| | | | | | | | 
Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals
September 3, 2020
|
| | | | | | | | | FROM: | Mark Noble, Senior Planner | | TO: | Board of Adjustment and Appeals |
|
| | | | | | | | Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance of the Sign Regulations for Scott County Government Center |
| | | | | | | | Policy/Action Requested:
Offer a motion to approve Resolution No. PC2020-005, a resolution approving the variance request for an electronic message board sign at 200 4th Avenue West in the Office Business (B-2) Zone. |
| | | | | | | | Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Board approve Resolution No. PC2020-005, a resolution approving the variance request for an electronic message board sign. |
| | | | | | | | Discussion:
Introduction
Andrew Dahlquist of Wold Architects & Engineers, applicant, and Scott County, property owner, have submitted an application requesting approval to allow an electronic message board sign for property located at 200 4th Avenue West.
Variance Considerations
The City Code allows electronic message board signs in the Highway Business (B-1), Community Commercial (CC) and Major Recreation (MR) Zones, up to 32 square-feet in area, with a change of frequency once every eight (8) seconds, and not to exceed 0.3 foot-candles above ambient light 150 feet away. Scott County Government Center is zoned Office Business (B-2) Zone; therefore, these signs are not presently allowed at that location. City staff have discussed proposing a City Code amendment to allow electronic message board signs in the B-2 Zone, but have not yet presented that text amendment to the Planning Commission/City Council for their review.
The applicant’s narrative addresses their rationale for this sign, noting that they are a major provider of news and services, and this sign would allow them to regularly source current news, announcements and upcoming events for the residents of the community/County. Their proposal would be consistent with the regulations of the Code pertaining to size, light levels and frequency of change.
Findings:
Section 151.015, Subd. B, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings for purposes of discussion by the Board. The Board may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit, as well as propose other findings.
Criterion l
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following:
1.A. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls:
Finding 1.A. The property can continue to be utilized as a commercial development with signage that would adequately identify the site yet comply with the regulations as stated in the City Code. However, due to the nature of the services they provide, it would be beneficial to regularly update/modify their messages to best benefit the community they serve.
1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property in that this commercial property would be allowed a monument sign of similar dimensions/height/location to a similar type of institution (i.e., City Hall), except that changeable copy would need to occur manually vs. electronically.
1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1.C. The circumstances were created by the property owner as a result of the applicant’s desire for signage that can be changed electronically vs. manually.
1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding 1.D. The variance would not alter the essential character of the locality, as the proposed sign would not look much different than an allowed sign, except that the message would be changed electronically vs. manually.
1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Finding 1.E. The problems do not extend beyond economic considerations. The proposal would provide a better service to Scott County businesses/residents by offering better information on community wide announcements/news/current events.
Criterion 2
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Chapter.
Finding 2 The proposed variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of Chapter 11 (Zoning) as it would allow signage similar in size/type/location to what the City Code allows in other business districts, and it would offer a beneficial service to the community that it serves.
Criterion 3
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3 The request is not a use variance.
Criterion 4
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will insure compliance to protect the adjacent properties.
Finding 4 (Dependent on the Board’s action on the request.)
Criterion 5
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet the following criteria: ......
Finding 5 (Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone.)
|
|