HomeMy WebLinkAbout[02] Minutes Pursuant to due call and notice thereof the Joint Planning Board for the Township and City of St. Joseph
met in regular session on Monday, November 12, 2013 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph Township Hall.
Members Present: Chair Jeff Janssen. Members Rick Schultz, Ralph Eiynck, Renee Symanietz, Hal
Undersander, Gina Dullinger, Mike Koltes, Ross Rieke.
Others Present: Brenda Stanger, Jerome Salzer, Ann Reischl, Mike McDonald, Joe Pfannenstein, Troy
Rheaume, Nancy Able, Mike Deutz.
Aqprove Minutes: Schultr made a motion to approve the minutes of October 14, 2013; seconded by
Eiynck and passed unanimously.
Public HearingLVariance and CUP. St. Joe Mini Storape: Chair Janssen calied the hearing to order to
which Weyrens stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider the following two land use applications:
1. Variance—To consider a variance to leave a nonconforming off premise sign (billboard)that
has been structurally altered and the height increased from the existing billboard. Variance is
being requested from the following sections of Stearns County Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance#439:
a. 5.1.2A(nonconformity)
b. 7.24.1 G (right of way and property setbacks)
c. 7.24.5A(3)&C (cumulative area of signs and setback to other billboards)
2. Conditional Use(CUP) —To leave a nonconforming off premise sign(billboard)that has
been structurally altered and the height increased from what existed. The request is in
accordance with Sections 4.8, 7.24 and 9.10.5 H of the Stearns County Land Use and Zoning
Ordinance#439.
The property under consideration is located at 8480 County Road 75, legally described as: Lot 4 Block 1
of Braun Addition, lying northerly of County Road 75 in Section 11, St. Joseph Township. The request for
variance and CUP has been submitted by St. Joe Mini-Storage, LLC, 8480 County Road 75, St. Joseph
MN 56374.
Mike Deutz approached the Board and spoke on his own behalf. Deutz stated that he is proposing to
update his existing billboard with digital technology, or simply reface the existing billboard. He clarified
that he did not change the location or size and does not believe his is making any change other than
maintenance. He still questions the need to come before the board.
Janssen clarified that the matter before the Board is not the changing of technology billboard itself, it is
the size and setback of an existing grandfathered sign. Deutz stated that he is not changing the size or
location of the sign. Understander stated that the information provided by the County indicates the
dimensions of the sign have changed. Deutz responded that the sign was raised above the transformer
approximately one foot. Weyrens stated that it is her understanding that the County requires a CUP
when the value of an existing grandfathered use is exceeded. The matter does not include whether the
sign is digital or canvas. Detuz stated that he disagreed, it is not the materialistic value of the sign, rather
the location.
Schultz questioned Deutz as to the value of the new sign to which Deutz questioned the location or sign.
Schultz re-phased questioned and questioned the difference in value between a digital sign and the
existing sign. Deutz responded again that the value is in the location. Troy Rheaume stated that value of
the advertising would increase as well as the number of adds that would be run. Therefore there would
be an increase in revenue.
Mike McDonald, 213 13"'Ave SE spoke in support of the request. He stated that speaking as a resident
of St. Joseph, the sign is needed for community events such as the Miilstream Arts Festival. He stated
that recently the Joseph Planning Commission considered the change of technology as maintenance.
McDonald presented the Planning Commission with pictures of billboards with no faces and in his opinion
the deteriorating poles have a negative image whereas the well maintained electronic billboard ads value
for the community and property owner. Symanietz stated that they reason it sits that way is because they
did not sell.
Joe Pfannenstein, Pfannenstein Signs spoke in support of the request. Pfannenstein stated that
billboards do have a place and he encourages the Board to support the request.
Nancy Ebel, 29457 Kiwi Court, spoke in opposition to the request. She stated that in her opinion the
electronic sign is trashy looking. She states that when she sits on her deck instead of seeing nature, she
now has the view of the sign. Ebel requested the Board deny the proposed
Deutz stated the adjoining property owners Scott Meyer and Mike Schnoberg, indicated they would send
letters of support, but he did not feel they were needed. He disagrees with the prior comment about the
appearance and he is just trying it improve an old sign.
Symanietz stated that she has received some complaints on the brightness of the sign and questioned if
they are meeting sign regulations. Deutz stated that when the sign was first displayed they had a bad
panel which caused some problems. Since that the sign has been fixed and meeting guidelines. Deutz
stated that the light trespass from the new digital sign is less than the light trespass from the signs further
east.
