Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20080407 - VIII-B-2Memo III-B-2 To: Mayor Hicks and City Council Members From: Karl Barker, Associate Planner Date: April 7, 2008 Subject: Variance- Thomas Reinardy -Spiral Pizza - #2008-07 -Variance to modify a nonconforming sign REQUEST Thomas Reinardy, owner of Spiral Pizza located at 420 Vermillion Street, is requesting the following variance from City Code Chapter 155. 1) 155.06, Subd. (D) "Nonconforming structures. Where a lawful structure exists at the effective date of adoption or amendment of this chapter that could not be built under the terms of this chapter because of restrictions on area, lot coverage, height, yards, its location on the lot, or other requirements concerning the structure, the structure may be continued while it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions. (1) No nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered so as to increase its nonconformity, but any structure or portion thereof may be altered to decrease its nonconformity." The current sign is a rectangular shaped sign hanging vertically on one side of the pole. The new sign will be the same overall square footage, but would be a different shape and placed horizontally on one side of the pole. The height of the sign would be reduced by about four feet MODIFICATIONS SINCE PLANNING COMMISSION The application has been modified since the March 24, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission reviewed variance requests to both relocate and intensify the sign. Commissioners voted 5 (McInnis, Zeyen, Hiedeman, Peine, Stevens) to 1 (Schmitt) to recommend denial of both variances consistent with the recommendation by staff. Please see the attached minutes for further information. ANALYSIS Staff recommends approval of the revised application based on the following: 1) The existing nonconformity is not the direct result of the applicant. 2) The proposed alteration does not increase the overall square footage of the sign. 3) The height of the sign will be reduced by four feet, lessening the non-conformity. 4) The proposed alteration is consistent with the intent of the ordinance to allow for modifications and face plate changes to non conforming signs. A resolution for action has not been included. Staff will draft a resolution upon action by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS • Application • Modification to Application • Current sign illustration • Proposed sign illustration • Site Location Map • Aerial View • Minutes BACKGROUND INFORMATION Zoning Classification The subject property is zoned C-3, Community Regional Commerce. Retail and service establishments are permitted uses. Comprehensive Plan Classification The use conforms to the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated MXD - Mixed Use Residential. Existing Condition The existing building was built in 1950. The age of the sign is unknown. Adjacent Zoning and Land Use The following land uses abut the property: Direction Existing Use Zoning Comp Plan North Residential C-3 Commercial MXD Mixed Use East Commercial C-3 Commercial MXD Mixed Use South Vermillion St Commercial C-3 Commercial MXD Mixed Use West 5~h Street Fire Department C-3 Commercial Public Sign Requirements for the C-3 District for a Single Occupant Building: Type of Permitted Existing Request Sign Monument Maximum 6 feet Roof No Height Sign change 5.5 feet Sign Face 50 square Roof No size feet Sign change 97.48 sq. ft. Cap Height 8 inches (max.) Wall Maximum Great of Size 40 sq. ft. or 5% of wall area Projecting Clearance 8 feet Maximum 4 feet Distance from Building Directionals Maximum 4 feet Height Maximum 2 square Size feet Pole Sign Not 28 41.19 Permitted square square feet feet ORDINANCE Pole signs are considered legally non-conforming signs in the City of Hastings. The City of Hastings Sign Ordinance guides the types of modifications that can be made to these signs. Maintenance of these signs includes replacement of the same size faceplate. However, the rebuilding, relocation, and replacement of pole signs are prohibited unless the sign is structurally insecure. (F) Nonconforming and illegal signs. (1) Any sign legally existing on the effective date of this section that does not conform to the requirements set forth in this section shall become a nonconforming use and/or structure. Except as otherwise provided in this section, nonconforming signs shall be allowed to continue, but shall not be rebuilt, relocated, replaced, or altered wi#hout being brought into compliance with all the requirements of this section. Furthermore, nonconforming signs are subject to the provisions contained at § 155.06. (2) Any sign that is in violation of this section shall be removed or altered to comply with this section. (3) Maintenance of existing signs, including the replacement of faceplates of the same size, shall be permitted on nonconforming signs. (4) Temporary ribbons, banners, pennants, and similar devices that are in use as of the