Loading...
VII.2. First Reading Zoning Code Text Amendment Related to Dynamic Electronic Signs; Lindahl September 1, 2020 City Council Report 2020-062 Zoning Code Text Amendment Related to Dynamic (Electronic) Signs Proposed Action: Move to adopt Resolution 2020-043, approving the first reading of Ordinance 2020-1157 amending the City Code related to dynamic (electronic) signs. Overview This zoning code text amendment was initiated by staff to revise and enhance the City’s zoning regulations for dynamic (electronic) signs. This process began in late 2019 when Zion Lutheran Church and Gethsemane Lutheran Church both asked the City for dynamic signs that did not meet the current regulations. Since that time, staff has researched this topic, reviewed standards in other communities, discussed it on two occasions with the Planning & Zoning Commission and polled the City Council on the proposed changes. Based on this process, staff has prepared the Ordinance 2020-1157 amending the City Code related to dynamic signs. Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council approve this request. Should the City approve the recommended changes, they would: • Allow electronic signs on public and institutional uses in residential subject to approval of a conditional use permit. • Decrease the minimum display time from 24 hours to 20 minutes. • Add text size, mode, brightness and operation standards. Primary Issues to Consider ● Background ● Zoning Code Text Amendment ● Potential Non-Conformity Issues ● Alternatives Supporting Documents ● Resolution 2020-043 ● Ordinance 2020-1157 ● Public Comments ● League of Minnesota Cities Memo – Regulating Dynamic Signs ● Minutes from the December 2019 and July 2020 Planning & Zoning Commission meetings _____________________ Jason Lindahl, City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________ City Council Report 2020-062 Page 2 Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Background Dynamic signs (also known as electronic signs) include signs that appear to have movement or change without changing or removing the signs physical components. These signs are allowed in the Business and Institutional districts provided they do not change more than once every 24 hours. However, Hopkins’ current sign regulations do not address other typical modern elements of electronic sign regulation like text size, mode, brightness and operation. The primary concerns with electronic signs are their potential to distract passing drivers and impact on adjacent properties. In 2007, the League of Minnesota Cities produced a resource memo entitled Regulating Dynamic Signs (attached) which summarized the findings of a broader research study on dynamic signs conducted by SRF Consulting for the City of Minnetonka. That memo provides information on the framework, tools and aspect of regulating electronic signs and served as the basis for the proposed dynamic sign regulation changes (see attached). Planning & Zoning Commission Action. The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this item during three meetings. The first was in December of 2019 when the Commission reviewed the City’s current regulations, a study from the League of Minnesota Cities, regulations from other communities and a request to update the standards from Zion Lutheran Church (see attached). Minutes from that meeting are attached for your reference. As a result of that meeting, the Commission directed staff to conduct more research and bring the draft zoning changes back for further review and discussion. The Commission next reviewed this item during the July 2020 regular meeting (see attached minutes). Given the time since the last meeting and the changeover in the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission, during this meeting staff re-introduced this item and took additional comment. Staff also noted that since the December meeting, Gethsemane Lutheran Church had also approached the City about installing a dynamic sign; however, based on their residential zoning, the current zoning regulations would not allow this type of sign on their property. Most recently the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this item (Planning Application 2020-04) during their August 25, 2020 meeting. During the meeting, the Commission heard a presentation from staff and no direct public comments. Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the related statewide emergency declaration, notice of the public hearing for this item directed all interested parties to make their comments to City Planner Jason Lindahl by mail, phone or e-mail before noon on Tuesday, August 25, 2020. The City received three comments regarding the proposed dynamic sign regulations. The first two were the original requests from Zion Lutheran Church and Gethsemane Lutheran Church mentioned above. The third comment comes from the sign company working with Gethsemane Lutheran Church and provides comments regarding the draft standards. In summary, they support the draft standards with the exception of the minimum display time, minimum text size and brightness standards. After reviewing and discussing the comments and information from staff, the Commission voted to recommend the City Council approve this item. Zoning Code Text Amendment Legal Authority. Zoning Code amendments are legislative actions in that the City is creating new City Council Report 2020-062 Page 3 standards to regulate the development of certain types of uses and/or structures. Under the law, cities have wide flexibility to create standards that will ensure the type of development they desire. However, zoning regulations must be reasonable and supported by a rational basis relating to promoting the public health, safety and welfare. Based on the findings made below, staff recommends approval of the proposed draft dynamic sign standards. