The URL can be used to link to this page

10-136Council File # Q� Green Sheet # � -] � RESOLUTION CITY Presented by SAIy,T PAUL, MINNESOTA � 1 WHEREAS, Lawrence Signs, (DSI Zoning File No. 09-305725), on behalf of Suburban Chrysler, applied 2 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (the `BZA) for a variance from the strict application of the separation 3 requirements of Leg. Code § 64.504(5) which requires 660-feet of separation between electronic message 4 signs, in order to construct a freestanding pylon sign containing an electronic message sign on property 5 commonly known as 1891 Suburban Avenue and legally described as Registered Land Survey 276 Subj To 6 Rds; Tract C, the said land being located in a B3 zoning district; and 8 WHEREAS, the Applicant sought to place the electronic message sign 432 feet from an existing electronic 9 message sign to the west and 612 feet from an existing message sign to the east; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 WHEREAS, the BZA, on November 16, 2009, having provided notice pursuant to Leg. Code § 61303, conducted a public hearing on the said application where all persons interested were given the opporiunity to be heard and, at the close of the public hearing and upon the file, testimony, and report of staff, moved to approve the requested variance subject to the condition that if the use of this property should change, the electronic message board sign must be removed, based upon the following findings of fact as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 09-305725: 18 1. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 3. 41 42 The properry in question cannot be put to a reasonable use undeY the strict provisions of the code. The new tenant of this car dealership would like to install a freestanding pylon business sign with an electronic display to be read from the adjacent I-94 freeway. The electronic portion of the sign will be about 150 square feet in size and the non-electronic portion will be about 130 square feet in size. The sign is being moved from another dealership to this location. The code requires a spacing of 660 feet between electronic message board signs. There is an existing message board sign about 432 feet to the west and one about 612 feet to the east. An electronic message business sign is an important tool to attract customers to a business located along a freeway. The proposed sign is a reasonable and permitted use of this properry that cannot be accomplished under the strict provisions of the code. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unigue to this property and these circumstances were not created by the land owner. When the spacing requirement for electronic message board signs was adopted a few years ago permits were issued on a first come basis. This left many properties without the opportunity to ever have electronic message board signs. There are signs on either side of this property which effectively prevents any business on the site from advertising their business in an electronic display mode along the freeway placing them at a competitive disadvantage. This is a circumstance that was not created by the current property owner. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. /D-/3lv 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 4. 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 This request conforms to the provisions of Section 64.207, the findings necessary for sign variances, as follows: a. The variance is due to unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot. This condition is met. The proposed si� will provide needed identification for the business from the I-94 freeway. b. The sign would not create a hazard. This condition is met. The sign will be setback a good distance from the roadway and should not interfere with traffic. a The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This condition is met. No objections to this request have been raised from adjacent property owners. d. The sign would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting. This condition is met. There is no residential property near this property. e. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This condition is met. There are electronic message board signs on both sides of Suburban Avenue. The Sunray/Battle Creek Sign District does not regulate business signs and therefore the proposed sign is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it aZter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed sign will be located in the middle of this large parcel and will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The name of this business recently changed but the use as a car dealership remains the same. The proposed sign is necessazy in order to identify the dealership from the freeway. However if the use of the property changes the freeway sign would no longer be as critical and the sign should be removed. There are other similar signs along this section of the freeway. The proposed spacing is not unreasonable and as long as the sign is operated in compliance with the allowed modes of display, the requested variance would not change the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. /D-/3lo sa s. 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 6. 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 The variance, ifgranted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Zand is located, nor would it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. Accessory business signs are permitted in this zoning district. The proposed variance would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. The request far variance is not based pYimarily on a desire to increase the value oY income potential of the parcel of Zand. The business owner's primary desire is to adequately identify his business from the freeway in order to be competitive. WHEREAS, on November 24, 2009, pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(a), the District 1 Community Council filed an appeal (DSI Zoning File No. 09-330789) from the determination made by the BZA and requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the BZA; and WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 61.702(b) and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on January 6, 2010 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, The City Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the BZA, does hereby 112 RESOLVE, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby reverses the decision of the BZA in this 113 matter as the Council finds that the BZA erred in its findings Nds 1, 2, and 3. With respect to Finding No. 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 1. the Council finds that the property can be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. This property has been used to sell automobiles for many years without the need for such a sign which demonstrates that the business can be operated without the need for a sign variance. With respect to Finding No. 2, the Council finds that the there are no circumstances unique to this property. Nothing aboul the actual site of this property creates a plight that would be addressed by an electronic message sign. There are many businesses in the area that do not have electronic message signs in order to operate. Finally, with respect to finding No. 3, there is nothing about the requested variance that is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code that is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, marals and welfare of the citizens of Saint PauL The Sunray Suburban Small Area Plan specifically states that "signs should be in scale to a pedestrian environment and not to highways." The applicanYs desire to have the sign read from the adjacent freeway is not in keeping with the goal ofthe Small Area Plan which calls for signage to be scaled to a pedestrian environment, not highways; and be it FURTHBR RESOLVED, That the appeal of District 1 Community Council be and is hereby granted fox the reasons stated above. Having granted the appeal on the basis of the errors and for the reasons above stated, the Council adopts the remaining findings of the BZA, as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 09- 305725 as its own; and, be it /0-13� 132 FINALLY RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Tom Jones — Lawrence 133 Signs, the District 1 Community