Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004 [06] Jun 07June 7, 2004 Page 1 of 5 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning Commission for the City of St. Joseph met in regular session on Monday, June 7, 2004 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. Members Present: Chair (Council Liaison) Gary Utsch. Commissioners: Bob Loso, Marge Lesnick, Jim Graeve, Mike Deutz, Kurt Schneider, Sister Kathleen Kalinowski. Administrator Judy Weyrens. Others Present: Bill Nelson, Paul Petrek, Mike Gohman, Jim Krebsbach Approve Agenda: Loso made a motion to approve the agenda; seconded by Lesnick and passed unanimously. Approve Minutes: Loso made a motion to approve the minutes; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. Public Hearing -Variance Request -Stonehouse Properties: Chair Utsch called the public hearing to order and stated that the purpose of the hearing is to consider aforty-four foot variance on the maximum size of a business sign. The variance is being requested to construct the business sign for Stone House Tavern and Eatery. The request has been submitted by Stonehouse Properties, LLC, PO Box 511, St. Joseph, MN 56374. Paul Petrek spoke on behalf of Stonehouse Properties. Petrek stated that he is in receipt of the recommendation of the City Attorney and Public Works Director and has a few concerns. Petrek stated that the City Attorney is recommending the denial of the variance as a hardship is not present. Petrek presented the Commission with the following information: 1. Pictures of signs on adjacent properties indicating that the signs are considerably larger than the maximum allowed by the current Ordinance. For example the Lighthouse has a sign that measures 192 square feet and the Super 8 Motel has a sign that measures 128 square feet. 2. The City Attorney recommended that the variance be denied because to grant the variance they must show a hardship. Petrek stated that they are being treated differently than the other two properties adjacent to them (The Lighthouse & Super 8 Motel). It is his opinion that the request before the Commission is a modest request as they are only requesting an addition 44 feet and the sign will only be single sided. 3. Petrek indicated that the safety issues identified in their application were ignored and were not taken into consideration by the Attorney. Petrek also spoke about the uniqueness of the sign. They were able to obtain a log that is 500 years old, and as a result, the surface area needs to be larger because of the size of the log. The lettering must match the sign structure. He further stated that due to their location, the stop lights will affect the visibility. Petrek stated that Stonehouse LLC is undertaking a large risk in a volatile industry and believe that he will be at an unfair advantage if he cannot properly advertise the business. The spirit and interest of the sign is another reason as to why they should have their variance granted. Petrek stated that the sign is tasteful and will be a point of interest in the City. With the Wobegon Trail in St. Joseph, they feel that this would bring out the natural element in the sign. He also stated that if the variance is denied, that would bring up the question as to how and why the Super 8 and Lighthouse got approval for their signs. Weyrens clarified that the City recently annexed the Super 8 and Lighthouse. The existing signs are grand fathered under the Township Ordinances. However, once the sign needs repair beyond 50% of the structure, the sign will need to be constructed in accordance to City regulations. Mike Gohman of Gohman Construction spoke in support of the sign. He stated that Gohman Construction has been helping with the designing of the sign. The sign will not be a wooden sign with painted letters, June 7, 2004 Page 2 of 5 rather the sign will be lighted. It was important to design a sign with a professional appearance, so the sign will have a clean look without protruding wires. He said that the reason the sign is over the maximum size limit is partly due to the box for the wires, which creates a larger surface. Jim Krebsbach spoke in support of the sign. He stated that it is an attractive looking sign and agreed that the restaurant is an extremely competitive business and the City should approve the variance request so that they are not at an unfair advantage. There being no one further to comment, the public hearing was closed. Utsch stated that he is troubled by the request for variance as when the property owners requested approval for the building permit for the building, they indicated that the sign would fall within the Ordinance regulations. Utsch questioned what has changed since the development plan was approved. Petrek stated the reason for the variance is the size of the cabinet that is required to mount the letters. As stated earlier, the cabinet will also house the mechanics of the sign so that they are not visible. Graeve questioned Petrek as to what speed people will be going when they are trying to read the sign. Petrek responded that cars traveling on CR 75 are typically at a speed of about 55mph or more. Therefore the sign must be visible for a longer distance. Utsch stated that the traffic issue is not relevant because there is a stop light at that corner and the sign will be visible. Petrek stated that they have been working with the City on every part