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning code text amendment is consistent with both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. While neither of these plans specifically address electronic signage, both seek to modernize and streamline the City’s regulations to take full advantage of technology to support the ever changing needs of businesses. At the same time, these plans also emphasize the need for standards to protect Hopkins’ neighborhoods and unique community character. Staff used this two goals to guide the preparation of the draft dynamic sign standards. Compatibility with Present and Future Land Uses. Based on the analysis above, staff finds the proposed zoning changes to the City’s dynamic sign standards compatible with present and future land uses. The proposed changes would modernize the City’s sign regulations to take full advantage of changing technology while protecting Hopkins unique community character. Conformance with New Standards. This section considers how the proposed zoning changes will fit in with the rest of the zoning regulations and the existing development pattern. In this case, staff finds the proposed changes to the City’s dynamic sign standards well suited to the community. The City seeks to encourage businesses to take full advantage of technology while at the same time holding on to the community’s hometown character. Potential Non-Conformity Issues According to Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subdivision 1e., legal nonconformities generally have a statutory right to continue through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not through expansion. These rights run with the land and are not limited to a particular landowner. If the benefited property is sold, the new owner will have the same rights as the previous owner. The proposed dynamic sign regulations include a specific section to address potential non- conformities. It states that the new dynamic sign standards apply to all existing and future dynamic signs, unless otherwise determined by the city that an existing sign qualifies as a non-conforming use under state statute cited above. Any existing dynamic sign that cannot meet the minimum text size as required by the speed limit must use the largest size possible for one line of copy to fit in the available display space. Alternatives 1. Approve the first reading of Ordinance 2020-1157. By approving the first reading of this ordinance, this application will move forward for a second reading and formal approval at the September 15, 2020 City Council meeting. 2. Deny the first reading of Ordinance 2020-1157. By denying the first reading of this ordinance, this application will not move forward for a second reading and formal approval at the September 15, 2020 City Council meeting. Should the City Council consider this option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative. City Council Report 2020-062 Page 4 3. Continue for further information. The items should be continued if the City Council finds that further information is needed to evaluate this application. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. 2020-043 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2020-1157 AMENDING THE CITY CODE RELATED TO DYNAMIC (ELECTRONIC) SIGNS WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins initiated an application to amend the City Code related to dynamic sign standards; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application to amend the City Code related to dynamic sign standards was initiated by the City of Hopkins on July 24, 2020; and 2. That the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission, pursuant to published notice, held a public hearing to review such application on August 25, 2020 and all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That written comments and analysis of City staff were considered. 4. That during the August 25, 2020 regular meeting the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins approved a motion to recommend the City Council approve this item. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby approves the first reading or Ordinance 2020-1157 amending the City Code related to dynamic (electronic) signs based on the findings of fact detailed in City Council Report 2020-062 dated September 1, 2020. Adopted this 1st day of September, 2020. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk Jason Gadd, Mayor CITY OF HOPKINS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ORDINANCE NO. 2020-1157 ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE REGARDING DYNAMIC (ELECTRONIC) SIGNS NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Hopkins City Code, Part III, Chapter 102, Article XXI, Signs is hereby amended by adding as follows: Sec. 102-729. – Dynamic Signs. 1. District Limitations: All dynamic signs shall comply with the zoning and road classification standards listed below and the performance standards detailed in this section. A conditional use permit shall be required for any dynamic signs located on a property adjacent to any residential use or district. a. Business, Business Park or Institutional Districts. Dynamic signs may be located on properties within the B-3 - General Business, B-4 - Neighborhood Business, Business Park or Institutional zoning districts, provided the property has frontage along a principal arterial or minor reliever road as designated in the comprehensive plan. b. Residential Districts. Dynamic signs may be located on public and institutional uses within a residential zone, provided the property has frontage on a principal arterial, minor reliever or major collector road as designated in the comprehensive plan and subject to approval of a conditional use permit. 