Rieke stated that the Planning Commission discussed a similar conversion of a traditional billboard to a
static billboard and it was the interpretation of the Planning Commission that such a conversion is
maintenance in nature. However, the Planning Commission is recommending to the City Council and
they will ultimately decide.
Symanietz clarified that the existing sign was moved up in height one foot, not expanded one foot;to
which Deutz concurred. Janssen questioned if the number of poles were decreased. Deutz responded
that the original sign had five poles and they were replaced with two steel poles. The existing poles were
deteriorating and needed replacement which he considered maintenance. Janssen then questioned if a
building permit was needed for the replacement. Deutz responded that when the new poles were placed
he double checked the setbacks and location of the poles. He checked with the Building Inspector and
she stated it was up to the Board as to whether or not a permit is needed. The Board questioned if the
location of the sign has actually changed. Weyrens stated that the existing sign already encroached the
setback and by moving the poles back, it actually decreased the encroachment.
Nancy Able questioned if St. Joseph Township allows signs anywhere in the Township or if they are
regulations. Township Jerome Salzer responded that St. Joseph Township follows the Stearns County
Land Use regulations. The County has limitations for distance between signs but there is some
uncertainty as to whether the County prohibits digital signs. Janssen responded that the Board is
meeting tonight as a result of a disagreement between the County Staff and Property owner, each taking
a different position. The property owner agreed to whatever process was needed so that he could move
forward with his sign.
There being no one further wishing to address the Board Janssen made a motion to close the public
hearing at 7:20 PM; seconded by Eiynck and passed unanimously.
Janssen clarified that the variance needs to be considered before issuance of a special use permit. He
further stated that based on the information present it does not appear that the sign has changed
significantly. The number of posts have changed(five to two}, increasing the appearance of the sign and
making the setback closer to compliance. The sign has an increased valuation. The negative include the
lights, for those that do not like bright signs. The Board may consider looking at adding regulations in the
future, but nothing than can be done at this time.
Hal Undersander questioned if the existing sign included lighting. Deutz stated that the original sign
included an external light that projected towards the sign. Troy Rheaume stated that the LED projects
less light trespass than the externally lite sign.
Rieke questioned if there are State or Federal Laws that govern some of the technical features. Troy
Rheaume responded that under the Federal Highway regulations, off premise billboards dynamic signs
are regulated. For example, signs can only rotate every 6 or 8 minutes, they cannot flash and light levesl
are controlled. Janssen stated that he is unaware of any local regulations and he cannot speak to the
State or Federal regulations.
Hal Undersander questioned if the property owner would have discussed the matter with Stearns County
Environmental Services before he constructed the new sign, if he will would have needed a special use
and variance. Janssen stated that from his understanding that County believes he needed a process and
the property owner does not feel he needed a process
Rieke questioned if the Board determines that the new poles and face is simply maintenance, does that
take away the need to issue the variance and special use permit. Weyrens stated that Stearns County
Environmental Services is the Zoning Administrator for the Orderly Annexation area and while the
property owner does not agree with their interpretation, they have determined that a variance and special
use permit is needed. The property owner completed the required applications and the Board must take
action on those two items. The Board does not have an opportunity to determine that it is only
maintenance. It comes down to new technology and the maintenance on the posts. If the take is that it is
maintenance, he questioned if the Board can determine that it is just maintenance.
Rieke made a motion authorize the Chair and Secretary to execute the findings of fact and
decision approving the variance to leave a non-conforming off premise sign (billboard)that has
been structurally altered based on the following:
1. The improvement to the existing sign are more maintenance in nature, as the
property owner is using the property in the same manner as before only taking
advantage of new technology.
2. The existing sign encroached the right of way and the replacement of the poles
allowed the property owner to reduce the encroachment; thereby making the
situation better.
3. Economics did not play a role in the decision.
The motion was seconded by Koltes and passed unanimously.
Janssen stated that the Board must consider the issuance of a special use permit. Janssen stated that
based on the information before the Board the request is consistent with the standards for granting a
billboard. He stated that the property owner would be responsible for applying for a building permit and
typically the building permit fee would be doubled. Jerome Salzer disagreed and stated that the County
would issue any permit, not the Township.
Deutz questioned what value would be placed on the sign. Salzer stated that he called the Building
Inspector and a permit would be required. Deutz stated that it is his opinion that the building permit fee
should only be based on the poles, not the sign. Janssen stated that he would support waiving the
doubling of the fee due to the circumstances. Eiynck stated that he believes the Township should be
consistent and the fee should be doubled, particularly since there is another matter that is very similar to
this that the Township is considering.
