HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.a. Dr. Kurt Walter-Hansen Request for a Ground Sign Setback Variance, Case 13-35-V ROSEv1OUI\ T EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Meeting: January 7, 2014
AGENDA ITEM: Case 13-35-V Dr. Kurt Walter-Hansen AGENDA SECTION:
Request for a Ground Sign Setback Public Hearing
Variance.
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P. AGENDA NO.
Planner �•G•
ATTACHMENTS: Board of Appeals Minutes from 11/26/13, APPROVED BY
Board of Appeals Staff Report, Site Location
Map, Aerial Photos, Survey, Sign Plans
ue)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION to uphold the Board of Appeals decision to approve
the applicant's ground sign setback variance with the ordinance requirement that the sign
has a masonry base equal to at least fifty (50) percent of the width of the sign face.
SUMMARY
Applicant & Property Owner: Dr. Kurt Walter Hansen
Location: 14685 South Robert Trail
Property Size: 21,805 Square Feet (0.5 Acres)
Comp. Guide Plan Desig: C - Commercial
Current Zoning: C-3, Highway Commercial
The applicant, Dr. Kurt Walter-Hansen,requested a sign setback variance to locate a new ground sign in
the same location as the previous non-conforming ground sign on the former Marathon gas station
property located at 14685 South Robert Trail. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments reviewed and
approved this request during their November 26, 2013 meeting but waived the ordinance standard
requiring ground signs have a masonry base equal to at least fifty (50) percent of the width of the sign face.
City Code allows for decisions made by the Board to be appealed to the City Council by the applicant, the
Zoning Administrator, a member of the City Council or any person owning property or residing within
350 feet of the property affected by the decision. Under this provision, council members Shoe-Corrigan
and Weisensel appealed this decision bringing the item to the full council for review.
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS ACTION
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments reviewed this item during their November 26th meeting. That
review included a public hearing that produced no comments.
Some Board members were concerned the proposed sign could limit drivers'visibility and asked questions
about the sign's proposed location and design. Specifically,the Board was concerned about the masonry
that would be added to the sign columns which would reduce the amount of"open space"between the
columns. The sign as proposed by the applicant,with the masonry columns was consistent with the
ordinance requirements for freestanding signs in the Downtown. Further there it was noted that the sign
would be located within the designated"sight triangle".The ordinance states:
Visibility At Intersections:A minimum sight triangle shall be established on each corner lot at
every street intersection through which motorists shall have reasonable unobstructed view.The
minimum sight triangle shall be defined as a triangle located at the corner of intersecting streets.
The adjacent sides shall be located along the street right of way line (and adjacent property lines) of
the intersecting streets and shall be twenty five feet (25') in length.The third side shall be a straight
line joining the end points of the adjacent sides.The city shall have the authority to order the
removal of vision obstructions located within the minimum sight triangle.
Engineering staff stated the proposed sign will be in the same location as the previous sign and the City
has no record of traffic issues related to the previous sign. Planning staff added the proposed sign will
have a greater setback than signs on neighboring properties in the Downtown zoning district which have
no setback requirement because they are located on property zoned DT Downtown versus the gas station
sites are zoned C-3 Commercial and therefore have a 10' setback requirement.Additionally,because the
other signs Downtown are located at private drives they do not have the same sight triangle regulation that
the applicants sign is required to meet. However,the traffic situation is similar;drivers are entering into
traffic on Hwy 3 in the Downtown 30 mph hour segment. Staff also believes the nine (9) foot clearance
from the bottom of the proposed sign face to the ground provides adequate sight lines.The regulation
regarding sight triangles indicates that motorists shall have reasonable unobstructed view(s). Staff believes
the proposed sign placement,with covered sign columns,will provide a reasonably unobstructed view for
motorists merging into traffic on Hwy 3 from Lower 147th Street. It should be noted that the applicant was
not present during the meeting to provide comment. In conversations with staff after the meeting the
applicant maintains support for the original proposal including the masonry support columns.
After some discussion,the Board followed staff's recommendation and approved the ground sign setback
variance request;however,their approval also waived the ordinance standard requiring ground signs have a
masonry base equal to at least fifty (50) percent of the width of the sign face.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council upholds the Board of Appeals decision to approve the applicant's
ground sign setback variance but reinstate the ordinance requirement that the sign has a masonry base
equal to at least fifty (50) percent of the width of the sign face. Staff believes,as stated in the previous
memorandum that the addition of the masonry base does not seriously inhibit views for the driver on
Lower 147th Street.The traffic speeds in the area, the larger setback from the paved road due to the
existing sidewalk,and presence of a stop sign at Lower 147th and Hwy 3,allow the traveler to assess
merging unto Hwy 3 with little impediment. This recommendation is made based on the City's existing
sign standards, the applicants support for the masonry base and the findings made in staff report to the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments dated November 26,2013.