Council, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission and the 134 BZA. Bosfrom Carter Harns Helgen Thune Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified / By: Date ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ��i0, Secietary Requested b � of: � � � � _- _-- By: Approved by the Office of Financial Services By: Approved b City Attorney sy: ��l 2 - 2 - �o Approved y Ma or , ubmi i to C� il By: � � � Green Sheet Green Sheet CA -��'A Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet I 02 FEB 2010 �, Conhact Person & Phone: Peter Wamer ', 266-8710 Must Be on Council Agenda by (D e): '� � 10-FEB-10 ��4i�.,� � ��' Doa Type; RESOLUTION i E-Document Required: Y Document Contact: Julie Kraus � j 0 �ity Attoruey � � 1 Cip� Attomev A55ign ; Z ]tyAttorney NUmber �� 3 Mawr's Office ' For Routing ' 4 iCouncil Order ; 5 ',City Clerk Contact Phone: 266-8776 I I ToWI # of Signat Pages _ (qip All Locations for Sfgnature) AMion Requested: � � t L- Memorializing City Council's January 6, 2010 mofion to reverse the decision of the BZA in this matter and grant the appeal of District 1 Communiry Council to deny a variance to Lawrence Signs on behalf of Suburban Chrysler in order to conshvct a freestanding pylon sign containing an electronic message on propertly commonly lmown as 1891 Suburban Avenue in Saint Paul. Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Planning Commission CIB Committee Civil Service Commission Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions: 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for fhis department? Yes No 2. Has this personlfirm ever been a city employee� Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? Yes No Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet. Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): The Council is required pursuant to Ciry Charter to have its actions reduced to wrifing either in the form of a resolufion or ordinance dependent upon the nature of the matter before it. The decision of Council in this matter sequired a written resolu4on in order to comply with the Charter. Approving the resolution fulfills the Council's dury under the Charter. Advantages lf Approved: Disadvantages If Approved: DisadvanWges If NotApproved: Total Amounf of Transaction: Funding Source: Financial Information: (Explain) CostlRevenue Budgeted: Activity Number: /0-/3l0 Green Sheet NO: 3097796 February 2, 2010 4:27 PM Page 1 10-136 CITY OF SAINT PAUL ChristopherB. Coleman, M¢yor November 30, 2009 Council Research 310 City Hall SC Paul MN 55102 Dear Mary Erickson: DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY AND [D]SPEC'CIONS Bob Kessler, Dmectar COMMERCEBUbDIFG Telephane 651-266-9090 8 Fourth Street East, Smte 200 Facsimde 6�1-266-9124 StPaul,MinnesotaS.ilOLl024 Web. wiv�vsfiaul. ovdst I wou]d like to confirm that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, January 6, 2010, for the following zoning case: Appellant: District 1 Communiry Council Zoning File #: 09 330789 Purpose: Location: Staff: District: Board: An appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision granting a variance of the spacing requirements for an elecfronic message board sign at 1891 Suburban Ave. 1891 Suburban Ave Recommended Approval Recommended denial Approved on a 6-0 vote I have confirmed this date with the office of Council President Kathy Lantry. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest Convenience and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thank you! Sincerely, John Hardwick Zoning Specialist �� OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul CiTy CouncIl will con- duct a public hearing�on Wednesday, Jan- uary 6, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-Court House, 15 West Kellogg Boule- vazd, to consider the appeal of District 1 Community Council to a decision by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals granting a vari- ance of the spacing requirements for an electronic message board sign at 7891 Suburban Avenue. [ZF 09 330789] Mary Erickson ' Assistant City Council Secretary , Dated: December 1, 2009 � (December 3) ____ -_= 9T. PAUL LEGAi. LEDGER =_____ 22225657 AA-ADA-EEO Employer 10-136 • � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Christopher