Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout[07b] Special Use Permit, St. Joe Mini-Storage (07b) Council Agenda Item MEETING DATE: November 21, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: Special Use Permit, St. Joe Mini-Storage SUBMITTED BY: Administration BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on November 7 2013 and recommend the Council issue a special use permit for St. Joe Mini-Storage LLC to allow the new face on the billboard located on Old Highway 52. Their findings determined that the new sign was maintenance, using today’s technology. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND INFORMATION: See Planning Commission material ATTACHMENTS: Request for Council Action Planning Commission Material REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION: Accept or reject the recommendation of the Planning Commission. This page intentionally left blank Planning Commission – Extract of Minutes Special Use Permit – St. Joe Mini-Storage LLC Public Hearing, Special Use: Chair Rieke opened the public hearing to which Weyrens stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a special use permit which would replace an existing billboard with a digital face at 320 Old HWY 52. St. Joseph Code of Ordinances 52.27 subd. 3(k) identifies uses which in the judgment of the Planning Commission and City Council are similar to those listed in the zoning district. The request has been submitted by Mike Deutz. Weyrens stated that the property submitted a building permit application to reface an existing billboard with a digital sign. The building permit application was denied as billboards are not currently allowed in the City limits. The use is allowed to continue as a non-conforming use which is regulated by MN Statute. th Mike McDonald, 213 13 Ave SE: believes the City is overly restrictive on signs in general in the City. He stated that the sign has been there for a long time and that the studies done regarding signs are old. He added that electronic signs are all over the place. The EDA paid 1000 to a chiropractor to change the sign and is not sure what the difference between that instance and this one. McDonald further stated that the City was considering converting the existing sign on CR 75 and College Avenue to digital and questioned why the City could propose such a use, but a property owner cannot. Weyrens clarified that when the City constructed the existing electronic sign a special use permit was issued after a public hearing was held. At that time the Ordinance was different and billboards were allowed. The City was looking to keep the existing use and would have gone through a process. Joe Pfannenstein approached the Commission stating that he is supportive of advertising in the City in order for the business to succeed and for people to know what’s out there. Mike Deutz spoke on his own behalf. He stated that in his opinion he is only performing maintenance on the sign with minor changes to the dimension. The current trend in billboards is to use digital technology so he is replacing the existing billboard with a new face. Deutz stated that if the Planning Commission has any questions Troy Rheaume, sign vendor, would be available to answer any questions. With no one else wishing to speak, Rieke closed the public hearing at 7:24 PM. Rieke stated that in his opinion, the location of the sign is where it has the least impact on the City. Schaefer stated that he sees it as an existing structure and the property owner is looking to complete maintenance and he does not have an objection to the proposed special use request. Reike stated that a fair question would be whether changing the sign substantially would call into question the grandfather status. Schultz added that his only concern is the non-conforming sign in the ordinance, and how to go about extending the use of non-conforming use. He stated you cannot take a non- conforming object and make it conforming. Weyrens clarified that the only portion of the billboard that will remain is the posts as a new crossbar will be attached to the existing poles and the new digital face will connect to the cross bar. Killiam asked whether there is positive or negative feedback on the billboard. Troy Rheaume stated that he has received requests for advertisers who are interested in utilizing the sign for their advertisements. When questioned about the length of each advertisement, Rheaume stated that they typically have six to eight advertisers with each ad displayed for eight to ten seconds. The industry is regulated and prohibits flashing and provides standards, of which his company adheres to. Deutz stated that he would be open to allowing the City to use the sign for community events as well. Schultz asked how the brightness of the sign is adjusted. Rheaume stated that they can adjust it to lower the brightness. Hausmann added that he does not have a problem with the location of the sign and stated that it would be nice to include road closure and emergency type updates on the sign as well. Weyrens stated that the property being discussed is a separate parcel without much ability for development and it is currently zoned as R1, Residential. Deutz stated that the County has the property as commercial to which Weyrens clarified it is commercial for taxing purposes only, zoning is different. Planning Commission – Extract of Minutes Special Use Permit – St. Joe Mini-Storage LLC Dullinger stated that she agrees with Deutz that he is merely performing maintenance on the sign as in today’s environment, refacing a billboard probably is updating it to digital. Hausmann questioned the photograph presented to the Planning Commission as it looks like the number of support poles has increased. He questioned if the support structure will change. Deutz stated that the poles are the same, they will not increase. Deutz clarified that