2. Location: The sign must be located on the site of the use identified or advertised by the sign. 3. Orientation: Electronic signs must be positioned so as to limit their impact on adjacent residential uses. At a minimum, such signs shall be positioned perpendicular to the adjacent public right-of-way. 4. Type of Sign: Dynamic signs are limited to ground signs only as defined in this Article. 5. Text Size and Legibility: The following minimum text sizes shall apply to all dynamic signs. If a sign is located on a corner with streets that have differing speed limits, the minimum text size shall be based on the standard for the higher speed limit to ensure maximum legibility. Minimum Text Sizes for Dynamic Signs Speed Limit of Adjacent Road Minimum Text Size 25 to 34 MPH 7” 35 to 44 MPH 9” 45 to 54 MPH 12” 55 MPH or More 15” 6. Mode: Dynamic signs shall only be allowed to operate in a static mode. Animation, motion or video displays are prohibited. Any change from one static display to another must be instantaneous and shall not include any distracting effects, such as dissolving, spinning or fading. The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign. 7. Size and Number of Dynamic Display: The dynamic portion of any sign shall not exceed eighty (80) percent of the total allowable area of the sign. The remaining twenty (20) percent of the allowable sign area cannot have dynamic capabilities even if it is not used. Each site can have only one dynamic sign and that sign can have only one dynamic display. 8. Minimum Display Time: The minimum display time shall be twenty (20) minutes. One exception to this standard would be for time, date and temperature signs which the federal court has acknowledged as a justifiable exception to limitations on variable message signs. The time, date and temperature information may change no faster than once every three (3) seconds, provided that the display of this information remains for at least twenty (20) minutes before changing to another display. 9. Brightness: Dynamic signs shall not exceed a maximum illumination of five thousand (5,000) nits during daylight hours and a maximum illumination of five hundred (500) nits between dusk to dawn as measured from the sign's face at maximum brightness. All dynamic sign applications shall include certification from the sign's manufacturer that the sign has been preset to conform to the luminance levels noted above and these settings are protected from end users' manipulation by password protected software. 10. Color: Dynamic signs may use multiple colors within the display but the use of color shall not create distraction or a hazard to the public health, safety or welfare. No portion of the display may change in color or color intensity in any manner. Each line of text in any direction shall be uniform in color. 11. Operation: All dynamic signs shall be equipped with a means to immediately discontinue the display if it malfunctions. The owner of a dynamic sign must immediately cease operation of their sign when notified by the city that it fails to comply with the standards of this chapter. The dynamic sign shall remain inoperable until such time that the owner demonstrates to the city that the device is in satisfactory working condition and conforms to the standards of this chapter. Appeals of the city's direction regarding the operation of a dynamic sign shall follow the appeals process outlined in Chapter 102, Article III, Section 102-96, "Board of Appeals and Adjustments." 12. Application to Existing Signs: The dynamic sign standards shall apply to all existing and future dynamic signs, unless otherwise determined by the city that an existing sign qualifies as a nonconforming use under state statute or this code. Any existing dynamic sign that cannot meet the minimum text size as required by the speed limit must use the largest size possible for one line of copy to fit in the available display space. SECTION 2. The effective date of this ordinance shall be the date of publication. First Reading: September 1, 2020 Second Reading: September 15, 2020 Date of Publication: September 24, 2020 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: September 24, 2020 By: ____________________________ Jason Gadd, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk From:dan@dahlensign.com To:Jason Lindahl Subject:[EXTERNAL] Gethsemane Date:Thursday, August 6, 2020 7:55:02 AM Jason, John Nelson sent me over the draft of the possible adjustments I noticed a few things. 1 – under #7 it looks like only one display is allowed. If they changed out their sign it would need two displays. One for each side of the sign. 2 – The display time minimum seems long. Bloomington is 8 seconds for text, Prior Lake is 10 seconds and Shakopee 30 seconds are other examples. These shorter times seem to be where this is moving from earlier once a day, hour and others. 3 - the no movement, etc makes sense to me. 4 – If they have a 50 mph road going past them can they only display 10’’ or larger? Eagan has something like this, however they only require the display to have the capability to display that size, not require they use that size. It’s in the interest of the business to use an appropriate size to display their message if they want people to see it. 5 – the brightness statement. The manufacturers as far as I have seen have a sensor to measure the ambient brightness and it adjusts based on that brightness. It’s at it’s brightest when the sun is shinning direct on the sign and dimmest at night. It will change with storms coming thru during the day and could be to night levels. I believe the higher quality units are set to be over 5000 in the brightest conditions. I can check with Daktronics to see how their units are set. Prior Lake has 7500 in their ordinance for the high number. From my experience the brightness is not locked by the company. It can be adjusted within the sign programing software the sign owner uses. I don’t recall