adoption of this section mus# comply with the provisions of division (C)(11) above. (Prior Code, § 10.08) (Am. Ord. 485, passed 2-3-2003; Am. Ord. 541, passed 10-17-2005) Penalty, see § 10.99 (5) Repairs. Any sign located in the city which may now be or hereafter become out of order, rotten or unsafe, and every sign which shall hereafter be erected, altered, resurfaced, reconstructed or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, shall be removed or otherwise properly secured in accordance with the terms of this section by the owners thereof or by the owners of the grounds on which said sign steal! stand, upon receipt of proper notice so to do, given by the issuing authority. No rotten or other unsafe sign shall be repaired or rebuilt except in accordance with the provisions of this section and upon a permit issued by the issuing authority. (6) Removal. in the event of the failure of the owner or person, company or corporation having control of any sign, or the owner of the ground on which the sign is located, to remove or repair said sign within 60 days after the use is terminated, a notice shall be given to the owner of the sign and the sign may be removed by the city at the expense of the owner or manager of the sign, or the owner of the ground upon which the sign stands. VARIANCE REVIEW The following criteria have been used as findings of fact in granting variances to zoning provisions: A. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Applicant Response: The location is unique. Staff Response: The ordinance makes provisions for properties that have practical difficulties in using a wall sign or freestanding signs through the use of roof signs. Spiral Pizza is currently utilizing a roof sign, which allows the business to benefit from having signage that exceeds the height and size requirement of the existing Zoning Ordinance. 3 (g) Roof Signs, `To provide reasonable flexibility in respect to the sign regulations set forth in this section, the City Council may approve an application for a roof sign where an exception would be consistent with the intent of these regulations, in cases where the applicant demonstrates practical difficulties in using a wall sign or freestanding sign. However, no roof sign shall exceed in size the district requirements for freestanding signs. If the City Council approves a roof sign, the area of the roof sign may be subtracted from the allowable freestanding and/or wall signage allowed for the property and/or building. B. The literal interpretation of the City Code would deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of Chapter 10. Applicant Response: The literal interpretation of the City Code would create a hardship which is not the fault of the owners. Staff Response: The current configuration of the sign does not allow for an electronic sign. Thus, granting the variance would allow for an electronic sign- Many businesses have refaced their nonconforming pole signs with electronic signs. C. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from actions of the applicant. Applicant Response: The conditions and circumstances indicated above do not result from any action of the applicant. Staff Response: Staff concurs that the applicant did not cause the conditions or circumstances resulting in the nonconformity of the pole sign. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by Chapter 10 to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures, or buildings in the same district, and no permitted or nonconforming use of lands, or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for the issuance of a variance. Applicant Response: N/A Staff Response: Staff feels that granting the variance may set a precedent for future businesses utilizing pole signs. However, as the sign is not being increased in intensity, staff believes this to be an acceptable compromise. ~acr~s-~~ LAND USE APPLICATION -CITY OF HASTINGS PLANNING DEPT 1014 St E, Hastings, MN 55033 ~ Phone: 651.480.2350 ~ Fax: 651.437.7082 Address of Property: ~7 ~ ~ U~.~/'y~n. ~~ , b ~ ~~' • SQ:,~,~ ~; ~aa Legal Description of Property: !A 3a-Is'D [2g~aei - SYa, e~' S!~ o~ c.o~• 8 81k d8 ~" ~ o~ ~10~ st`' ~' Oesc. ~5 cow. sG cos t_a+ B u! ov- S s3 aB Applicant Name: ~'~}p+M+AS J ~,~i~~A~Q~~/ Property Owner: tlkDyhr9S J 1Ze:.no..~~/ Address: ~•laD ye,~.11;0.~ S~ Address: ya0 i?~y~,,;.ll;o,,. S-t' ~c. 5~..,.T c MN ,~.~f~~~ 1-~as')=~ ti.~ _s YUW S'S'l~ ~'3 Phone: (QSl-SSaog~(~,~~~ x030 Phone: ~„S/- .SYId-oRs'J lolol-y37- d03b Fax: K Fax: ~ Email: T~0.e.... ~ Cs,~++o..l . ~y+~-~ Description of Request: Email: ? S Gtc..~. ~1 6 rtiw ;! . !o w, CE 'F fiats 5tfo~RG~ Foe ov.~ gv~s~~a~.SS %ttS ~ocATl~rJ iS y.t1t61v,~ Pt-,D "I-k4~ ~.1~5c2.