B. Colen:an, Mayor November 30, 2009 Council Research 310 City Hatl St Paul MN 55102 Dear Mary Erickson: DEPARTMEN'I OF SAFETY AND INSPECTIONS Bob Kessler, Dir¢ctor COM-�vIERCEBUILD7IG Telepharse: 651-266-9090 8 Fourth Street Fas{ Surte 200 Facsimile: 6�]-266-912# St Paul, :Llinnesota 551 0 1-/02-1 iveb: ,�„v sroaatQOVidsi I would like to confirm that a public heazing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, January 6, 2010, for the following zoning case: Appellant: District 1 Community Council Zoning File #: 09 330789 • Purpose: Locarion: Staff: District: Boazd: An appeal of a Boazd of Zoning Appeals decision granting a vaziance of the spacing requirements for an electronic message board sign aY 1&91 Suburban Ave. 1891 Suburban Ave Recommended Approval Recommended denial Approved on a 6-0 vote I have confirmed this date with the ofFce o£ Council President Kathy Lantry. My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council at your earliest Convenience and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Thank yau! ��rely, ; �l John Hardwtck `�l Zoning Specialist • AA-ADA-EEO Employer ,c � y �� 10-136 Zoning office use only � APPLICQNT APPLICATION FOR APPEAL --.�; -, - � ��f': _� �;=: =,.�.f. �iie no. � q•3,30 7� �;0'! �• � 200? Fee`� ��S . � Tentative hearing date: / /G I� Name �iST2�c i 1 CDh^wlv1� � l`f ��vr1c-;Z— Address G0�10 C��s;WA`,� S't _ Z;'�l lZ(v City S( �f}�J i� St. M,N Zip ��!(`� Daytime phone �vS � - G,3yS Name of owner (if different) PROPERTY Address ��' `� � S� b �v`�-v�� v ��ti� LOCATION Le al descri tion: �� 9 P �SC-�i5T�i2x�� t„^�,�75v�v�� 77L7 S�J r Z�S TR..�7- C_ TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: Q Board of Zoning Appeals Q City Council under the provisions of Chapter 61, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the �n�C+�-� � � �=v�31 �:: e � /� t�f%C?�LS R - 3 'S on ti1D\7 �hlR� (? �� , 200�. File number. L� ��- (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in tact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Plannin Commission. ! t'.Tf3 ti i Y. ��t;� G''l..ct �.1f � 7 V� 'rV�-¢'.� A �� t�3Ditl.�i%.T b�f_' c;ec�t_'/� �A�� W�'i'C° v47 � '�s• [�`�'d c? .c� i �\ � l 1 � �}.4ee t � 3-1- ; S l� e,� i`-�c �-F c� �� z, rrn ,�- , n�� s t� s-Fa u:l. � fj -��.,� � --4� C `� — _<,�L�� f��.�:.. � � t( Gt�fi-�� /�=ti ��`-�-1 S t L� = v. 9"� =� � ` � �"`�' � ! ,I".— (aitach additiona! sheet if necessary) � 2� c- rtt: ��-�, ic r� �* '�`'T %� �� 5 , Department of Safety and Inspections 375 Jaclrsan Stree� Suite 220 Saint Paul, MN SSZ01-Z806 65I-266-9008 • ApplicanYssignature / � �� Date J� 2 �rCityagent 10-136 ��l��i� 1' COUnC i �� 2. R� C! 5. Ca 7. � �� Community Council O�ce Battle Greek Police Storefront General O(bce 3�d D'si.�ct 7 Pl4�es A Cemmur�ly Partner;"ip 20°0 Conveay S_. Roem 126 2107 OI� H��scn Road � Saint Paui. MN "a"7119 Sun Rey Shoppmg Cer'2r f651) 501-6345 �ot�on2} SamtPauk. �F4N 5�1'9 to51) oCt -53�6 "ax) ;651) 702-6770 tph ,nei dstrictica;,na(�acLcom �657! 71d-8229;tar.) �,^rahvdi5rici�ccunciLcrg disirictlCPG�2oi.com To: Deparhment of Safety and Inspections November 24, 2009 Re: Appeal of Decision for #09-305725 —1891 Suburban Ave. The District 1 Community Council is appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant a variance to the sign ordinance for 1891 Suburban Avenue (File # 09-305725 — LRSS Holdings, LLC). We aze filing this appeal on the grounds that errors in procedure and in the findings of fact were made as follows: City staff did not apply all applicable code — the SunRay Suburban Small Area Plan was not examined when considering the request and applies in this case; Section 64.207 — the owner has not demonstrated that the variance is needed due to imnsual needs specific to the lot — the staff report states that the sign is needed in order to compete with neighboring businesses — the majority of neighboring businesses aze fast food restaurants or other establishments not in competition with the business; Section 64.504(�a — the sign is witrun 660 feet of another e2ectronic message sign oa the same side of the street — one of these signs is on Suburban and focused on pedestrian trat$iq not visible from the &eeway and therefore not a similar case; SunRay