Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Date: 07/09/2015 By: Tim Gladhill, Community Development 5. 1. Information Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to Exceed Sign Size Restrictions at 6228 Highway 10 NW; Case of Country Side Services of Minnesota, Inc. Purpose/Background: The City has received an application from the Country Side Services of Minnesota, Inc., requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) to exceed sign size restrictions for their parcel located at 6228 Highway 10 NW (the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is vacant and located directly adjacent to the east of Country Side Services' current site. The Applicant desires to add a twenty-eight (28) square foot dynamic display sign to an existing 105 square foot sign. Staff finds the request reasonable for the Highway 10 Corridor. Notification: In accordance with State statute, Staff attempted to notify property owners within 350 feet of the subject property of the public hearing via Standard US Mail. The Public Hearing was also noticed in the Anoka County Union Herald, the City's official newsletter for public notices. Observations/Alternatives: The request will add square footage to the bottom of an existing sign located along Highway 10. The request will not add any height to the existing sign. The dynamic display must abide by all other regulations found within City Code Chapter 117 Division 8 (Signs). Approval of the request appears to be consistent with past similar approvals. This process, required by City Code, simply allows the Planning Commission to review the request on a site specific nature, attach reasonable conditions, and provide an enforcement tool in the event the proposed use is not being used consistent with City Code. Alternatives Option 1: Recommend City Council adopt Resolutions #15-07-169 and #15-07-170 approving a Conditional Use Permit for a twenty-eight (28) square foot dynamic display added to an existing 105 square foot sign. The Subject Property has frontage along two (2) public roads and thus would be eligible for two (2) signs. A second ground sign already exists on the site. Option 2: Recommend that City Council deny the request. The proposed signage appears reasonable in size. The proposed location of the sign is not within the vision clearance triangle nor within any easement. Staff does not support this option. Funding Source: All costs associated with reviewing the application are the responsibility of the Applicant. Recommendation: