but he will support some form of this request. Chair Anderson stated that he looks at dynamic billboards in other cities and just about the time he figures out the messaging it changes. Community Development Director Juetten commented that Commissioner Oakley is having trouble connecting the ability to speak on Zoom and therefore submitted his comment via the chat feature. He stated that Commissioner Oakley commented that reducing the spacing between billboards would help to eliminate other existing signs. Community Development Coordinator Lupini responded that reducing the spacing would open more opportunity to reduce the overall number of billboards. He stated that this ordinance proposal is admittedly conservative with spacing on the high end of what would be realistic and therefore that is open for discussion tonight. Commissioner Boo referenced the notion that signs would be two miles apart and each sign could have a double face which would create six potential signs. He stated that if that distance between the signs were reduced to one mile that would then seem to create the opportunity for 12 signs. He stated that when the distance is reduced that would seem to increase the sign face opportunities as the signs could be double sided. Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that if the distance were reduced to one mile between signs that would create the opportunity for 12 structures, six along 494 and six along 169. He noted that opportunity would only exist if there were an available parcel every mile and stated that as seen on the map that is not the case at least along 494. Chair Anderson opened the discussion on the potential changes starting with page 2 item (i) regarding instantaneous changes. He stated that the proposed language indicates that it made fade out and asked if that language would need to be changed to conform. Community Development Coordinator Lupini stated that change could be made but noted that state regulationscould address that item as well. Through a straw poll, the Commission supported this change. 6 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 Chair Anderson brought up point number two on page 3 item (bb) regarding the use of the word static versus printed because static is used in the definition of dynamic and could therefore be confusing. Community Development Coordinator Lupini stated that the suggestion of staff would be to change the draft to static (printed). The straw poll supported the option of static (printed). Commissioner Witte stated he supports static but he will defer to staff on this one. Commissioner Markell stated that if the commission retains static, it should then consider removing the word from the dynamic display definition as that could create confusion. He suggested using electronic in the place of static. Community Development Coordinator Lupini responded that the intent is to state that the image cannot move itself in a dynamic display. Chair Anderson commented that it is very important that the image does not move. Commissioner Markell asked if the eight second minimum would address that concern. Community Development Director Juetten provided an example and noted that they would not want one of the messages to show a vehicle moving across the screen. Commissioner Markell asked how the eight second requirement could be met with a message showing a moving vehicle. Community Development Director Juetten confirmed that static could be removed and replaced with nonmoving. He stated that the industry uses printed and therefore he would support using static (printed). The straw poll supported the suggested staff changes to (i) and (bb). Chair Anderson brought up point number three on page 6 (Subd. 5.) referencing the term sightline technology, which is a specific technology that could perhaps preclude other technologies and reviewed the suggestion to use light blocking technology. He asked how the 45 degrees is measured. Community Development Coordinator Lupini responded that light blocking is an acceptable change replacing sightline and advised that the 45 degree is measured from the center of the roadway. Commissioner Witte commented that an additional part of that request was that the light blocking text be only adjacent to residential. Chair Anderson clarified that the 45 degree measurement request was in relation to adjacent residential properties. Community Development Coordinator Lupini responded that staff would prefer that the 45 degree measurement be in relation to any any property owner. The straw poll supported the 7 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 suggested changes from sightline to light blocking technology, and to clarify the 45 degrees as measured from the center of the roadway, but not just in relation to residential properties. Chair Anderson brought up point number four on page 9 (7) regarding the minimum distance between signs. He commented that changing the distance to only be measured on the same side of the street would increase opportunities for sign removal. Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that those two changes would increase opportunities and noted that staff would support the decision of the commission. Commissioner Markell asked for clarification on the language that would be added. Community Development Coordinator Lupini responded that number (7) could be changed to add “on the same side of the roadway” to the end of the clause. Commissioner Witte asked if it would be one side or the same side. Commissioner Boo stated that the proposed change was to measure the distance on the same side of the road, which would effectively double the signage opportunities within the corridors. Chair Anderson clarified that this would double the dynamic sign opportunities which would still provide the end result of reducing the overall number of signs. Community Development Coordinator Lupini confirmed that there would never be more than 18 structures. Commissioner Markell commented that he believed the threshold not to be in item (7) but instead in item (9). Chair Anderson helped to clarify that the items work together to accomplish that goal. Community Development Director Juetten read a statement from Commissioner Oakley stating that he has a concern with the competitive balance on 494 if the spacing remains high; given the balance how many signs one company owns compared to the other, if the spacing remains high it may eliminate one owner versus the other. Commissioner Boo stated that a concern is also related to safety and if the number of signs allowed increases that could also increase the distraction potential. He asked if the eight second rule would apply to signs one mile apart or two miles apart. Chair Anderson commented that the eight seconds would apply to both situations. Community Development Coordinator Lupini confirmed that eight seconds would bethe dwell time for a given advertisement no matter the distance specified by the ordinance. Commissioner Witte stated that the language currently reads 1,320 feet separation between signs. He asked if that should clarify the type of sign (digital or static). 