2
EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 26, 2013
RECESS REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND OPEN BOARD OF APPEALS AND
ADJUSTMENTS MEETING
a. Kurt Walter-Hansen Variance Request to Allow Gas Station Sign within Setback(13-35-V).
Planner Lindahl stated the applicant,Dr. Kurt Walter-Hansen, is requesting a ground sign setback
variance to locate a new ground sign in the same location as the previous non-conforming ground
sign on the former Marathon gas station property located at 14685 South Robert Trail.Mr. Lindahl
reviewed the staff report.
Commissioner Miller expressed his concern that the masonry condition could obstruct the
intersection. Mr. Lindahl showed a picture of the corner and stated the design of the sign should
allow clear view around the corner.
Chairperson Powell asked about the.sight triangle requirement. Project Engineer Olson responded
that this property was grandfathered in with respect to the 25 foot sight triangle requirement and
even so,the sign would be within the sight triangle. He stated the side posts should allow the ability
to see and that there were no complaints with the previous sign with the same design. Mr. Lindahl
added that this area is zoned C3 surrounded by Downtown and a higher residential density so as the
overall pattern in the neighborhood has limited setbacks.
Commissioner Husain asked what the intention of the property to the south of the gas station and if
there would be concerns with the gas station sign to this property. Senior Planner Zweber explained
that the empty lot to the south is guided and zoned as DT- Downtown District and a senior
housing project is proposed there by the Dakota County CDA. He further stated he does not
expect any concerns with the gas station sign affecting the senior housing property.
The public hearing was opened at 6:47p.m.
There were no public comments.
MOTION by Weber to Close the Public Hearing.
Second by Powell.
Ayes: 4. Nays: None. Motion approved. Public hearing was closed at 6:48pm.
Commissioner Miller asked if it is required to have Condition 1.A. requiring the sign to be
constructed of masonry since masonry may cause limited sight ability at the corner. Also,
Commissioner Miller asked if there is a time limit of the lighting at the gas station with the
residential around the business and future residential development.
Mr. Lindahl replied that the sign ordinance does require masonry that is equal to 50% of the base of
the sign but if the Board of Appeals wishes to approve a variance to that requirement,they can do
so. With respect to the lighting,Mr. Lindahl stated that the district requirements does require
building signage facing residential areas be shut off by 9:00pm,but the Board can add an earlier time
requirement if they wish. Chairperson Powell added that the sign will be in place when future
development is completed and residents will be aware of the sign lighting when choosing their unit.
MOTION by Miller to approve a ground sign setback variance from 10 feet to 5 feet along
South Robert Trail and from 10 feet to 6.6 feet along Lower 147`h Street West to allow a new
ground sign in the same location as the pervious non-conforming ground sign at 14685
South Robert Trail, subject to the following:
1. The proposed ground sign shall comply with all sign regulations including but not
limited to:
A. The proposed sign will have a masonry basc equal to at least fifty(50) percent of the
sign face. The masonry base shall extend to the top of any support columns and be no
further than two (2) inches from the bottom of the sign cabinet.
B. An area not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet within the freestanding sign shall be
allowed for continuous display(no flashing, scrolling or other animation) of electronic or
nonelectronic changeable copy identifying current fuel prices in accordance with Minnesota
state statutes section 239.751.
Commissioner Miller requested that instead of Condition 1.A.,he would like to have the applicant
meet with the staff to come up with a design for the sign that may not be all masonry so as not to
limit visibility.
Ayes: 4. Nays: None. The Motion was voted on and approved without a second to the
motion.
Mr. Lindahl reviewed with the Commission the appeal process of variances and the 10 day waiting
period.
RECESS BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND RE-CONVENE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
4 ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS
Board of Appeals and Adjustments Meeting: November 26, 2013
Tentative City Council Meeting (If Appealed): December 17, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: Case 13-35-V Dr. Kurt Walter-Hansen AGENDA SECTION:
Request for a Ground Sign Setback Public Hearing
Variance.
PREPARED BY: Jason Lindahl, A.I.C.P. AGENDA NO. 5.a.
Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Aerial Photo, Survey, APPROVED BY:\qv/
Sign Plans
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION to approve a ground sign setback variance from 10
feet to 5 feet along South Robert Trail and from 10 feet to 6.6 feet along Lower 147th Street
West to allow a new ground sign in the same location as the pervious non-conforming
ground sign at 14685 South Robert Trail, subject to the following:
1. The proposed ground sign shall comply with all sign regulations including but not
limited to:
A. The proposed sign will have a masonry base equal to at least fifty (50) percent of
the sign face. The masonry base shall extent to the top of any support columns
and be no further than two (2) inches from the bottom of the sign cabinet.