Suburban Small Area PIan — tlus plan specifically states t6at signs on businesses in tfie covered area shall be oriented to the neighborhood and to pedestrian traffic and not to the freeway traffic — findings 1, 2 and 3, specifically state the sign is to identify the business from the freeway. Section 61.601(a) — the property can be put to its same reasonable use under a strict provision of the code. The properry has been operating at this location for many years without such a sign, demonstrating thaY it can be operaYed without such a variance being granted Section 61.601 (b) — there aze no circiunstances unique to this pmperty creating a plight such that an electrottic sign will address the plight. There aze many businesses in this azea that do not have electronic signs and are continuing as profitable businesses; it is obviovs from the freeway thaY ihis business is a caz dealership. Section 61.601 (c) — the variance is not in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code which states that the purpose of the sign code is to encourage a concern for fhe visual environment wfiich makes the ciry a more desirable place to live (Section 64.101(b)), and to protect the public interest in lughway beautification and to enhance the naturdl scenic beauty of madways in scenic and adjacent azeas (Section 64.101(d)); this area is overcrowded with signage currently and is adjacent to a naturat area owned by Ramsey County. Section 6I.601(fl — the request for the variance is based solely on the desire to increase the income potential of the parcel of land. This is clearly stated in the staff report. Due to the number of for sale signs on the properly in question, the total square footage of signage at the localion is far more tkan allowed by code. T'his properry owner has also been lmown Yo pepper the boulevazd with temporary signs along a futl city block's length, in violation of Section 64.610, increasing visuai clutter and detracting from the appearance and perception of the District 1 commerciai distdct � � Our mission is to create opportunifies for the propie who live and work in our neighborhoads to enoage with each cther and vri�h our gevemment officials in order to bui(d a more vibrant and welcoming community. 10-136 • In addition to these errors in fact and procedure, the District 1 Connmunity Council would like it noted that the other electronic sign close to the proposed sign is only present due to an error by city staff, and would otherwise not have been allowed. This error was made when reading the applicable wning map at the rime that siga pernut was applied for. Because the sign was installed before the error was discovered, the properly owner was allowed to retain the sign. Both this mistaken sign and the proposed sign are oriented to freeway traffic and not to the neighborhood, and are therefore both in violation of the applicable small area plan. Finally, a dyuamic display billboazd will be installed across the freeway against the direct wishes of the neighborhood and further cluttering the visual impact of this literal eniryway to our city. The business in quesdon has been for sale for at least three yeazs. The business is not failing because of something unique to the parcel, but because businesses in tfie suburbs of the East Metro have drawn this kind of business to more appropriate locations and because the businesses in this area need to be oriented to the local community. The District Council recognized this changing dynamic many years ago and worked with PED staff to develop the SuuRay Suburban Small Area Plan to deal with the change. The emphasis of the plan is on neighborhood-oriented businesses and development — something incompafible with lazge lot caz dealerslups. Cleaziy, the owner of the property also recognizes that the business is not appropriate in this azea of St Paul — thus the effort to sell. Putting up a non-conforming sign will not change the circumstances of the overall business environment of this section of St. Paul. � To pernut such a sign is in direct violation of the SunIZay-Suburban Smali Area Plan. Dishict 1 and the Planning Department worked hard to prepare trus document to help plan for the future of our cornmercial district. This recommendarion is in direct opposition to our plan and should be denied. Respectfully submitted, � � �� '-� C�� Betsy Leach Far the District 1 Community Council Boazd � Our mission is to crea!e oppoCunities for [he oeopie tivho liv2 and svork in wr neighborhoods to engage wich each cther and v�ith our govemment officiais in order to build a more vibrant and �velcoming community. 