The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVIII-B-01 - Resolution - Sign Variance - M&H City Council Memorandum To: Mayor Hicks & City Councilmembers From: Justin Fortney, City Planner Date: December 3, 2018 Item: Resolution: Variances for an Existing Sign – 2018-58 – M & H Gas – 1402 Vermillion St Council Action Requested: Consider the requests for the variances listed below and take action on the attached resolution. 1. Sign Height 2. Sign Face Size The City Council serves as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals in consideration of the variance, requiring the support of 6 of 7 councilmembers Background Information: The applicant is proposing to relocate their pole sign 100-feet to the north as it is currently obscured from northbound traffic, due to traffic light poles. The variances will allow a nonconforming sign to be relocated on the site. No other changes are proposed for the existing sign. The zoning ordinance only allows for legally nonconforming (grandfathered) signs to be refaced. Other modifications including relocation require full compliance with the current sign code, which was modified sometime after they installed the sign about 14 years ago. Please see the attached Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Advisory Commission Discussion: The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the variances at the November 26, 2018 meeting. No members of the public spoke at the meeting. Some commissioners stated they had no issues with the existing sign or its proposed relocation, but did not want to change its grandfather status to a permanent status, which would allow it to remain twice as large as other commercial signs for ever. Commissioners asked if there were a way to allow the relocation with a condition for future removal similar to its grandfathered status. Staff responded that only conditions needed to protect public health, safety, or the environment may be added to a variance approval. VIII-B-01 Council Committee Discussion: N\A Attachments: •Resolution – Denial of Variances •Planning Commission Staff Report – November 26, 2018 Additional information from the applicant 11-29-2018• VIII-B-01 HASTINGS CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. ______________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS DENYING THE REQUEST OF INDIGO SIGNWORKS AND M&H GAS TO VARY FROM HASTINGS CITY CODE 155.08 AT 1402 VERMILLION STREET W Council member ___________________________ introduced the following Resolution and moved its adoption: WHEREAS, Indigo Signworks and M&H Gas, have petitioned for an 11-foot variance to the maximum sign height and 50 square foot variance to the maximum sign face size from the 6 and 50 foot maximums in order to relocate a legally nonconforming sign in the C-3 zoning district specified in Hastings City Code 155.08(e), generally located at 1402 Vermillion Street, legally described as all of Block 6, TRIPPS ADDITION, and Block 98, TOWN OF HASTINGS BLKS 1 THRU 99, Dakota County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Hastings serving as the Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals held reviewed the petition as required by state law, city charter and city ordinance; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend denial of the petition; and WHEREAS, The City Council has reviewed the petition and concurs with the opinion of the Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HASTINGS AS FOLLOWS: That the City Council hereby denies the variance request as presented based on the following findings of fact and conclusions: 1) The request is not in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose of the sign regulations stated in Hastings City Code chapter 155.08(e) is to have a uniform and aesthetically appealing size of commercial signs within the city. 2) The Applicant has not demonstrated practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and other reasonable alternatives for similar use of the property are available to the applicant. There is an existing sign along Vermillion Street that is not obscured. The VIII-B-01 subject sign could be disassembled and partially rebuilt in a different location in a manner that meets the current sign code. Council member _____________________ moved a second to this resolution, and upon being put to a vote it was unanimously adopted by all Council members present. Adopted by the Hastings City Council on December 3, 2018, by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Absent: ATTEST: ______________________________ Paul J. Hicks, Mayor _____________________________________ Julie Flaten, City Clerk (City Seal) I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above is a true and correct copy of resolution presented to and adopted by the City of Hastings, County of Dakota, Minnesota, on the 3rd day of December, 2018, as disclosed by the records of the City of Hastings on file and of record in the office. ______________________________ Julie Flaten, City Clerk (SEAL) This instrument drafted by: City of Hastings (JJF) 101 4th Street East Hastings, Minnesota 55033 VIII-B-01 Additional information from the applicant 11-29-2018 The photos show the old traffic signal pole, still in use, and the new pole base. The old signal was to the east of our ID sign. That pole also carried the “arm” over the south bound lane, not blocking north bound highway 61 view of the M&H sign. The new set up has the arm on the south side of the intersection supported by the pole on the SW corner of the intersection. This blocks the view of our sign. OLD New Base VIII-B-01 Old and new being installed New Signals VIII-B-01 To: Planning Commission From: Justin Fortney, City Planner Date: November 26, 2018 Item: Variance – Nonconforming Sign Height and Size for Relocation Planning Commission Action Requested Review and make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed variance. Background The existing sign was installed about 14 years ago, prior to the existing codes now limiting signs to a height of six (or nine feet tall with a decorative base) and 50 Sq Ft of sign area. The sign is grandfathered as a legal nonconforming sign and may continue to be operated and have the sign faces switched out. The existing sign is 17’ tall and 100 Sq Ft in size. The Department of Transportation recently made intersection improvements to the area which changed the signal light pole in front of the south side of the sign. The property owners believe the new location of this signal pole obstructs the view of the sign to northbound traffic. The applicants are proposing to relocate the existing sign 100’ to the north with no other changes. This will make the sign more legible by removing it from the cluttered intersection. Nonconforming signs cannot be relocated unless they are granted a variance from their nonconformities, which in this instance are sign height and face size. The existing sign would require an 11’ height variance and 50 Sq Ft size variance to be relocated. If the sign were to be moved as is, with a variance, or as a conforming sign to the intended location, an existing smaller sign along Vermillion Street would have to be removed or relocated to another street frontage of the business. Only one sign is allowed per street frontage. Comprehensive Plan Classification The 2030 Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Commercial. Zoning Classification The property is zoned C-3 Community Regional Commerce, the following land uses abut the property: Planning Commission Memorandum VIII-B-01 Direction Existing Use Zoning Comp Plan North Office/ Residential Commercial Commercial East CVS Commercial Commercial South Holiday Commercial Commercial West Residential Medium Density Res Medium Density Res Existing Condition The parcel is 1.82 acres and developed with a connivance store with fuel sales and holds a valid Special Use Permit for a carwash. The existing sign is located on private property just outside the sight triangle of the intersection corner. Variance review Below is a list of variance requirements that must be satisfied prior to approval of a variance. The applicant believes the findings are met in the following ways: • Evidence that practical difficulties in complying with the regulations exist o Leaving the sign in place does not allow for northbound visibility. o Requiring an existing sign in good condition to be replaced to reattain legibility due to recent actions beyond our control would pose practical difficulties. • Circumstances relating to these difficulties may not have been created by the landowner. o The sign was visible when we installed the sign. The Minnesota Department of Transportation recently obscured the visibility of our sign with the installation a new larger light signal this past summer. • The variance may not alter the essential character of the locality o The character of the area will remain unchanged, the existing sign will not be modified other than its location which will still be along the same Vermillion Street frontage. o There are other similarly sized nonconforming sings in the area. Notification Immediate neighbors were notified of the request and no comments have been received. Attachments: • Site plan • Photographs • Application VIII-B-01 VIII-B-01 2015 Street Photo (taken from a different angle) 2018 Street Photo VIII-B-01 VIII-B-01