any of our installs doing any adjusting to the original settings. If we changed the Gethsemane sign for a new one the same 6’x10’ (60sf) would the message display area be able to be 48 square feet? Thanks, Dan Dahlen, Dahlen Sign Co. 901 Stagecoach Road Shakopee, MN 55379 952-888-3413 fax 952-888-7178 dan@dahlensign.com Click here to watch our video! Find us on Facebook! Randall A. Neal Senior Pastor Howie A. Krienke Assistant Pastor Daniel E. Schultz Associate Pastor Brice Petersen Director of Parish Music Paula Hance Director of Zion Early Childhood Center Bonnie Shelton Office Manager Carol Kline Administrative Assistant Rick Tupa Property Engineer 241 5th Ave. N. Hopkins, MN 55343-7376 952-938-7661 Fax: 952-938-7662 www.zionhopkins.org A congregation of The Lutheran Church- Missouri Synod August 15, 2019 City of Hopkins, Minnesota Jason Lindahl, City Planner 1010 1st St. S Hopkins, MN 55343 RE: Outdoor Digital Sign Ordinance – Hopkins, MN We are requesting consideration for a revision to Hopkin’s outdoor message sign ordinance. It is apparent from driving around the Twin Cities electronic digital signs have become quite common. Our current outdoor digital message sign in front of the church along 5th Ave. N. has been in operation since February 5, 2016. Under the current ordinance we are able to change the sign once per day. We would like to be to change the message more frequently. It appears many/most of the signs throughout the Cities have a message change cycle rate somewhere in the 1-2 minute range. We would like to be able to change the message on our sign at a similar rate. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Rev. Randall Neal, Pastor Eagan – allows changes no more than once per 1 minute Maplewood – each display must be maintained for 2 minutes New Hope – change no more than once every five seconds Redwood Falls – each display must be maintained for 8 seconds ZION Lutheran …a place to belong Church This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION REGULATING DYNAMIC SIGNAGE Executive summary Cities have authority and responsibility to regulate dynamic signs as appropriate for each community. There is no single correct approach to regulation. Because the regulation of signs involves the First Amendment, courts hold sign regulations to a higher standard than most land use regulations. Cities still have considerable discretion to regulate, as long as they do so reasonably and without regard to sign content. Introduction In the fall of 2006, a number of Minnesota cities were surprised by the appearance of large electronic billboards akin to giant television screens. These signs are the next generation of sign displays with the ability to feature changing images and movement—known collectively as dynamic signs. Attempts to regulate them resulted in litigation in at least one community- Minnetonka. In developing a regulatory response, Minnetonka partnered with the League of Minnesota Cities to commission a study, conducted by SRF Engineering, on the impact of such dynamic signs on traffic safety. This memorandum discusses the legal framework of regulating dynamic signage in light of the recent litigation and study. More Information FindtheresultsoftheSRFConsulting Group’sresearchondynamic signagein: “Dynamic”Signage:Research RelatedtoDriverDistractionand OrdinanceRecommendations It’savailableintheLandUseareaof theLeaguewebsiteat www.lmc.org. Regulatory framework While the federal and state government can enact and have enacted laws regulating signs, those regulations only provide minimum standards. Courts have explicitly recognized that cities have the ability to regulate signs, including dynamic signs, more restrictively. There is no uniform system of regulation that cities must follow. Each community is different and has different needs that local ordinances may reflect. Such regulations must meet the same basic legal tests for all sign regulation. Most city land use decisions get a very deferential standard of review known as rational basis review. Under this level of review, city decision will be upheld if they have any rational basis. Because sign regulations implicate free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment, they are subjected to higher levels of scrutiny. The highest level of scrutiny, called strict scrutiny, applies when government tries to regulate based on the content of speech. The only content-based sign regulation that courts have upheld is treating off-premise signs (billboards) differently than on-premise signs that advertise the business on the same property. More Information Learnmoreaboutsignregulations andfreespeechin: SignOrdinancesandtheFirst Amendment It’savailableat www.lmc.org. One distinction that may seem like it is content based, but our federal court of appeals has said is not, is a ban on dynamic signs with an exception for time and temperature displays. The court held that because of their unique nature, allowing only time and temp displays is not a prohibited content-based regulation. It is important not to overstate this, however. Regulations that go further and carve out a broader exception for “public information” are likely to be struck down as impermissibly content-based. Sign regulations that are not content based are subject to intermediate scrutiny, which tests whether the regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. This roughly translates to “regulate for a good reason.” Cities should take care that the scope of the regulation is not excessive when viewed in light of all of the regulatory objectives, and that they do not create exceptions to the regulations that cannot be justified by reference to one or more of the city’s articulated objectives Big-picture regulatory tools The available research on traffic impacts supports significant content-neutral limits or even bans on dynamic