8 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 Community Development Coordinator Lupini replied that the first issue for discussion is whether the commission wants the minimum distance between any billboard – static or dynamic display - to be measured between either side of the highway or on the same side. The second issue is the minimum distance between dynamic display signs. Chair Anderson reiterated the question as to whether the Commission wanted to add the language in number (7) to clarify distance as being measured on the same side of the highway. The straw poll supported this change. Chair Anderson brought up point number five on page nine number (9) changing the distance from two miles to one mile and one mile to one-half mile. Community Development Coordinator Lupini clarified that number (9) only discusses dynamic display separation. He stated that staff proposed two miles while the suggested change is for one mile between dynamic displays. Chair Anderson stated that there was mention that this was a conservative draft and asked for input from staff. Community Development Director Juetten responded that the commission has already effectively allowed twice as many dynamic display signs with the change in number (7). He stated that because this is an introductory ordinance, staff would prefer to keep the distance proposed in number (9), noting that additional review and changes could be made to the ordinance in the future if desired. Chair Anderson read a comment from Commissioner Oakley related to the ultimate number that of signs that would be allowed based on the distance between the signs. Chair Anderson confirmed the consensus of the Commission to leave the distance between dynamic signs at two miles. The straw poll supported no change to number (9). Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Pointner to recommend to the City Council approval of the resolution approving the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) to add a Dynamic Display Billboard definition and Allow Dynamic Display Billboards in Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts as amended by the Commission (2019072). With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. (5.2) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) regarding traffic sight visibility relating to fencing and plantings (2020094). Senior Planner Drill reviewed the staff report. Chair Anderson asked if the street intersection graphic would apply to both arterial and collector streets. Senior Planner Drill confirmed that it would apply the same to all street intersections. 9 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 Commissioner Witte asked if there would be an exception for mailboxes and whether that would apply to utility boxes as well. Senior Planner Drill replied that there is an exception for mailboxes. He noted that generally utility structures are not more than three feet high and stated that most of the site triangle ends up in the public right-of-way. Commissioner Witte provided the example of a home that sits on a hill and asked if elevation change is considered, specifically the topography of the lot. Senior Planner Drill replied that the clear zone triangle is measured off the driveway in order to take topography into account. He added that there is not an enforcement department that goes out to proactively identify issues but instead responds to complaints. Chair Anderson asked for information on snow piles, as it could be possible that snow piles could block the view. He asked if that would be addressed by this ordinance. Senior Planner Drill replied that would not be addressed by this ordinance, as the ordinance addresses landscaping and fencing. Chair Anderson noted that the public hearing was opened at the previous meeting and is continued tonight. He welcomed any comments from the public. There were no comments. Chair Anderson closed the public hearing. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte and seconded by Commissioner Boo to recommend approval of the ordinance approving the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (ZOTA) regarding traffic sight visibility relating to fencing and plantings (2020094). With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. New Business (6.1) 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan and 2020 Community Development Annual Report. Community Development Director Juetten provided an overview of the 2021 Planning Commission Work Plan and the 2020 Community Development Annual Report. Motion was made by Commissioner Boo, and seconded by Commissioner Saba, to forward the 2021 Work Program to the City Council. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Chair Anderson complemented staff on the preparation of and information provided in the Annual Report. 10 Approved Minutes February 3, 2021 (6.2) Approve 2021 Liaison to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission. Community Development Director Juetten presented the item for discussion and action. Motion was made by Commissioner Witte, and seconded by Commissioner Oakley, to approve Commission Boo to serve as the liaison to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission for 2021. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 8:43 p.m.