the only change in the sign is a slight increase in the height, but it is nominal. Hausmann made a motion to recommend to the Council issue the special use permit allowing the use to continue as the property owner is refacing an existing sign with modern technology, which in his opinion is a maintenance issue. The motion was seconded by Killam. Aye: Rieke, Hausmann, Killam, Schaefer, Dullinger Nays: Abstain: Schultz Motion Carried: 5:0:1 MEMO To: Judy Weyrens, St. Joseph City Administrator From: Thomas Jovanovich, City Attorney RE: Deutz Sign Special Use Permit Application INTRODUCTION The City Administrator has asked for an opinion setting forth the relevant ordinances, issues, and procedures for handling the special use application for a nonconforming sign located in the R1, residential district. This memo will set forth the relevant ordinances provisions which the council must consider in reviewing the special use request. It will also set forth the issues and evidence needed to make findings on the various issues. FACTS Michael Deutz owns a billboard which is a nonconforming use in the R1-residential district, in St. Joseph. The sign is located between County Road 75 and the Old Highway 52. Currently, the sign is illuminated by two spotlights which shine towards the face of the sign. Light is then reflected off the face of the sign to traffic coming from the west. Michael Deutz has submitted a special use application to obtain a permit to take down the entire face of the sign and replace the old sign with a new dynamic digital sign which will allow multiple messages. The St. Joseph City Ordinances does not address dynamic digital signs and the council has passed an interim use ordinance which prohibits the issuance of any permit for an illuminated or a dynamic digital sign. However, the special use permit request from Michael Deutz was filed prior to adoption of the interim use ordinance. The proposal by Mr. Deutz constitutes the following: The entire face and structure of the old sign will be taken down and removed. It will be replaced by a dynamic digital sign which will allow multiple messages. It is anticipated that the messages will change every 8 to 10 seconds. In order to support the new digital sign a cross beam will be placed on top of the existing poles and beams. The only part of the old structure remaining will be the existing poles and beams. The LED lights in the new sign will face to the west onto adjoining property and roads. This is in contrast to the existing sign in which the two lights which illuminate the sign face the sign and the light is then reflected from the sign surface rather than the light being directed outward from the source of light. 1 The existing sign has a surface area of 34,560 square inches. The new sign will have a surface area of 34,625 square inches. ISSUES 1. Issue: Whether the proposed digital sign creates additional non-conformities under the St. Joseph sign ordinance. Section 52.11. Subd. 12 of the sign ordinance contains rules relating to non-conforming signs. This section states in part: “it is the intent of this sign ordinance that non-conforming signs shall not be enlarged upon or expanded, nor be used as grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district.” It further provides that: (a) “no sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity… (e) “no exciting non-conformity signs shall be enlarged, expanded or moved except in changing the sign to a sign permitted in the zoning district in which it was located.” The sign ordinance at subdivision 7 provides general provisions. Section f states that: “where a sign is an illuminated sign, the source of light shall not shine upon any part of a residence or into a residence district or any roadway.” Section j of the general provisions states that: “no sign shall be of such a nature or placed in such a position that it will cause danger to traffic on a street…” The council must decide whether the proposed digital sign violates any one of the above standards. If so, the sign would create additional non-conformities. The sign ordinance specifically prohibits the increase in non-conformities. 2.Issue: Whether the proposed sign is in violation of the non-conforming use ordinance, Section 52.08 Subd. 11 which states that signs pertaining to or advertising products sold on the premises of a non-conforming building or use may be continued only when the non-conforming use is permitted to continue and such signs shall not be expanded in number, area, height, or illumination. In this case the council must determine whether the illumination of the sign is increased. If the illumination is increased the proposed sign would be in violation of the non- conforming use ordinance. 3.Issue: Whether the proposed sign constitutes a structural alteration under the non- conforming use ordinance? The non-conforming use statute at Subdivision 4 states that: “no existing structure devoted to a non-conforming use shall be enlarged, extended, re-constructed, moved, or structurally altered except in changing the use of the structure to a conforming use.” The St. Joseph Zoning Ordinance provides the definition of a structural alteration as “any change in the supporting members of a building such as bearing walls or partitions, 2 columns, beams or girders or any substantial change in the roof or exterior walls” Section 52.04 Subdivision 103. The council should determine whether the addition of the cross beam to support the new digital screen constitutes a structural change to the sign. If the proposed changes are structural in scope, they would be prohibited. CONCLUSION If the council decides that the sign is prohibited under the current ordinance, the council must set forth the reasons for the denial. In this case, it would be prudent to have staff then prepare detailed findings for the council to adopt at its next meeting. 3