7.2.
CC Regular Session
- Meeting Date:
- 11/22/2016
- By:
- Chris Anderson, Community Development
Information
Title:
Consider Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Ground Sign that Exceeds both Height and Area Standards within the COR District; Case of Northstar Marketplace Station LLC
Purpose/Background:
The City has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit from Quality Sign Solutions (the "Applicant"), on behalf of Northstar Marketplace Station LLC (the "Property Owner"), for a new pylon sign that would exceed both the height and area standards for the property located at 7900 Sunwood Drive NW (the "Subject Property"). The proposed pylon sign is seventy-five feet (75') tall and 333.5 square feet in area.
Notification:
Staff attempted to notify all Property Owners within a 350 foot radius of the Property of the Public Hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also published in the City's official newsletter, the Anoka County Union Herald.
Observations/Alternatives:
The Subject Property is located within the COR2 sub-district and the sign standards outlined within The COR Design Framework are more similar to the general business districts' regulations than the other COR sub-districts. The Subject Property has four (4) separate buildings with a potential tenant capacity of approximately seventeen (17). Thus, a pylon sign identifying the name of the commercial development and tenants from the various buildings could be considered a shared sign, which can be up to 150 square feet in size (per face) and no taller than six (6) feet in height.
The Applicant is proposing to replace one of the two (2) ground signs on the Subject Property with a pylon sign that is seventy-five feet (75') tall and 334 square feet in area (per face). The completion of the Armstrong Boulevard interchange and the associated grade change has rendered their existing sign virtually invisible from Highway 10 traffic (especially for eastbound traffic), which is prompting this request. The proposed sign does include a decorative, six foot (6') tall base, similar in nature to the exterior finish of the Coborn's building.
The new pylon sign will be located in essentially the same position as the existing ground sign that it is replacing. That location is within a drainage and utility easement held by the City for drainage and by Connexus Energy for utilities. An Amended Easement Encroachment Agreement will need to be executed with both the City and Connexus Energy prior to issuance of a Sign Permit. An Easement Encroachment Agreement was processed for the existing ground sign that is being replaced. The Applicant has provided a Site Plan that shows the location of the proposed sign (and footing) as well as all utilities.
A similar request was approved by the City near the end of 2015 for another property impacted by the completion of the Armstrong Boulevard interchange. That approval granted permission for a seventy-five foot (75') tall pylon sign that was 225 square feet in size. Note that that approval was for a sign located in the B-2 Highway Business District as well as the Armstrong Boulevard Interchange Overlay District, which allows signs up to fifty (50) feet in height and up to 150 square feet in size (per face). However, for that property, there was a single multi-tenant building with a capacity of up to three (3) potential tenants. While the Subject Property is within The COR, which does have more stringent sign standards, it does also have three (3) multi-tenant buildings as well as the Coborns building with a capacity for a considerably greater number of tenants. Additionally, taller signs have been contemplated in this district, as an outcome of the interchange, using the Conditional Use Permit as a tool to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to weigh in on design.
The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing at their November 3, 2016 meeting and there were no written or verbal comments received.
Alternatives
Alternative 1. Adopt Resolutions #16-11-210 and #16-11-211 approving the Findings of Fact and granting a Conditional Use Permit for a pylon sign that exceeds the height and area standards for The COR as well as adopt Resolution #16-11-. The request was prompted due to the Armstrong Boulevard interchange, which created a significant change in grade and rendered the existing ground sign essentially invisible to Highway 10 traffic. The City previously approved a Conditional Use Permit for a taller and larger ground sign for the Subject Property that, as noted, is no longer visible. The proposed sign, which would replace the existing ground sign, will have multiple tenant panels and will also include a dynamic display message center. As long as the exact location will not conflict with existing utilities, Staff supports this alternative contingent upon executing an Easement Encroachment Agreement with both the City and Connexus Energy.
Alternative 2. Adopt modified versions of Resolutions #16-11-210 and #16-11-211 approving the Findings of Fact and granting a Conditional Use Permit for a pylon sign that exceeds the height and area standards for The COR. This alternative would be based on discussion.
Alternative 3. Do not approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit. The completion of the Armstrong Boulevard interchange created a significant grade change that resulted in the current ground sign being essentially invisible for Highway 10 traffic (at least from where the off-ramp exits are). While the proposed sign is significantly larger than anything else within The COR, the Subject Property, being at the intersection of Armstrong Boulevard and Highway 10, was significantly impacted by the grade change due to the new interchange. The proposed sign is the same height as a sign that was approved last year for another property directly adjacent to the interchange and while it is larger in area, the Subject Property also has multiple multi-tenant buildings with a potential capacity of approximately seventeen (17) tenants. Staff does not support this option.
The Applicant is proposing to replace one of the two (2) ground signs on the Subject Property with a pylon sign that is seventy-five feet (75') tall and 334 square feet in area (per face). The completion of the Armstrong Boulevard interchange and the associated grade change has rendered their existing sign virtually invisible from Highway 10 traffic (especially for eastbound traffic), which is prompting this request. The proposed sign does include a decorative, six foot (6') tall base, similar in nature to the exterior finish of the Coborn's building.