10-136 BOARD OF 7ANING APPEALS STAFF REPORT TYPE OF APPLICATION: Major Variance FII.E #09-305725 APPLICANT: HEARING DATE: LOCATION: LEGAL DESCRIP7TON: PLANNING DISTRICT: PRESENT ZONING: REPORT DATE: DEADLINE FOR ACTION: Tom Jones, Lawrence Signs November 16, 2009 ��' l REGISTERED LAND SURVEY 276 SUBJ TO RDS; TRACT C �J B3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 64.504(5) Sunray-Batt1e C`reek-Highwood Sign District October 29, 2009 December 6, 2009 BY: John Hardwick bATE RECEIVED: October 27, 2009 � A. PURPOSE: A variance of the sign code in order to coustruct a freestanding pylon sign with an electronic message display for Suburban Chrysler located within the 660 foot distauce required firom another electronic message sign. The applicant is requesting to place an electronic message sign 432 feet from an e�sting sign at 1825 Suburban (Wendy's) to the west and 612 feet from an e�cisting sign at 1925 Suburban (Slumberland) to the east for a variance of 238 feet an 48 feet respectively. B. SITE AND AREA CONDTTIONS: This is a 4.75 acre parcel with frontage on the I-94 freeway and Suburban Avenue. Surrounding I,aud Use: Various commercial uses on the north side of the street and pazkland on the south side. C. BACKGROTJND: The applicant is proposing to install a free standing pylon sign with an eIectronic message board on the freeway side of the properry. D. FINDINGS: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. l� L� � , Page 1 of 4 10-136 � File #09-305725 Staff Report The new tenant of this caz dealership would like to install a freestanding pylon business sign with an elechonic display fo be read from the adjacent I-94 freeway. The electronic portion of the sign will be about 150 square feet in size and the non- electronic portion will be about 130 squaze feet in size. The sign is being moved from another dealerslup to this location. The code requires a spacing of 6b0 feet between eleclronic message board signs. There is an existing message board sign about 432 feet to the west and one about 612 feet to the east. An elecironic message business sign is an important tool to attract customers to a business located along a freeway. The proposed sign is a reasonable and permitted use of this properry that cannot be accomplished under the strict provisions of the code. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this property, and these circu»tstances were not created by the land owner. When the spacing requirement for electronic message board signs was adopted a few years ago pernuts were issued on a first come basis. This left many properties without the opportunity to ever have electronic message board signs. There aze signs on either . side of tYris property which effectively prevents any business on the site from advertising their business in an electronic display mode along the freeway placing them at a competirive disadvantage. This is a circumstance that was not created by the current property owner. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and wetfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. � -. - .� .... . - - . - - - - - --- - - -_ -- , .. a. The variance is due to unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or loG This condition is met. The proposed sign will provide needed identification for the business from the I-94 freeway. b. The sign would not create a hazard This condifion is met. The sign will be setback a good distance from the roadway and should notinterfere with traffic. c. The sigh would not be object�onable to adjacent property owners. • This condifion is met. No objections to this request have been raised from adjacent property owners. � � Page 2 of 4 10-136 File #09-305725 Staff Report cL Tlze sign would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting. Tlus condition is met. There is no residential properiy near