Janssen stated the purpose of a building permit is for public safety and to assure that the structure that is
constructed can withhold the elements of this area. The purpose of the permit is not to raise revenue;
therefore he believes that the permit is necessary and the building inspector concurs. Weyrens clarified
that it is not for the Board to determine the value of the board or to determine what portion of the sign is
permitted, that is regulated by the building code which is enforced by the building official.
Janssen opened the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit.
Joe Pfannenstein, Pfannenstein Signs spoke in support of the request. Pfannenstein stated that
Mike McDonald, 213 13r''Ave SE spoke in support of the CUP. McDonald stated that he supports the
sign as it boosts the business center. He stated that he further understands the viewpoint of Ebel and he
respects that. McDonald questioned since the property is located in the Orderly Annexation Area, can't
the Board make the determination on the building permit. Janssen stated that the Township issues the
building permits, based on the MN Building Code which in turn provide direction to the Suilding Official.
Janssen clarified that a building permit is needed and the fees will be determined by the building official.
Deutz objected to the building permit fee and he believes that the fee should only apply to the structure,
not the electronic component or the revenue derived. Janssen stated that the Board needs to move
forward as the building permit is not a matter for the Joint Planning Board.
The public hearing was closed at 7:59 PM.
Janssen stated that when reviewing the facts before the Board, the sign has been altered insignificantly
(minor height and reduction in number of poles), and the decision between dynamic and static is not an
issue in this matter.
Rieke made a motion authorize the Chair and Secretary to execute the findings of fact and
decision approving the special use permit to structurally alter an existing off-premise billboard
based on the following:
1. The dynamic sign does not pose any environmental impacts,will not impact
property values in the surrounding area,will not impact the general health,safety
or traffic generation, will not have a negative impact on the surrounding public
services,facilities and infrastructures.
2. The structure is not new to the property and dynamic signs are regulation through
the federal highway regulations.
3. Modifications to the support structure were minor in nature
4. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
5. The CUP permit is not considering the impact of the digital sign which is controlled
by federal regulations.
Approval is based on the following contingencies:
1. The property owner must secure a building permit for the structural alterations.
Adiourn: Janssen made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 PM; seconded by Undersander and passed
unanimously by those present.
Jeffrey Janssen Judy Weyrens
Joint Board Chair Joint Board Secretary
STATE OF MINNESOTA ST.JOSEPH JOINT PLANNING BOARD
COUNTY OF STEARNS CONDITIONAL USE PROCEEDINGS
In the matter of: St.Joe Mini-Storage,LLC
The Joint Planning Board considered a request for Conditional Use submitted by St.Joe Mini Storage,
LLC to structurally alter an existing off-premise sign(billboard). The matter was duly published and
notice was provided to property owners within 350 feet of the above referenced property and the Joint
Planning Board conducted a public hearing on November 12,2013.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 8480 County Road 75
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 4 Block 1 of Braun Addition,lying northerly of County Road
75 in Section 11, St.Joseph Township(124/29).
The St.Joseph Joint Planning Board acknowledged the following Findings of Fact in consideration of
the request for Conditional Use to allow for the alteration of an existing off-premise billboard:
l. The subject property is currently zoned Commercial.
2. The Joint Planning Board on November 12,2013 considered the request for variance to alter
a non-conforming sign and was subsequently issued,allowing the applicant to seek a
conditional use permit to alter the non-conforming sign.
3. The request for variance was reviewed as it relates to the following Stearns County
Ordinances#439, Section 7.24.
a. 7.24.1 G: All signs shall be setback from the right-of-way of public roads not less than
(10)feet from the closest part of the sign.
b. 7.24.5 Off Premise Signs(Billboards)
i. Off-premise signs(billboards)may be permitted as a conditional use in any
industrial district and the Commercial district providing the total square footage
of both sides of the sign area is not more than six hundred(600) square feet, for
signs located along principal arterial streets.
ii. No off-premise sign(billboard)shall be located within five hundred(500) feet of
parks,historical sites,public picnic or rest areas,or within 200 feet of a church or
school property.
iii. No off-premise sign(billboard) shall be located closer than thirteen hundred
(1300) feet horizontal distance from any other off-premise sign measured in any
direction. Off-premise signs shall not exceed thirty(30) feet above the above the
average ground level at the base of the sign.
4. The Joint Planning Board on November 12, 2013 conducted a public hearing to consider a
variance on the non-conformity of the sign located at the aforementioned property, granting
the variances on the size and setback of the sign, allowing the applicant to seek approval of a
conditional use permit to alter an existing non-conforming structure.