~P-c- ~/CPP~~c~+-Tibv~ o~ T~4~ SLG~a O¢Dt~~Aw_tG~ Wou~D cR~fl~ A 4t-Rtzas~ ~ ~r-k~ct-t cS NoT ~'~ Fp,u~~r of If requesting site plan review of multi-family units (three or more attached), are the units intended to be for sale or rental units? ~ f'A Check Applicable Line(s) Please Note! All Fees and Escrows are due at time of application. Rezone _ Final Plat Variance Vacation _ House Move _ Prelim Plat Site Plan $500 $600 $250 $400 $500 $500 + escrow $500 + escrow Minor Subdivision $500 _ Special Use Permit $500 Comp Plan Amend. $500 Lot Sp1itJLot Line Ad j. $50 Annexation $500 plus legal expenses _ EAW $500 plus $1,000 escrow Please see reverse side for escrow amounts required. DO Total Amount Due: $ Z 5-©• Make Checks payable to City of Hastings. Please ensure that all copies of required documents are attached. See reverse side of this application for information. t 3 r~Aa S Applic t Signa Date r ~~ t ~a~ 8 Owner Signa e Date ~~l1w.y~S 3 1Zea~~.o~i/ Dt~Jy+ev-I ~rtS , ~~~s 3' Rei....ovo'~ Applicant Name and Title -Please Print Owner Name -Please Print OFFICIAL USE ON~yY f [, ) / 03/28/175 File # --U/ Recd By: ~nf ~Z~y~ Date Recd: 3lJ^~GO~ Fee Paid: Receipt # App. Complete Message Page 1 of 1 Kari Barker From: Craig Breitsprecher [Craigb@lacrossesign.com] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 4:08 PM To: Kari Barker Cc: tjrein@gmail.com Subject: RE: variance application Kari, Attached is the new artwork for Spiral Pizza. The pole is shown in the exact location and general configuration as the existing structure. The overall height of the structure will be reduced by approximately 4'. The electronic sign in the art is 3' 4" H x 7' 6" W which remains within the 28 sq. ft. allowed by agreement. Feel free to call with questions. Thanks, Craig Breitsprecher LaCrosse Sign Co. 608-780-7385 From: Karl Barker [mailto:kbarker@ci.hastings.mn.us] Sent: Wed 3/26/2008 11:46 AM To: Craig Breitsprecher; tjrein@gmail.com Subject: variance application Sharon Reinardy stopped by yesterday morning to discuss the sign variance for Spiral Pizza. She stated she is comfortable leaving the sign where it is at and the amount of signage the same if the sign can be reconfigured to fit an electronic sign. If this is the desire of all applicants, an ammendment can be made to the variance application before it goes to City Council on April 7. The new variance request would be to keep the same amount of signage (square footage to remain the same) buT reconfigured the sign. As stated in the Memo, city staff would support replacing the pole in the same spot. We would need a picture of how the new sign would look. In addition, we would need an exact measurement of the existing sign. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. Karl Barker Assistant City Planner City of Hastings 101 East 4th S#reet Hastings, MN 55033 (651) 480-2377- phone (651)437-7082-fax 4/ 1 /2008 ~•- , ,dL ~ i! .:~ ~}h - - I .. ~~ ~ ~ ~ lpt~t~1L F z.a - ... ~. .. ~ jIi%~-~i ~3 ~~ ~. j-~.,-,~,; r ~ ~ _` _ __ ___ L _~ ~_~_ ` ~_ 300 - , . ~- 437-5 w ~ I . ~~ LL-L L ~ ~ ti.~~ L~ 1 r- r y_ , ~ ~ . ~ ~. ~L•~ 3. ~yq y y.. PLACES HEATING -~-CONDITIONING (~j~II_. 1~t~~rll~. _~~+rtt~. ~~ ti~~x~~ .fi-SS~ , .~ .,, . `7-"~v„~r i -: ~~ s~ ~, i ~: ,:~_ .. t. Y. sue,.. '.":.~ ~~~.:, ;:. r:r ~~~: ~ ~ ~ rr~~tra~ ~~e'r~rr`~ ~~ j ~ `~~ ~.~ i~ ~.:~~tr~~l~ ~~~` T~tTt~~ ~~~~~_~ t- ~~.~ ~~I ,._ ~~ ~ II~ , ~~:~~ ~a _r~-. u r~. ,~~: ~e ,.>.~, ~-- F is ~3swda W ~ 1S J13~91S ~_-- ~t ;~ 1S NOI~lIWa3/1 w ~° _ ~o H O J }+ 1S Jlaa3 ~~ ^~ O J W z ~~ 3 ~~`r ~, ~~~ ~. ~_. ``! ~ ~~~ Y ,> jtY h~ t t :; s.~ Y4 '~ ~~ i, 3 I iV~p t ~ a ~ r;~ a.~~~'-- it > ',~ - I t ~ ~' '~~ J~ -3 'f;'., "~' ~~ ~' ~~ I ~~. ~: 'I ~: ~: City.of Hastings . - . Planning Commission Minutes =March 24, 2008 Page 1 of 4 - Hastings Planning Commission _: ~, ; . - March 24, 2008 - ~ ~ Regular Meeting - 7:00 p.m. .Vice-Chair Schmitt called the meetirig to order at 7:00 p.m. 1. Roll Call Commissioners Present: Hiedeman, McInnis, Peine, Schmitt, Stevens, Zeyen Commissioners Absent: Truax Staff Present: Planning Director John Hinzman Associate Planner Kari Barker 2. Approval of Minutes -March 10, 2008 - Motion by McInnis to approve the March 10, 2008, meeting minutes. Seconded by Stevens. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS OTHER ACTIONS 3. , Reinardy, Tom -Variance #2008-07 -Spiral Pizza Signage - 420 Vermillion Street. Associate Planner Kari Barker gave the staff report. Craig Breitsprecher, LaCrosse Sign Company, stated that extenuating circumstances make a variance necessary. He explained that a monument sign would result in one of the two driveways on site being compromised along with safety and visibility issues. Breitsprecher explained that a pole sign was necessary to maximize visibility. Commissioner Stevens inquired into the size and height of the current and proposed sign. Associate Planner Barker stated that staff estimates the current sign to be at 28 square feet while the new sign is proposed to be 41 square feet. She stated that the new sign would be two feet lower in height than the existing sign. Breitsprecher stated that moving the pole would allow a center pole mount sign to be utilized. He further stated that adherence to the code would cause a hardship because the drive access would have to be closed to allow a