this property. e. The sig� is in keeping wifh the general characfer of fhe surrounding area, This condition is met. There are electronic message boazd signs on both sides of Suburban Avenue. The SunrayBattle Creek Sign District does not regulate business signs and therefore the proposed sign is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasona8ly diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed siga will be located in tke midclte of this lazge parcel and will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. � There are other similaz signs along this section of the freeway. The proposed spacing • is not unreasonable and as long as the sign is operated in compliance with the allowed modes of display, the requested variance would not change the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse impact on surrounding properties. 5. T7xe variance, zf granted, would not perneit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected Z¢nd is Zocated, nor would it alter or change the zonittg district class�cation of the property. Accessory business signs aze permitted in ttris zoning dishict. The proposed variance would not change or alter the zoning classification of the property. 6. The request for variance is not based primariZy on a desire to increase the value or income potentia7 of the parcel of land. The business owner's primary desire is to adequatety identify tus business from the freeway in order to be comperitive. E. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: As of the date o£this report, we ha�e not received a recommendation from Dishict 1. 1 � � Page 3 of 4 10-136 . File #09-305725 Staff Report • • F. CORRESPONDENCE: Staff has not received any conespondence regarding this matter. G. STAFF RECONIlV�NDAT'ION: Based on findings 1 through 6, staff recommends approval of the variance. � � Page 4 of4 �� Z�`�/ APPLICATION FOR ZONIl�G VARIANCE Department ofSafety and Inspection"��,��5f .��a . �� g� �� 375 Jackson Street Suite 220 s�:r�r,n�vssroz-iso6 OC7 2"� ZOpg General: 651-26�9008 Fax: (651) 266-9099 APPLICANT PROPERTY INFORMATION 10-136 Address q�� af2t�t•2 %J.u. ��2 V City .s'�-' •�—� St�� Zip S�CC� �� Daytime Phone �i� Y�' � Property Interest of Applicant (owner, contraM pnrchaser, etc) _�J� p v Name of Owner (if different) �U �� - 11 f Phone Address/Location LegalDescription Se� � (attach nddifianalsheet ifnecessary) Lot Size4.1S CcCVeS Present Zoning� G Present Use Hu"ii7ucih�!-� //2. I.ev�r`� Proposed Use Variance[s] reqaested: Snpporting Information: Supply the necessary information that is app&cable to your vaziance request, provide details regazding the project, and eacplain why a variance is needed. Duplex/triplex conversions may require a pro forma to be submitted. Attach additional sheets if necessaty. 0 AttachmeNs as required: Site Plan Attachments � Pro Forma `S ApplicanYs 4; t�, 'i,a�?i ��:� � .:� °� -�3��'7�� We are reque�in��garianceto the minimum distance requirement of 660' between dynamic dispiays (electronic message centers) as described in Sec. 64.504.(5) b. of the St. Paul Sign Ordinance. We wish to install a freestanding pylon sign at 1891 Suburban Avenue on tfie north side of the property which will be readable to botfi east and westbound tre�c on Highway 94. The new pylon sign will locate in a similar position as a previous sign for the property and will meet all side and rear yard set6ack mandates. The sign will be 28'-0" tall with 2343 square feet of display area. Of this total display area,101.5 square feet will be dedicaied to a dynamic display. The sign code refers to a minimum 660' distance between dynamic displays in this zoning district. There is currently a dynamic display focated atthe Wendy's restaurantto our West. This display is approximately 432' from our proposed sign location. The sign is double-faced and is readable from both east and westbound treffic on Highway 94. The Slumberland property to our east aiso has a dynamic display. This location is approximately 612' from our proposed sign location however; this display is a single-faced unit mounted on the north elevation of the Slumberland buiiding facing Highway 94. This configuration of the properCies makes it impossi6le to meet the minimum spacing requirements. We believe the spacing that is available seems reasonable considering the types of business located in • the area, the speed and density of traffic, the large lot sizes and the fact that only one of the two other dynamic displays in the area is oriented to Highway 94 in the same way as the sign we've planned for the our property. . �� vt ';.