5. As Zoning Administrator for the Orderly Annexation Area, Stearns County Environxnental
Services prepared and forwarded a staff report which included review of the application in
relation to the standards for granting a conditional use permit.The following are the review
comments:
a. The request for conditional use permit is consistent with Land Use and Zoning Ordinance
#439 Sections 4.8, 7.24,and 9.10.5H; and by issuance of a variance is compliant with
setback and size requirements.
b. A building permit will be required from St.Joseph Township.
c. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses in the area as the
area is primarily commercial and industrial in nature. The size of the new billboard is
similar to what was their previously.
d. The proposed use is consistent with the Stearns County Comprehensive Plan in relation
to the Future Land Use Map,Policy Area Map and Economic Development Plan Goal 1,
Objective 7.
e. The Joint Planning Board must determine what if any:
i. Potential environmental impacts
ii. Potential impacts of the proposal to property values in the area
iii. Potential public health, safety or traffic generation impacts the proposal will have
in relation to the area and capability of the roads serving the area
iv. Potential impact to the general health, safety and welfare of the residents
v. Potential impacts to the existing public services and facilities including schools,
parks, streets,and utilities and what potential is there for the proposal to
overburden the service capacity.
vi. Conformance to the City and Township Comprehensive Plan
vii. Other matters or concerns of the Board
6. The Future Land Use Map included in the St.Joseph Comprehensive Plan(City)indicate this
property to remain commercial in the future with CR 75 being a high visibility/high traffic
corridor.
7. The non-conformity does not impact the utilities other than the sewer forcemain from St.
Joseph to St. Cloud is located in the Stearns County ROW and should the sign or any portion
thereof infringe the ROW the City has no responsibility for damages to the sign in the event
work on the forcemain is needed.
DECISION AND CONCLUSION
Based on the Finding of Fact,the St.Joseph Joint Planning Board approves the Conditional Use
Permit as requested by St.Joe Mini-Storage LLC to alter a nonconforming based on the following:
1. The dynamic sign does not pose any environmental impacts,will not impact property
values in the surrounding area,will not impact the general health, safety or traffic
generation,will not have a negative impact on the surrounding public services, facilities
and infrastructures.
2. The structure is not new to the property and dynamic signs are regulation through the
federal highway regulations.
3. Modifications to the support structure were minor in nature
4. The use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
5. The CUP permit is not considering the impact of the digital sign which is controlled by
federal regulations.
Approval is based on the following contingencies:
1. The property owner must secure a building permit for the structural alterations.
ST.JOSEPH JOINT PLANNING BOARD
By
Jeffrey Janssen, Chair
By
Judy Weyrens, Secretary
Drafted by:
City of St.Joseph
PO Box 668
St.Joseph MN 56374
320.363.7201
STATE OF MINNESOTA ST.JOSEPH JOINT PLANNING BOARD
COUNTY OF STEARNS VARIANCE PROCEEDINGS
In the matter of: St.Joe Mini-Storage,LLC
The Joint Planning Board considered a request for variance submitted by St.Joe Mini Storage,LLC to
leave a nonconforming off premise sign(billboard)that has been structurally altered and the height
increased from what existed. The matter was duly published and notice was provided to property owners
within 350 feet of the above referenced property and the Joint Planning Board conducted a public hearing
on November 12,2013.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 8480 County Road 75
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRII'TION: Lot 4 Block 1 of Braun Addition, lying northerly of County Road
75 in Section 11, St.Joseph Township(124/29).
The St.Joseph Joint Planning Board acknowledged the following Findings of Fact in consideration of
the request for variance to alter a non-conforming sign as identified above:
L The subject property is currently zoned Commercial.
2. Acting on a concern, Stearns County Environmental Services investigated a digital sign that
was located on the aforementioned property and it was determined to be in violation and
letters of violation were sent to the property owner.
3. While billboards are permitted by issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in commercial zoning
districts,the billboard on the subject property is considered nonconforming for the following
reasons:
a. The setback from the right-of-way of CR 75 is 10 feet and the sign is 2 feet from the
ROW. The original post for the old billboard were closer to the ROW than the new
posts.
b. The setbacks from other off-premise signs in the area are 585 feet, 970 feet, 1,018 feet
and the Ordinance requires 1300 feet between billboards.
c. The allowed maximuxn square footage for an off-premise/billboard is a total of 600
square feet(both sides)and the current sign is 768 square feet.
d. The property line, as located by the applicant, is 5.5 feet from the digital face of the sign.
4. Since there are no previous dimensions of the existing sign available through the Assessor's
Office, aerial photography was utilized.