monument sign. Commissioner McInnis questioned who owned the property to the west. Thomas City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes -March 24, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Reinardy, applicant, explained that the gravel parking iot belonged to him. Commissioner McInnis questioned if an entrance could be made on the west side of the building. Reinardy explained this would be difficult due to the layout of the interior of the building. He stated the building would need major alterations to create a new entrance. Commissioner Zeyen asked if the signage included a reader board on the bottom. Breitsprecher confirmed this.. Commissioner Zeyen asked if the new sign would hang into the right-of--way and if MnDot would have any issues with the sign placement. Planning Director Hinzman stated that he was unsure of MnDot's rules and regulations regarding the right-of--way. Breitsprecher stated that the sign would not be in the easement. Commissioner Zeyen inquired if the reader board would be useless when coming from the north due to lack of visibility. Breitsprecher stated this w_as incorrect. Commissioner Zeyen asked if cars going thirty miles per hour would be able to read the sign. Breitsprecher stated these cars would be able to read the sign. Commissioner Stevens questioned if the pole could be replaced if it was deteriorated. Planning Director Hinzman confirmed this per the City Attorney as it was interpreted under state statue. Breitsprecher stated that the existing pole was not acceptable structurally nor are the materials it is made from. Commissioner Schmitt stated .that there is not a need for a variance if there is a conforming sign that would work in the location. Associate Planner Barker explained that the Sign Code allows roof signs in locations where a freestanding or wall sign is prohibitive. Commissioner Schmitt asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Stevens asked for the options to be explained. Planning Director Hinzman stated that there were two variances to consider. He explained that the first variance would be to allow the existing pole sign to be physically moved a couple feet to the west. The second variance would be for intensification of the sign face. Planning Director Hinzman acknowledged that a monument sign in the location would be difficult. However, he stated staff would allow the pole to be replaced and the existing sign to be refaced. Commissioner Zeyen asked if the roof sign could be removed as a part of approval. Planning Director Hinzman stated he was unsure if a connection could be made for the removal of the roof sign. Commissioner McInnis made a motion to go along with staff's recommendation to deny the variance. As a part of the motion, replacement of the pole would be allowed but the size of the sign could not be increased. McInnis stated his motion was due to his belief that the sign message would not be fully viewed. City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes -March 24, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Zeyen seconded the motion. Planning Director Hinzman asked for clarification if the motion included denial of both parts of the variance request. Commissioner McInnis stated that the motion was to deny both variance requests. Action by Planning Commission: Motion by McInnis to deny the variance for Spiral Pizza Signage. Seconded by Zeyen. Upon vote taken, Ayes 5 (McInnis, Zeyen, Hiedeman, Peine, and Stevens), Nays 1 (Schmitt). Motion carried. 4. Bennis, Scott -Site Plan - #2008-06 -Construction of a four stall garage - 2301 Oak Street. Associate Planner Kari Barker gave a staff report. Planning Director Hinzman noted that the agenda stated the item was a site plan and a variance request. He clarified that there was not a variance request for this item. Commissioner Zeyen questioned if the exterior materials needed to be fire rated. Planning Director Hinzman stated that he knew the building materials needed to be fire rated, but was unsure if the siding needed to be fire rated. Commissioner Zeyen asked how the proposed brown pine siding could be an acceptable material as the building is completely brick. Planning Director Hinzman stated that the requirements for materials on accessory structures are less restrictive than on principal structures. He also stated that the material is comparable to what is on similar garages in town. Action by Planning Commission: Motion by Stevens to approve the site plan for construction of a four stall garage. Seconded by McInnis; motion passed unanimously. Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. 5. Adjournment Motion by Zeyen to adjourn the March 24, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. >Seconded by Hiedeman. . Upon vote taken, Ayes 6, Nays 0. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. City of Hastings Planning Commission Minutes -March 24, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Respectfully submitted, Kari Barker Associate Planner