The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOutdoor Advertising Sign - Modification 4-16-15April 16, 2015 2:22 pm Hello Greg. Upon research of the zoning back in 1978, which allowed the outdoor advertising signs as a permitted use, the three signs are considered legal nonconforming under the current zoning. Based on this determination, any modification to the existing signs would require a minor use permit. I'm not sure if you are looking to modify/change more than the southernmost sign, but if so, you should include all modifications under one minor use permit. Does Stott own all the signs? I was unable to locate any records that the signs were issued a building permit. I'm not sure if Stott has any records of building permits. Also, I'm was not able to determine creation of the parcel. If you could provide a creation deed as part of the application, it would assist in the processing. The application fee for the minor use permit is $1,258.86. I will need to check with a couple different departments to see if they are willing to waive their fees based on the type of project. Thank you again for your patience. Regards. Mark Michelena Senior Planner, Planning Division Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7376 (530) 538-2140 Fax mmichelena@buttecounty.net -----Original Message----- From: Greg Redeker [mailto:gredeker@stottoutdoor.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 11:23 AM To: Michelena, Mark Subject: RE: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Mark, Any word on this? I don't mean to be a pest, but it's been two and a half weeks since I last heard from you. If this is a possibility, we'd like to try and do it this year. With a use permit process and Caltrans' long review timelines (which can't start until after we have the use permit in hand), we're already looking at early fall, even if all the stars align correctly. Thanks, Greg Greg Redeker Leasing Representative gredeker@stottoutdoor.com (530) 342-3235 Office (530) 762-9355 Mobile (530) 717-2705 Direct Stott Outdoor Advertising -----Original Message----- From: Greg Redeker Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 8:16 AM To: 'Michelena, Mark' Subject: RE: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Mark, Good morning! I hope that you have something fun and/or special to look forward to this Easter weekend. Is there any additional word regarding the approval path for potential modifications to our sign next to the Highway 70 industrial park, as indicated in my earlier e-mail? Please let me know at your convenience. Thanks, Greg -----Original Message----- From: Michelena, Mark [mailto:MMichelena@buttecounty.net] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 8:00 AM To: Greg Redeker Subject: RE: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Good Morning Greg. I wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten about your email. I have been extremely busy the last three days. I will get back to you shortly. Mark Michelena Senior Planner, Planning Division Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7376 (530) 538-2140 Fax mmichelena@buttecounty.net -----Original Message----- From: Greg Redeker [mailto:gredeker@stottoutdoor.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:04 AM To: Michelena, Mark Cc: Hickel, Rowland Subject: RE: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Mark, Have you had an opportunity to obtain more definitive word on this? Please let me know if there's any additional information I can provide. Thanks, Greg Greg Redeker Leasing Representative gredeker@stottoutdoor.com (530) 342-3235 Office (530) 762-9355 Mobile (530) 717-2705 Direct Stott Outdoor Advertising -----Original Message----- From: Greg Redeker Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 5:13 PM To: 'Michelena, Mark' Cc: 'rhickel@buttecounty.net' Subject: RE: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Mark, I've researched the files and have some answers for you. 1. All three signs were constructed in 1978 as south-facing signs. The northernmost sign had a second face, oriented toward the north, added in 1994. 2. I cannot tell which signs were constructed first, but all of our records point to 1978. The southern two signs were authorized by the property owner by the same lease agreement, the northernmost sign by a separate lease agreement. 3. It appears that all signs were constructed legally. Under state law, there is a rebuttable presumption that a sign was lawfully erected if it's been up for at least five years and no applicable government agency has said anything. Caltrans knows that the signs are there and charges us an annual fee, so everything appears on the level from their end. 4. Understood on the minor use permit process. If your discussion ends up going in a different direction, please let me know. Thanks again, and I look forward to your response. Greg -----Original Message----- From: Michelena, Mark [mailto:MMichelena@buttecounty.net] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 3:52 PM To: Greg Redeker Subject: RE: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Greg, Thanks for letting me know. Mark ________________________________________ From: Greg Redeker [gredeker@stottoutdoor.