B. An area not to exceed sixteen (16) square feet within the freestanding sign shall
be allowed for continuous display (no flashing, scrolling or other animation) of
electronic or nonelectronic changeable copy identifying current fuel prices in
accordance with Minnesota state statutes section 239.751.
SUMMARY
Applicant & Property Owner: Dr. Kurt Walter Hansen
Location: 14685 South Robert Trail
Property Size: 21,805 Square Feet (0.5 Acres)
Comp. Guide Plan Desig: C - Commercial
Current Zoning: C-3, Highway Commercial
The applicant, Dr. Kurt Walter-Hansen,is requesting a ground sign setback variance to locate a new
ground sign in the same location as the previous non-conforming ground sign on the former Marathon gas
station property located at 14685 South Robert Trail. Staff recommends the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments approve the variance request based on the findings detailed below.
The proposed sign would meet the current height and materials standards and be approximately 30 square
feet smaller than the former sign.The sign size is under the current one hundred (100) square feet
maximum size ordinance standard.
Should the Board of Appeals approve the setback variance, the applicant plans to construct a twenty (20)
foot high sixty-two (62) square feet ground sign (see attached plan). The sign includes one logo and one
static LED gas price sign. It should be noted that dynamic (electronic) signs are prohibited in this
location, as it was determined that dynamic product advertising should not occur Downtown. However,as
more gas stations move to electronic gas pricing display versus the readerboard variety,modifications to
the ordinance might need to be made. Staff is comfortable in supporting electronic gas pricing, so long as
no product advertising (except gas pricing) is allowed. The plan calls for the sign cabinets to be supported
by two steel posts that will be covered by brick columns as required by the zoning ordinance. There will
be ten (10) feet from the bottom of the sign cabinet to the ground elevation to allow for visibility which is
important since the sign is located close to the Lower 147/Hwy 3 intersection.
BACKGROUND
The village and township of Rosemount merged in January of 1971. The merged Village of Rosemount
officially became a statutory city in January of 1975. The Village's first zoning ordinance was adopted on
October 19, 1972. The subject property was platted as part of Auditor's Subdivision No. 1 in 1906 and
the existing gas station building was constructed in 1958. Therefore, the subdivision and development of
this property pre-dates formation of the City and establishment of city development regulations. As a
result, there are no records of the original approvals for the subject property.
The Marathon gas station site closed in the spring of 2011. Shortly after closing, the real estate company
marketing the property removed the existing ground sign and painted over the signage on the canopy
covering the gas pumps. According to the applicant, the existing ground sign was located approximately
five (5) feet from the eastern (South Robert Trail) property line and six and one-half(6.5) feet from the
southern (Lower 147th Street West) property line. Consequently, the existing ground sign did not meet the
current ten (10) foot setback requirement for ground signs and was non-conforming.
The applicant purchased the subject property in October of 2012 or at least twelve months after the
Marathon gas station closed and the existing ground sign was removed. According to Minnesota Statute
462.357, Subdivision 1 e,any non-conformity that is discontinued for a period of more than one year must
meet the current zoning standards. However,in this case staff supports the applicant's request for a
variance to locate a new ground sign in the same location as the former non-conforming sign based on the
findings detailed below.
It should also be noted that the City granted a similar ground sign setback variance for Master
Transmission in November of 2011. Granting the variance for Master Transmission does not set a
precedent requiring the City to grant this request. However, staff did support the Master Transmission
variance and some of the same conditions apply to the current request.
ISSUE ANALYSIS
Legal Authority. City review of a variance application is a Quasi Judicial action assigned to the Board of
Appeals and Adjustments. Generally,if the applications meet the review standards the variance must be
approved. The standards for reviewing variance are detailed in Section 11-12-2.G of the City Code and are
based on the standards set forth in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. In Summary,variances
may be granted when the applicant establishes there are"practical difficulties"in complying with the
zoning regulations. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. In addition, the
2
Board may choose to add conditions of approval that are directly related to and bear a rou g h
proportionality to the impact created by the variance. The standards for reviewing a variance application
and staff's findings for each are provided below.
1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Finding The variance request would allow a new ground sign in the same location as the former
non-conforming ground sign. The purpose and intent of the setback regulation is to create a
uniform location standard,insure adequate visibility,and provide sufficient area for ancillary
activities such as landscaping and snow storage. The design and location of the proposed sign
should not impact visibility or area for ancillary activities and will position the sign with a similar
setback as the commercial uses north of the site,in the DT—Downtown zoning district.