of the development process and everything else has been okay. He feels that this is a very modest request. He again stated that the surrounding properties have signs larger than the sign being requested by Stonehouse LLC. Deutz had two questions for Petrek regarding the sign. Q. If the sign was part of the original site plan, why is there a change in the sign plan? A. Petrek said that the opportunity came along for them to get the log and they decided that would fit the style of the restaurant. O. The City just finished updating the sign ordinance. Why wasn't this size issue brought up earlier before the ordinance was changed? If the City grants a variance for this sign, there will be issues with other businesses along CSH 75 who may want larger signs. This may lead to another amendment of the Ordinance. A. Petrek questioned if the Ordinance is specific to the type of sign - whether or not it is a billboard or a business sign. He stated that in his opinion, when measuring the sign only the lettering should be considered, not the surface mount. They are requesting the variance so that they can enhance the sign and support the restaurant. He stated that the people of St. Joseph wanted a restaurant in the City and he feels that the community would be pleased with the sign if the variance were granted. Petrek stated that a restaurant is a high-risk business to get into. As Restaurateurs, they need to be able to advertise what they are doing. They want to be competitive in the restaurant industry and location is very important. Petrek stated that they have a great location, but now they just need to be able to advertise their business. Deutz requested clarification on the size of the sign. Petrek stated the proposed sign measures 6' x 24' or 144 square feet. Deutz stated it is his opinion that the sign could be reconstructed to 5' x 20' or 100 square feet, meeting the Ordinance requirements. He questioned whether the extra 4' for the height and 1' for the length would be that important to the sign. Petrek stated that minimizing the sign would affect the lettering. He also stated that the temporary construction sign is 192 square feet and that is hard to read when driving by at highway speeds. Deutz asked Petrek if he feels that his hardship is the fact that cars go by at 60mph. Petrek again stated that he is only requesting approval to have a sign the same size as the adjoining property owners. He stated that if the signs at the Lighthouse and the Super 8 Motel were larger than the June 7, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Ordinance allows, the property owners should have been required to reconstruct the signs to the City Code when they were annexed to the City. Lesnick questioned Petrek as to how the business will be affected if they are not granted the variance. Petrek stated that people will wonder why they put up such a small sign with such a large log. He further stated it would look "screwed up" and the sign is the first impression of the business, impression is vital to the success of a restaurant. Deutz stated that as a Commissioner, it would have been easier for him to consider granting the variance if they as property owners would have provided the Planning Commission with specific reasons for granting a variance. Graeve stated that if they need more time to prove there is a hardship, the issue should be tabled until a later date. Lesnick stated that an increase of 44% is a large request not modest. She further stated it is her opinion that a large sign would spoil the entrance to the City and concurred that there are no findings for the Planning Commission to grant a variance. Loso disagreed with the Commissioners. He stated it is his opinion that the property owners have presented a hardship as the adjoining property owners haver larger signs and they are placed at a disadvantage. Loso further questioned how the Ordinance limitation of 100 square feet was derived. Utsch said that the Planning Commission spent considerable time working on the Sign Ordinance and it has only been in effect for one year. The sign dimensions are consistent with the area Cities. With regard to the signs on adjacent property, the City did not have control on the size of those signs as they were constructed when the property was located in St. Joseph Township. Weyrens informed the Planning Commission that there will be a special meeting on the 21St of June and the matter can be tabled if additional information is requested. Schneider asked about the background for the sign and if the surface is aluminum box that could be resized. Gohman stated that the box is proportionate to the sign and changing the box will also change the lettering, making the lettering to small for the sign structure. Gohman stated that the Building Official has already suggested that the lettering be reduced to meet the Ordinance requirements. Schneider questioned the lettering on the St. Joseph Business Center. Weyrens stated that the signage on the Business Center is considered a wall sign and there are different size regulations for such. Gohman stated that in the sign industry, the sign size is measured by the lettering, not the surface mount. Weyrens stated that she would ask for an opinion from the City Attorney and provide the Commission with the additional information. Graeve made a motion to table action on the sign variance request of Stonehouse LLC until June 21, 2004 so that the following information can be secured: 1. An opinion from the City Attorney regarding how the size of a sign is measured. 