signs for safety reasons. The studies confirm that billboards can tend to distract drivers, dynamic features contribute to the distraction, and even short distractions can increase the risk of accidents. This is not surprising as promotional materials put out by sign companies themselves boast the signs’ ability to hold viewer attention as a benefit of dynamic signs. Safety is only one concern. Cities may also regulate signs based on values, preferences, and aesthetics. Not every sign is appropriate in every community or every neighborhood. Not every community wishes to become Las Vegas or even downtown Minneapolis. Cities can take a number of different macro-level approaches to regulation. Some examples include: 1. Complete or near-complete bans that do not allow dynamic signs at all. 2. Allow dynamic signs with restrictions such as minimum display time, allowing only a percentage of a sign to change, or text size limitations. 3. Allow different things in different zoning districts, such as allowing brighter dynamic signs in a downtown business district than in residential neighborhoods. 4. Offering incentive programs to billboard companies to allow dynamic signs in exchange for removal of non-conforming static signs. 5. Encourage dynamic displays. Some communities like the clean, new look of dynamic signs and encourage them to remove old blighted and poorly maintained signs. 2 Regulating sign aspects A content-neutral regulation that regulates dynamic signage will be subject to intermediate scrutiny, so a community must show a regulation is substantially related to a significant government interest. In plain language, you must articulate what problem a regulation is intended to address and how the regulation addresses it. There are at least six aspects of dynamic signs that regulations may address: 1.Duration of messages/ speed of changeover.Studies have described the Zeigarnik effect, a psychological need to see a task through to its end. In the case of dynamic signs, a driver’s desire to read an entire message before it changes or to complete a scrolling message has been shown to negatively impact drivers’ tendencies to maintain a constant speed or remain in a lane. To address these issues, many cities have imposed minimum message durations that might vary depending on community preference and traffic conditions. 2.Motion, animation, and video.Motion can range from simple visual effects to full realistic video. Motion can extend the period of time a driver will keep watching a sign, increasing distractedness. Cities may prohibit motion or limit it either to specific areas or to specific characteristics such as a motion time frame calibrated to traffic speed. 3.Brightness.Brightness can be a safety factor, particularly at night, as sudden brightness can be distracting or diminish night vision. A number of communities limit brightness based on time of day and by color displayed. This can be difficult to quantify and measure. 4.Sign placement and spacing. The number of signs and their location can be a big factor in driver awareness. A large number of signs can increase distractedness. Poorly placed signs may block views or cause distraction in unsafe areas. Cities may impose site standards and spacing requirements. These may present regulatory challenges as spacing may be dependent on the actions of neighboring property owners. 6.Size of signs. Size can have impacts in several ways. Too big, and it obstructs views and distracts. Too small, and it takes longer to read and encourages sign users to sequence messages. Cities may limit dynamic signs or the percentage of a sign that can be dynamic. 7.Text size and legibility.Signs that are difficult to read invite increased driver focus. Regulations can, for example, require minimum sizes based on road speed. The specifics of how to regulate each of these aspects is up to each community. Because review of regulations must face intermediate scrutiny, cities have to take some extra steps when drafting and adopting ordinances. For each aspect regulated, cities should consider adopting findings or local studies that articulate the reason and any support for the regulation. The SRF study and other materials can provide a scientific basis for a number of regulatory steps. In addition, cities may choose more stringent regulation in order to take a conservative approach to protecting safety. 3 Moving forward It is recommended that cities think about dynamic signs as early as possible. Regardless of your city’s approach, it is better to make a rational choice rather than by having dynamic signs arrive before you have thought about the issue. Once the signs are up, Minnesota’s nonconforming use law arguably grants them “grandfathered” status, with a narrow exception for safety. 4 If your city would like more information about regulating dynamic signs, Paul Merwin, LMCIT Senior Land Use Attorney, can provide assistance and refer you to more information and resources. Contact Paul at (651) 281-1278 or pmerwin@lmc.org. Sample Ordinance Viewasamplesignordinancefrom thecityofHopkinsintheLandUse areaoftheLeaguewebsiteat www.lmc.org. Disclaimer:This memorandum is intended as general information only and should not be read as legal advice or as creating an attorney-client relationship. This memo addresses general concerns and has not been reviewed in the context of a specific client or situation. This memo was drafted as a loss control document and is intended to avoid conflicts rather than form an opinion as to the legality or defensibility of any action. Paul Merwin 07/07 Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, December 17, 2019 – Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES December 17, 2019 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on December 17, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. in the Raspberry Room at Hopkins City Hall. Present were Commission Members Gerard Balan, Samuel Stiele, Nathan White, Emily Fiamova, and Kristen Hanneman. Commissioners Laura Daly and Elizabeth Goeman were absent. Also present was City Planner Jason Lindahl. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Balan called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Hanneman moved, Commissioner Stiele seconded, to adopt the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/CONCERNS – None. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Hanneman moved, Commissioner Stiele seconded, to approve the minutes of the October 22, 2019 regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING – None. OLD BUSINESS – None. NEW BUSINESS 1. Review Zoning Standards Related to Massage Therapy Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of this item stating that this item is for review and discussion only. Staff is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission and seeks further direction about potential changes to the City’s massage therapy regulations. The key question to consider is: should Hopkins allow independent Massage Therapy Establishments or continue the current policy, which limits these businesses to an accessory use? Mr. Lindahl continued with background on current message therapy regulations in Hopkins and the reason for reviewing these regulations now. Discussion from the Commission included: • Have the current regulations stopped any illegal activity? • Continue to prohibit massage businesses as a home occupation • Illegal activity can take place in many types of businesses, not just massage therapy • The previous problem with illegal activity operating under massage therapy businesses was solved with the 2013 ordinance. Would making changes risk these activities starting again? Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, December 17, 2019 – Page 2 • The City should continue to protect small businesses in the downtown area by not allowing franchises • Allowing massage therapy as an accessory use as stated in the current ordinance is the best compromise for massage therapists to operate in Hopkins without permitting large franchises • Staff should research what communities similar to Hopkins have for massage therapy regulations and report back to the Commission. After thorough discussion, the Commission was split on the question whether Hopkins should allow independent Massage Therapy Establishments or continue the current policy, which limits these businesses to an accessory use. Commissioners Balan and White were supportive of changes while Commissioner Hanneman was opposed. Commissioners Fiamova and Stiele were unsure and requested more information. Staff will research massage standards in similar communities and report back to the Planning & Zoning Commission at a future meeting. 2. Review Zoning Standards Related to Electronic Signs Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of this item stating that this item is for review and discussion only. Staff received a letter from Zion Lutheran Church requesting the City consider changes to the zoning regulations for electronic signs. Specifically, the church asked about changes regarding the length of time currently required between message changes. The current regulations require that message changes in electronic signs be made no more than once every 24 hours. Mr. Lindahl presented the Commission with the background on these regulations and the variety of standards in surrounding communities. The Council is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission on the duration of time between message changes. Discussion from the Commission included: • Less than 2 minutes between message changes may be too frequent and distracting, but could be lessened from the current 24-hour requirement • 30 minutes was suggested as a possible duration limit • Is there any input from neighbors of current properties with electronic signs? Broader engagement from the community would be part of the process should the Council move forward with making any changes to the standards • The surrounding land use pattern and type of road are important. Look into creating different regulations based on zoning and road classification. It is important to protect residential use • Updating standards to include electronic dynamic sign regulations • Interest in more information or studies on the subject if available. After thorough discussion, the Commission was generally in favor of revisiting the electronic sign ordinance standards related to the duration between message changes and updating the standards to apply to current technology options. Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, December 17, 2019 – Page 3 ANNOUNCEMENTS During the announcements, City Planner Jason Lindahl updated the Planning & Zoning Commission on the following items: • Planning applications for Two Men and a Truck and Bank of America were approved by the City Council at their November 18, 2019 meeting. • The Beacon item from the November 4 meeting and was further discussed at the November 12 work session. The first reading of the item was approved at the December 3 meeting and the second reading will be discussed at the December 17, 2019 meeting. • The February 25, 2020 Planning Commission meeting is scheduled on caucus night. Although state law only requires City Council meetings be moved for this conflict, staff suggests moving the meeting to Monday, February 24. The Planning Commission had no objections to the change. ADJOURN Commissioner Fiamova moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Courtney Pearsall Administrative Assistant Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, July 28, 2020 – Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES July 28, 2020 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on July 28, 2020, at 6:30 p.m. by video conference call through Zoom in response to the COVID-19 emergency. Present were Commission Members Gerard Balan, Sam Stiele, Emily Fiamova, Nathan White, Douglas Dyrland, Maggie Sedoff and Jason Miller. Also present was City Planner Jason Lindahl, Assistant City Manager Ari Lenz, Building Official Christopher Kearney, Housing Inspector Susan Zasada and Code Enforcement Officer Liz Page. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Balan called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Fiamova moved, Commissioner White seconded, to adopt the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/CONCERNS – CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Fiamova moved, Commissioner White seconded, to approve the minutes of the June 23, 2020 regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2020-19 Animal Regulations City Code Text Amendment After receiving resident requests, the Hopkins City Council decided to review whether to allow backyard chickens in Hopkins. Staff reviewed the ordinances of neighboring communities, CDC recommendations and other sources, discussed concerns regarding our specific community, and then drafted an ordinance for public comment. Housing Inspector Zasada presented an overview of this information outlined in the staff report and draft ordinance. City Planner Lindahl followed with details on zoning district requirements. Chairperson Balan opened the public hearing. There were also no additional comments received outside of the comments included in the agenda packet ahead of the meeting. Motion to close public hearing by Commissioner Sedoff and seconded by Comissioner Fiamova. The motion was approved unanimously. Discussion from the Commission included the following: • Commissioner Sedoff questioned how the proposed ordinance compares with those of neighboring cities. Ms. Zasada responded that 7 surrounding cities were used as a basis in drafting the draft ordinance for Hopkins. Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, July 28, 2020 – Page 2 • Defining the side yard and rear setback requirements for corner lots. • Including mobile chicken runs in the draft ordinance. • Commissioner White questioned how the number of chickens per lot size was determined. Ms. Zasada responded that the maximum of 4 chickens is also the maximum consistently allowed in all of the surrounding communities. • Disposal of chickens. Ms. Zasada responded that chicken carcasses or waste matter cannot be composted, but they can be disposed of in the regular garbage. Processing of chickens is allowed, but not on residential property. • What kind of volume have surrounding communities experienced in regards to complaints on noise or smell of chickens? Ms. Zasada responded that the 3 cities consulted did not report a high volume of complaints related to chickens. • Will there be a limit to the number of licenses granted in the City? Ms. Lenz responded that there will not be a limit enforced. • Maximum height of chicken coops being 6 feet tall could be raised. Mr. Kearney responded that it was a common height in surrounding communities, but is something that can be looked into. Mr. Lindahl stated that accessory buildings have a maximum height of 15 feet and a coop could potentially fall somewhere between 6 feet and 15 feet. Commissioner Miller suggested discussion on raising the coop height from 6 feet. • Accessory building definitions for the zoning code update. Ms. Lenz stated this item will be presented to the City Council at their regular meeting on August 4 with the Planning Commission’s comments and staff recommendation. 2. Planning Application 2020-18 210 – 7th Avenue North Variance Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of the staff report for this item stating the applicant, Daniel Martin, requests a variance from the two-family dwelling (duplex) minimum lot size variance standard in the R-1-A district. Staff is recommending denial for this item as the applicant does not demonstrate a practical difficulty as required by state statute. Commissioner Sedoff questioned the lot size information. Mr. Lindahl explained that lot size information commonly used is provided by Hennepin County’s GIS website. If the applicant feels the information is not accurate, a survey can be done, which is not a service that is provided by the City and would need to be conducted by a private company. Daniel Martin addressed the Commission, stating that he had located his property irons and found his property to be 6,800 square feet and that his plans for converting the home to a duplex would add to the top of the home and not to the side and feels the variance request should be granted. After some general discussion, the majority of the Planning Commission was in agreeance with staff’s recommendation for denial. Planning Commissioner White moved and Commissioner Fiamova seconded to adopt Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2020-05, recommending the City Council deny the variance request from Daniel Martin for the property located at 210 7th Avenue North. The motion was approved 6-1 with Commissioner Sedoff voting nay. Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, July 28, 2020 – Page 3 Mr. Lindahl stated this item will be presented to the City Council at their August 4 meeting with the Planning Commission’s recommendation of denial. 3. 2020-08 Experience-Based Entertainment Businesses Zoning Code Text Amendment Commissioner Miller stated that he would be recusing himself from all discussion and any voting on this item citing a conflict of interest. Mr. Lindahl presented an overview of the staff report, stating that this item was initiated by staff to amend the City Code related to on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and experience-based businesses. The proposed ordinance will amend the zoning code to establish a new use to be known as “Experience-Based Entertainment”. This use will be allowed as a permitted use only in the B-2, Central Business District. Experience-Based Entertainment businesses would be the only use eligible for an Exclusive Liquor Store license but Experience-Based Entertainment uses could operate without such a license. Both City staff and the City Attorney have review this ordinance and recommend approval. The City Council is responsible for reviewing the liquor licenses portion of this application and they approved the first reading of this ordinance on July 14. Since this item includes changes to the zoning code, it must also be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Commissioner White questioned why the ordinance only includes the B-2 district and not also B-3. Mr. Lindahl explained that the City is taking a phased approach and there could be an opportunity to expand the ordinance to include the west end of Mainstreet. This could be done through the zoning update process. After general discussion on the item, Commissioner Fiamova moved and Commissioner White seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was approved 5-2 with Commissioner Stiele and Commissioner Miller abstaining due to conflict of interest. Commissioner Sedoff moved and Commissioner Dyrland seconded to adopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2020-04, recommending the City Council approve Ordinance 2020-1147, amending Chapters 4 and 102 and Appendix A of the Hopkins City Code regarding on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses and experience-based entertainment. The motion was approved 5-2 with Commissioner Stiele and Commissioner Miller abstaining due to conflict of interest. The second reading of this ordinance will be presented to the City Council at their August 4 meeting with the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval. OLD BUSINESS – None. Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, July 28, 2020 – Page 4 NEW BUSINESS 1. Planning Application 2020-16 425 Madison Avenue North Concept Plan Mr. Lindahl stated that this application does not require formal action by the Planning & Zoning Commission or City Council. The applicant requests feedback on the proposals so they can work toward preparing a future, formal submittal. Mr. Lindahl presented an overview of this item. The applicant, Xijing Zhang, requests concept plan review to subdivide the existing 1.48 acre single family property into three single family lots. The proposal would keep the existing single family home and divide the remaining area into two new single family lots for future development. During discussion on the concept plan, the Commission was generally supportive of the concept plan but had questions about the shared access and driveway for lots 1 and 2 and about the adjacent creek. Mr. Lindahl responded that the shared driveway was the best overall design given the limited amount of street frontage along Madison Avenue. The applicant agreed and added that they would prefer to keep future construction activity on lots 1 and 2 on a separate driveway to limit impact on their property. The applicant added that they had completed a wetland survey of the adjacent creek and none of it is located on their property. Mr. Lindahl added that the applicant will also be required to receive approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Mr. Lindahl explained the next steps for this item. Staff will include the Planning Commission’s comments in the report that will be presented to the City Council at their August 4 meeting. The applicant can use the comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission and City Council to prepare a formal application submittal. 2. Planning Application 2020-04 Electronic Signs Text Amendment Discussion Mr. Lindahl stated that this item is for review and discussion only. During the December 17, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, staff reviewed the City’s sign regulations and asked the Planning Commission for feedback on the City’s electronic sign regulations. After discussion during that meeting, the Commission directed staff to conduct more research on electronic sign regulations and bring forward potential zoning changes for further discussion. In response, staff prepared a draft of the electronic sign standards, which Mr. Lindahl presented to the Commission for additional feedback and comment. After reviewing the additional information provided by staff, the Commission was generally supportive of the following updates to the City’s electronic sign regulations: • Reducing minimum display time from once every 24 hours to once every 20-30 minutes in commercial areas with the potential for longer display times in residential areas. • Allowing electronic signs at public or institutional uses (churches or schools) in residential zones through a conditional use permit. Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, July 28, 2020 – Page 5 • Adding standards for other modern elements of electronic sign regulation like text size, mode, brightness and operation. The Planning & Zoning Commission will hold a public hearing on the final ordinance at the August 25 meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS – City Planner Lindahl updated the Commission on the following items. • The Planning & Zoning Commission was informed on the requirements for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Blake Road Station project. Once the EAW is complete, it will come to the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council for review. • The City Attorney will provide legal training to the Commission during the August meeting ADJOURN Commissioner Fiamova moved, Commissioner Sedoff seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Courtney Pearsall Administrative Assistant