2. Is variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Finding The subject property is guided C - Commercial by the Comprehensive Plan. This section
of the plan emphasizes broader location,utility, and land use criteria as opposed to the more
detailed development standards found in the zoning ordinance. The proposed setback variance
does not conflict with the development characteristics emphasized by the Commercial section of
the Comprehensive Plan. As a result, staff finds the variance consistent with the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
3. Does proposal put proper y to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding Staff finds that a ground sign is a reasonable accessory use for a commercial property. In
8' � � rY
addition, the proposed location is reasonable in that it will allow the new sign in the same location
as the former non-conforming sign with a similar setback as other freestanding signs in the
surrounding Downtown district.
4. Are there unique circumstances to the proper?),not created by the landowner?
Finding Staff finds the subject property is a shallow rectangular shape that is significantly smaller
than neighboring commercial properties. According to the survey, the subject property is 150 feet
deep while the neighboring commercial properties to the north are over 300 feet deep. The
existing building and canopy above the gasoline pumps cover over seventy (70) percent of the
property. As a result, the subject property has limited viable locations for a freestanding sign that
would also meet the ten (10) foot setback requirement.
5. Will the variance, ifgranted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Finding Staff finds the requested reduction in setbacks from the south and east will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood. The subject property is bordered by the DT—
Downtown district to the north and south. The Downtown district has zero foot building and
ground sign setbacks while the C-3 district requires a minimum 10 foot ground sign setback.
Should the Board of Appeals grant the variance, the proposed ground sign would have a similar
setback to existing ground signs on neighboring properties in the Downtown zoning district.
3
L
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a sign setback variance to construct a new ground sign in the same location
as the previous non-conforming ground sign on the former Marathon gas station property located at
14685 South Robert Trail. This recommendation for approval is based on the information submitted by
the applicant and findings made above. The proposed sign would meet the current height and materials
standards and be approximately 30 square feet smaller than the former sign and the current one hundred
(100) square feet maximum size standard. Should the Board of Appeals approve the setback variance, the
proposed sign will be required to meet all other current sign regulations. One exception is that staff is
recommending to allow the applicant to have electronically changeable copy for gas price advertising,
although other product advertising is prohibited, consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
It should be noted that decisions made by the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant,
the Zoning Administrator,a member of the City Council or any person owning property or residing within
350 feet of the property affected by the decision. All appeal requests must be filed with the Planning
Department within ten (10) working days of the action by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments.
4
Hansen Variance Request
L —
1
J
G r
/
1,13w 1 Lriettl .
qo
I
V��-, I / .
(---- 1
1 IIP'41111 .
1 .
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a Map Scale
legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning 1 inch = 184 feet
verification. Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 11/13/2013
Hansen Sign Variance - 14685 South Robert Trail
t-
r .
l'' -i ., , It.
F.,
4.
4. 40,_ 14.44444441# 4k,„ .
•
a r
,: 4 i
tal 9
4 t . I li
mg ' i ' ,
}
I , _...
S
4
4.
I
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a Map Scale
legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. 1 inch = 40 feet
Dakota County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data. 11/20/2013
1. ' ''''''''''". , 1 , ` ..'`...V` •' ''......"...4,."•,„ ,'":',...4.,,,;.7.1 „;,..,....* ..!„,,,. im ": ,', I ,'.
',' 4M1-1 o k �
S
ate. ‘'..;-•'.;•,4' b_ ✓
+ . a H , `
i
.
9
ik[v ' x
. .�...�.�.....
It
'� •fj t ,». ,mac
" in
,-/,/
:*::';1 l _„IL...... )t
i „....
.. '' : r.....-,•: . -..:....-..„...,
. , ,:: ,i.......r.,..„.....„ ,....,,,... .. ......::::,
. . .5...*- , ..,. t •*r,-,.44.q.,7... - ,,+ - l
. ' e
1 \ . . .
! \> ‘._
k • iii{ i�
.. .. 4.,, and
IA
,t:
x, r
1 W ,
1. ' Y
....fit ""
1 wJ
i4f •.
;b.-
- ::,,,L la ''.',"r P'
. s g."11,`,7'',,:zwi
="x '
x k
+Y •k;� g w`k +, * .ice a I.
P? .r .•t•,,,..4 Iez*
+"ice t S "
.v1
V A; #� 3
r
„r i}
4 i a`
1 I +! y:1,:.•:'it%,I,,--.
1 1 D
f `v 4
t
1 P � m^,
s,
i ,.,.4_
; •�
X •
•
1
.,..1'.:
FF d
l _
il/ x•.',..:
i •1.
e `tj 1
fy
f R
'
:.
i . 9� Its .� «:,v....»