5. The request for variance was reviewed as it relates to the following Stearns County
Ordinances#439.
a. Section 5.1.2A—Non conformity
b. 7.24.1G—Right of Way and Setbacks
c. 7.24.SA(3)&C
6. Non Conformity—The Ordinance defines structural alternation as"any change in the
supporting members of a building, such as bearing walls,columns,beams or girders"and
upon Stearns County staff conducting a site visit it was determined that the structural posts
supporting the billboard had been replaced and the new electronic digital face sign had been
erected and situated higher on the posts than the previous non-digital,vinyl wrap billboard.
7. St.Joseph Township enforces the MN State Building Code and the work that was completed
to convert the sign to a digital sign requires issuance of a building permit. The applicant did
not secure a building permit.
8. Granting of a variance is controlled by MN Statute 394.27 Subd. 7 and requires the applicant
to meet ALL the following criteria:
a. The proposed use is allowed in the Zoning District in which the subject property is
located.
b. The proposed use is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official
controls.
c. The variance must be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
d. The variance may be granted IF there are practical difficulties in complying with the
official control.
i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner.
ii. The plight of the landowner is due to the circumstances unique to the property
and not created by the landowner.
iii. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality.
iv. The need for variance involves more than economic considerations.
9. As Zoning Administrator for the Orderly Annexation Area, Stearns County Environxnental
Services prepared and forwarded a staff report which included review of the application in
relation to the requirements of MN Statute 394.27. The following are the review comments:
a. An off-premise sign is allowed as a conditional use in a Commercial District.
b. 1. The purpose and intent of the Commercial District,as stated in Section 9101 of the
Zoning Ordinance,is to promote the concentration of a wide range of comxnercial and
recreation establishments into a general commercial area to service local residents and the
traveling public.
2. The intent of not allowing nonconforming structures on properties not classified as
homestead and non-homestead residential or seasonal residential to do only nonstructural
maintenance and repairs is that when they are no longer structurally sound,the billboard
will be removed from the landscape,bring the area into greater compliance.
c. 1. Comprehensive Plan Resource Related Policy#3—Community Character:
Characteristics of the landscape contribute significantly to the character of the
community and will affect where development occurs and the form it takes place.
Polices might encourage or require limiting signage or display of equipment.
2. The Economic Plan Development Goal 1 is to maintain and strengthen economic
diversity; and objective 7 is to enhance the ability of local retail&commercial businesses
to sustain small city and town center commercial area.
d. Practical difficulties:
i. Use in reasonable manner: The requested variance for the setback distances from
the other three billboards ranges from a 21.7%variance to a 55%variance; the
request;the requested variance from the right of way setback requirement for CR
75 is an 80%deviation;the requested variance to exceed the maximuxn
cumulative area is a 28%deviation.
ii. 1. The applicant did not obtain a building permit form St.Joseph Township for
the project or Stearns County when the existing nonconforming sign was
replaced with the electronic digital sign;therefore the project was completed
before Stearns County or St. Joseph Township was area of the project. There are
na topographical features unique to the property influencing the request.
2. The plight of the property owner is due in part to the location of the signs
when regulations were enacted resulting in their classification as nonconforming.
iii. The adjacent properties are zoned Commercial, Industrial,and the Municipality
is close. The size of the structure is similar to what has been there.
Consideration should be given to the impact of the illumination and digital
features.
iv. Economics did not play a role in the variance.
10. The Future Land Use Map included in the St. Joseph Comprehensive Plan(City)indicate this
property to remain commercial in the future with CR 75 being a high visibility/high traff'ic
corridar.
11. The non-conformity does not impact the utilities other than the sewer forcemain from St.
Joseph to St. Cloud is located in the Stearns County ROW and should the sign infringe the
ROW the City has no responsibility for damages to the sign in the event work on the
forcemain is needed.
DECISION AND CONCLUSION
Based on the Finding of Fact,the St.Joseph Joint Planning Board approve the variance request of
St.Joe Mini-Storage LLC to leave a nonconforming billboard that has been structurally altered based on
the following:
1. The improvement to the existing sign are more maintenance in nature,as the property
owner is using the property in the same manner as before only taking advantage of new
technology.
2. The existing sign encroached the right of way and the replacement of the poles allowed
the property owner to reduce the encroachment;thereby making the situation better.
3. Economics did not play a role in the decision.
ST.JOSEPH JOINT PLANNING BOARD
BY
Jeffrey Janssen,Chair
By
Judy Weyrens, Secretary
Drafted by:
City of St.Joseph
PO Box 668
St.Joseph MN 56374
320.363.7201