The new pylon sign will be located in essentially the same position as the existing ground sign that it is replacing. That location is within a drainage and utility easement held by the City for drainage and by Connexus Energy for utilities. An Amended Easement Encroachment Agreement will need to be executed with both the City and Connexus Energy prior to issuance of a Sign Permit. An Easement Encroachment Agreement was processed for the existing ground sign that is being replaced. The Applicant has provided a Site Plan that shows the location of the proposed sign (and footing) as well as all utilities.
A similar request was approved by the City near the end of 2015 for another property impacted by the completion of the Armstrong Boulevard interchange. That approval granted permission for a seventy-five foot (75') tall pylon sign that was 225 square feet in size. Note that that approval was for a sign located in the B-2 Highway Business District as well as the Armstrong Boulevard Interchange Overlay District, which allows signs up to fifty (50) feet in height and up to 150 square feet in size (per face). However, for that property, there was a single multi-tenant building with a capacity of up to three (3) potential tenants. While the Subject Property is within The COR, which does have more stringent sign standards, it does also have three (3) multi-tenant buildings as well as the Coborns building with a capacity for a considerably greater number of tenants. Additionally, taller signs have been contemplated in this district, as an outcome of the interchange, using the Conditional Use Permit as a tool to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to weigh in on design.
The Planning Commission conducted a Public Hearing at their November 3, 2016 meeting and there were no written or verbal comments received.
Alternatives
Alternative 1. Adopt Resolutions #16-11-210 and #16-11-211 approving the Findings of Fact and granting a Conditional Use Permit for a pylon sign that exceeds the height and area standards for The COR as well as adopt Resolution #16-11-. The request was prompted due to the Armstrong Boulevard interchange, which created a significant change in grade and rendered the existing ground sign essentially invisible to Highway 10 traffic. The City previously approved a Conditional Use Permit for a taller and larger ground sign for the Subject Property that, as noted, is no longer visible. The proposed sign, which would replace the existing ground sign, will have multiple tenant panels and will also include a dynamic display message center. As long as the exact location will not conflict with existing utilities, Staff supports this alternative contingent upon executing an Easement Encroachment Agreement with both the City and Connexus Energy.
Alternative 2. Adopt modified versions of Resolutions #16-11-210 and #16-11-211 approving the Findings of Fact and granting a Conditional Use Permit for a pylon sign that exceeds the height and area standards for The COR. This alternative would be based on discussion.
Alternative 3. Do not approve the request for a Conditional Use Permit. The completion of the Armstrong Boulevard interchange created a significant grade change that resulted in the current ground sign being essentially invisible for Highway 10 traffic (at least from where the off-ramp exits are). While the proposed sign is significantly larger than anything else within The COR, the Subject Property, being at the intersection of Armstrong Boulevard and Highway 10, was significantly impacted by the grade change due to the new interchange. The proposed sign is the same height as a sign that was approved last year for another property directly adjacent to the interchange and while it is larger in area, the Subject Property also has multiple multi-tenant buildings with a potential capacity of approximately seventeen (17) tenants. Staff does not support this option.
Funding Source:
All costs associated with this request are the Applicant's responsibility.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends adopting Resolution #16-11-210 approving Findings of Fact #0971 favorable to the Applicant and approving Resolution #16-11-211 granting a Conditional Use Permit for a pylon sign that is seventy-five (75) feet in height and 334 square feet in area (per face), contingent upon entering into an Easement Encroachment Agreement with the City and applicable utility providers.
Action:
Motion to adopt Resolution #16-11-210 approving Findings of Fact #0971 favorable to the Applicant and approving Resolution #16-11-211 granting a Conditional Use Permit for a pylon sign that is seventy-five (75) feet in height and 334 square feet in area (per face), contingent upon entering into an Easement Encroachment Agreement with the City and applicable utility providers.
-and-
Motion to adopt Resolution #16-11-229 approving an Amended Easement Encroachment Agreement for the placement of the pylon sign within a drainage and utility easement.
-and-
Motion to adopt Resolution #16-11-229 approving an Amended Easement Encroachment Agreement for the placement of the pylon sign within a drainage and utility easement.
Attachments
- Site Location Map
- Proposed Sign Exhibit
- Directional View Exhibit
- Site Plan Showing Sign Location
- Existing Sign Exhibit
- Existing CUP for Monument Sign
- New US Bank Sign Photos
- DRAFT November 3, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
- DRAFT Amended Easement Encroachment Agreement
- Resolution #16-11-210: DRAFT Findings of Fact
- Resolution #16-11-211: DRAFT Conditional Use Permit
- Resolution #16-11-229: DRAFT Amended Easement Encroachment Agreement
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Brian Hagen | JoAnn Shaw | 11/17/2016 11:25 AM |
| Kurt Ulrich | Kurt Ulrich | 11/17/2016 02:42 PM |
- Form Started By:
- Chris Anderson
- Started On:
- 11/15/2016 10:31 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 11/17/2016