,
. R b
•'� •• i . ate'
. t i kp a..
l' t.. �,,.:
h
r*' ''M 4', • b ltb.
.�Z ,b •
/ P
$ P0` :x R 'r '* .
X,„
'OF til
R .
d
10
r--1 , -
P
., "' fit
,. .
..
.,.... .
:, _ .,.„. f.'„. ,. . ,
4,4,,,,,,,,driee. . - 7
4
. j X
^ M
::i" JIII . ,
' 0 4* '
ti.
3
ad . x.Y r �{�. yy r.
a
F
'
o9
rn
rn z 2 S X 0
o N O u,
o C--I o
8 ro0 g
5 s
D
p 4
N
1 -I
0 z („,,
rn 0
•
a 4 T /^)
Px Z-4 S J<
A 05
p c-1 /'
Ni
I Z
I
o j. o
$ 8
/
A,,
• _x x EXISTING FENCE x x
aao
089
7Z,
Cl
o SX
P of •;
8 rn Z '. , 4 o
c3
8
i/
POSSIBLE IP UNDER �”
'
�BRUMIN0U5 DRIVEWAY 192,50 ;
N00°38'5 I"E ,
5.6. 27.50 PLAT
—x x EXISTING FENCE • i 55.00 PLAT
x I' B.Bx<
F." x x x x x —_x
x x __i_
c p
a �Jl
8 • ,
•°
♦
s - 'i/-i 1 1 •�
_ CI 46.1
r 2
, N
U K
n
uj = r• x 69.24
■3.2
-i a, ,. 23.1
a
ITS O
!CP ITz - r n
Wo g c O -
A�ad o r
/'fJ ^' Z z co
n O C
I
o O C.11 --� c
) CTI
CO
,• s Is6.6t- n 72.3
Z
o
,
. n s J. :
_ $ a
GAS PUMPS
1I C , , N
•. pap ' d., 1 r r 1 ,
CO
. f LN' , ERHEAD.CANCr
l ? 27.50 PLAT
55.00 PLAT
T
, ° . , a 92.50 a
N00°38'5'1"
CONCRETE CURB - • n• ---'' , '? ,
_ _ m _ _ ROBERT TRAIL SOUTH
r — .-P.cnc i 3. z- 2 I
jai i s q.' .1'cre..; Vt
r.J - .1 . y ('tt' ' 3
9 .,... ..tr L > L,r"- 1Wa f Y i .....
E.' n x .
d ,`� x. '{ate ` .< �t 3
:P`',lw• qtr j f`-Ki . -
4! tF ,,. Ts �irf� ,.
..
. ,........
...
'''''-t � I•r1�;.�� _ DlF CABINET WITH DIGITAL
i� M ; `• 4;.
_ }s L ,y PLANT LOGO ON POLYCAR80NATE
'���,�i
?• z' �7 MATCH PLATE MOUNTED
, N"`. ` i.,"'` ' _ TO EXISTING STEEL
egar -*a I.
3t }
. l ? .
u� r 1
R:l . a `JL y tel ! rr,15:,:,-,,t
lyyy
rr q r, _ a,. , t e v LED gas pticc snits ij t r� +.P : ...&L tt2.'rX-P) af�ty#, r�i,..?jri 4 t2zs•x 21�Y:1.'deep
R r 1 ; I r te. _ i , mounted to faces t`l{ti�y+�7! n' � ..4.∎ Intertta0y lighted facts
20 a j`t� i C� •;i.'U• , _ with vinyl copy
! K� jP yR M'a;iL. i]� 3y $.1
17 I. t�� .l.fu� ft.. - t)I'1 3°,
■ u C$4 S� P w�ia'f` #-v -. 1
K�lcl�ri•5
1. ■ s: . I` Liar 1
h
6-x 6"x 5/16'sq.tube
Sec Mod 125
■
• U.
' 2 ct��d/pPyyts 9tkrete total
y✓
`�
/1ø•.: ..,,r`h."!"" V:t.'4'..f;''',1.".:,4'.)14 cf .1."
- J +r
r' •-4°.5a• ..y /!.ti-G-aSww..IMa. 5•" TY.:•Z'•L
Scale 1/2"=1'-0"
I 2'x 2 • , -t,�k c_0-1 cz")-«-1 !
ta.,,A, s,t__„' vc_)]..4 . fr-a„, jcier-t-vt• IA i
4 o '3't et*, • r