2. The property owner has an opportunity to review the standards for granting a variance and provide specific information as to why the variance should be granted. The motion was seconded by Schneider and passed unanimously. District 742 -Portable Classrooms: Weyrens reported that School District 742 is requesting authorization to secure a building permit to add portable classrooms to Kennedy Elementary School. This is a second request as they had already added two portable classrooms in 2003. This portable classroom is only a temporary fix until they can build a larger school. June 7, 2004 Page 4 of 5 EI Haus, Building and Grounds Supervisor spoke on behalf of the School District. He stated that the school has a capacity of 380 students, with 400 enrolled for 2004/2005. Loso questioned how the School District plans to deal with increasing enrollment in the future. Haus responded that the School District is aware that they need more room and they have been actively looking to purchase land for a new school. They have been identifying sites since last spring. Utsch questioned whether or not the proposed portable classroom is identical to the ones that they purchased last year. Haus stated that they are similar, but the siding is different. They will be refinished so they are both vinyl sided. Utsch also questioned where they will put this classroom. Haus stated that it will be put to the south of the existing building between the building and the tennis court. The second entrance will access this classroom. There will be six classrooms for overflow. According to Weyrens, the site plan would meet the setback requirements. Haus stated the site plan has been reviewed by an architect, assuring that all Building Code requirements have been met. The plan will also be reviewed by the City Building Official for compliance. Lesnick made authorizing Independent School District 742 to make application for a building permit to construct two 24'x72' custom modular classroom to alleviate the overcrowding at Kennedy Elementary School. The buildings will be maintained no longer than July 7, 2008. The motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Birch Street East Rezoning: Utsch reported that the City Council considered the request of Why USA to rezone property along Birch Street Easton May 20, 2004. The Council voted on a motion to approve the recommendation of the Planning Commission and rezone certain property along Birch Street East from current R1, Single Family to 62, Highway Business. The motion was seconded and passed by a 3/2 vote. However, a change in land use requires a 4/5th vote of the Council. Therefore, the motion failed. Utsch stated that at the last Council meeting he made a motion to reconsider the rezoning and send the matter back to the Planning Commission to restart the process. The motion passed unanimously; therefore the public hearing will be scheduled for June 21, 2004. There was some discussion raised by the Planning Commission about the rezoning of Birch Street. • Loso questioned the purpose of conducting a second public hearing. Utsch stated that he hopes that by restarting the process, this will give the Council time to reconsider the issues. He said that this is the right thing to do. Loso stated that the Council was wrong and they can't make decisions based on what is not part of the Ordinance. Utsch stated that the Planning Commission followed procedure and made a decision based on the Comprehensive Plan. Utsch encouraged the Planning Commission to fight for this rezoning. Weyrens stated that the Council has initiated the amendment to the zoning map, therefore a development plan is not required. The public hearing has been scheduled for June 21, 2004. • Graeve questioned who initiated the rezoning process. His understanding was that the homeowner requested the rezoning, not the Planning Commission. He didn't recall the Planning Commission initiated the process. • Deutz questioned whether or not it is enough if 50% of the landowners are in favor of the rezoning or if all property owners within 350' should have a say in the decision. He stated that everyone who is affected by the possible rezoning is in favor. Schneider stated that people knew that eventually this area would be business. There are currently some businesses in the area and the traffic has remained the same. June 7, 2004 Page 5 of 6 Other matters Arcon Development: Graeve provided material to the Planning Commission members to read in reference to the drainage in the Arcon Development. Since this development is so close to the Sauk River, he suggested the City consider the use of water gardens. Water gardens on individual properties would help contain the water and prevent water from draining on to the streets and in the river. R4 Townhome District: Weyrens presented the Commission with a draft R4 Zoning District. The new district would accommodate Townhouse Development. Deutz questioned when they would want to implement the new district and how it will be implemented in the Comprehensive Plan. Weyrens stated the Planning Commission will have further discussion on this and where the Zoning could be applied. Adiourn: Lesnick made a motion to adjourn at 8:05 pm; seconded by Loso and passed unanimously.