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:16 PM To: Michelena, Mark Subject: RE: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Mark, Thanks for the response. I’ll gather the information on the sign installation dates and get it to you. I’ll also be out for a portion of next week, so there’s no hurry. Thanks, Greg Greg Redeker Leasing Representative gredeker@stottoutdoor.com (530) 342-3235 Office (530) 762-9355 Mobile (530) 717-2705 Direct [cid:image08ba3a.JPG@6a719c7f.43895b03] From: Michelena, Mark [mailto:MMichelena@buttecounty.net] Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 3:23 PM To: Greg Redeker Subject: RE: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Hello Greg. I did bring this request to the Planner’s meeting and several questions came out of the discussion. 1. Need determination of when the sign (and other signs were placed on the property) 2. What sign was first 3. Discussion was leaning towards needing a minor use permit for changing out a (legal?) nonconforming sign. 4. A digital sign will require a minor use permit I will be away from the office next week, so if you want to contact Rowland Hickel (rhickel@buttecounty.net<mailto:rhickel@buttecounty.net>) or you can wait until I get back. Regards. [butte_county_wordmark_size_2.5] Mark Michelena Senior Planner, Planning Division Butte County Department of Development Services 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7376 (530) 538-2140 Fax mmichelena@buttecounty.net<mailto:mmichelena@buttecounty.net> From: Greg Redeker [mailto:gredeker@stottoutdoor.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 2:25 PM To: Michelena, Mark Subject: FW: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Mark, I sent the e-mail below to you late last week, when you were out of the office. I hope you were off doing something enjoyable. Have you had a chance to look into it? No worries if it will take a little while longer – I just want to make sure it doesn’t fall through the cracks. Thanks, Greg Greg Redeker Leasing Representative gredeker@stottoutdoor.com<mailto:gredeker@stottoutdoor.com> (530) 342-3235 Office (530) 762-9355 Mobile (530) 717-2705 Direct [cid:image003.jpg@01D05DA9.145279B0] From: Greg Redeker Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 10:53 AM To: 'Michelena, Mark' Subject: Reconstruction of a nonconforming sign Mark, I hope your week is going well. I have a few more questions for you, as they relate to reconstruction and potential conversion of a nonconforming off-site sign to a digital display. Stott owns an off-site sign at the SW corner of APN 035-460-022, just north of the Highway 70 industrial park. The property is zoned Heavy Industrial. I believe that the sign would be considered nonconforming for two reasons: there are two other off-site signs on the same parcel, and current regulations limit off-site signs to one per parcel (Table 24-105-2); and the closest sign is approximately 310 feet to the north, less than the required 500 foot separation between signs on the same side of a four-lane road. The sign is currently oriented towards the SSW, for visibility to northbound traffic on Highway 70. Trees on the industrial park are now largely blocking the view of the sign. What I’d like to do is to reorient the sign to the NNW to be visible to southbound traffic on Highway 70 (see attached annotated aerial photo). Section 24-109.C.2 states that “the reconstructed sign shall not exceed the original structure in regards to maximum height, size, encroachment into setbacks, and other property characteristics as determined by the Zoning Administrator” (emphasis added). The reconstructed sign would have the same height, same area, same setbacks, and same distance to the nearest sign to the north. The primary change would be to the orientation, although we may want to make some other changes (such as change the supporting structure to a more modern monopole design, and adding lights if possible to do so). Hopefully I’ve set the stage enough. My questions are: 1. Is the sign on the SW corner of APN 035-460-022 considered nonconforming? 2. Is the orientation of the sign considered an “other property characteristic”? 3. Would reorientation of the sign to the NNW be allowed, either by right or subject to a use permit, if there is no increase in sign height, sign area, or setbacks to property lines and other signs? 4. Would it be possible to add lights to a reoriented sign, either by right or subject to a use permit? 5. Would it be possible to convert a reoriented sign to a digital display, subject to a use permit as set forth in 24-109.C.3? If this is a possibility, then I can start talking to the property owner and Caltrans. If it’s not, then it’s time to move on to the next project. Thanks in advance for your response. If it will be a few days because you need to take it to a weekly meeting before responding, I totally understand. Have a great weekend, Greg