� °= �'::, ° ��'_ _ � �� ., x �:�. . ;-�: � � � �� ,i ��a�! 10-136 � � �'��_� �� , \ \ ; \ ��, ` , a ,ac, s _ r . Y � � �,�/ _� �--i .� ��; i a ';- .- - - - --°_--�-' �.l - -- - �� . _' - - r ' �7i :.—r-1 _ r � � ' f �. - . ...� " �uburba-� A�e - - � - - � � � _ -- _ - =fl �r�= _ � � - � `° - � � '��'" .�� . �� . � �� , �.� �. +. ,� �.w. A �t'�-r . .�� , < � , , - . • i � �, �rq o s ^ r, _, � . p� p ! � , / ..,_� � f �, � / �� ! r g � ; � t �� _ —, ; ; ;� ' , � �--� , ,i, �s; �J'z' V _ � 'r ; � � � , v+ I , - z ` s ''� , � � ; u�� , � � � `.� �a / s�' � ,, �� , �f. �- � � a � . � � , ?� �� O � �,,�t�S s m "I.� i � .�' ffi �.��--� r + .. ' . =�-�'�`�� j d �- ' i . i --°' �- � ,• T i . ,� - / �_�� . � � �: '3' . � � �' � / — �.i�Y y � � � � : , /, ��§ . ' � _ _._,____—__,_�_. . .�� ?� = m` � fl � �� ,_ ,` - N - � ' � ' `'. i 1 i --�- --� . / - , \ , �—�_ � J - v� � , L i.:� —! / �� e .+,� L � � N :., �- - .�s +' � ` - � �.4 �. I / £ z�',�", . � , _ �- . � ; l � � � �, `, � � , � .:L � � �: F _ I ' � �� 1 .. � "� � � .� � N ` i � % � f ffis7; �� " r ..I ..+ -i � � .. � � r � � _ �`�: + �� _ c rn i ; -�I � � '� : �`�„��' r � " g �� o � t � �, � ✓ ��:�, r � i s ' ] -� C7 ,-� C � � � : .y � a ..�. � � ..ir,} �� i � _ . � ' '! � , * . � ; � -- _ 7 ; ;i � „ ; ' � � � - -_,. � : � - i . �--_' , � �: ' _� ��t; �1 � F q � k � . . � � „ � � . . . . . . . � : . � /� __�. _ ... a' S - . - . ... . ` �. m . ' .. °.' ' 2 . . '.' _ :.,y, � '. 'o . ��3� _ ��._� : .. .. ; . _ � . _ � � _ �� i} 9 ` ; ,,_._—____. _ _ —.--_. —._ .. _._ -. __ — . _..___—__—__—__—_ � f i ' r � �' 9 '? ✓ / ( ^ � � , / J f � � / � �\ - � �" � / �.� ..: i :� � - L . a ,� j f_.r�., � \ .� r�'`iti -� , x .; �� '� � �'�.* '3� ; �� Y r. ` � � � � Y-T - ti� �O � � } a \ ; _ � ��Q�'�3 S r . � �.� ,�� j�; "'�� n � -i e ` . . . � -.. �r� � :� � r �'. � � i + �� # t� :r �./ i�°4� ��9 �n � c •/ ".,��i . ,i � = .� � : � r-- x ' .� r �� _ i f A� t� ; � y s �� a� �t „ , � _ } j � Il � � }`/. ; i , . , , .: -r � + `.", �' „ a ._��r -si . - 3 3,�. , J,�� a . r -��: 7 s � � � J t � �. .. .'. �j i � . - � { .v'r� „7 - ; ". i - � ,� z Q�� , � . i v : :N � � 3 ' . 'x ' lY' �, � � `� "� r 3 j' � r1 : i �/� A �`L •. � �.. s _ 2 �-- �/�-�- - LL6 .�jy � � � � � � —: � � V v� _ � �', ! � l y Q � � 4� Y ,, � ^e - �� i a ,s .`,. , � .�' n � ' �� — �_�--�--__...— a� _ _ - � `./ ; _� � - D . -- '..� ' ._ _� , � -'-.-, � - _ \ * � ��---_�' � � � � �T .. � '� �.. . - ., . - ��.-.E,r-'—""_---.�__ _; ...��; .._ - �__ _ �_ - �° "�g. � ;. � - -o�._ �:.��, � � h \ , L �� • � � ', .-,. -%` :\ : ... .- � � ? =x. . �� ;;�. � - .\\�". � J3 — ' _. � i � - � �?' �� . \ / : — — K }+ x ��_ t � - '",� �% � � z. � � r � :i� ; �\"�` i � � 1 �5: \ _ r _ - `-"--v----.._.. -��. I ,: � \� � �� . -i 1 � � �i� E i_'' _. � �� - -��* �"a ." Z i � 3 Y yl � � � � \ `. �� 1 � � � y � �` _ �- �..s _, w, a .. - 7i i. , � � � ��i �� y , �a i� . '<, � r ! � . „ , ' y �1 ,, .. � - \ � 5�. i '�� r� � ��1 t �. � �.�-�_.. ��.�-� h� .�� t "y ` � . _ � _ � _`Y ... a . - , � � I . ` �i�x �: .� � � o ��.. \ \ � ' R I Y \� - , - ' � ` �� '\_ .. t . �i • �� a > "i� p � . 3 �'}� . .. j � - � �� ` r �\ r R r � � — � y y � � - Q� -. . , � <� � F� .♦ � 3-_�Y .' 4 � � " i� _ _ . .3.-'. _ \ ` � � _ ^ ��, � .. , :��I 'it v i �' ' � � � � -., '�`, . � � �4� � i \�> > ��. �� \ .. �. ... �.�. x @ • � ) • L� � �� $e � � � ��I� � ��. � �� t 'i ; � � �� ;a � _� €� i � t4 �� i - 9��F g;� � t`� 3�E � a +�€ �i �� a � �3 � `a � � u�� k�t� ��,�,�,�� I �$�� .,�� =ii�;t t ��f' � t p tl`' �� a � �� :� � i � �. •�$ � �. � � t .� � �� t� � �� F �c t � � t n t sg s s a �° �'�s �� !�� .� ��i{i��E �_��3��I��s��=� ;�� - � � :�. s�� _� � � � � l��;.��gaia��E��fli�� o•aam.¢�:sase�oTP�f�T�iti�� a�:: � -- �- - - • �. � �� q� � �� j , �9��l��`i�a3�6,S��e'f . # e.a�oF1•C��Kmaesee<aeaoam� � � 4 �� ; �{,_� '�� a- � �" 5 . �...—. � $ � — �_— _'_ �exr-o� —__ ..� —_ — .\— � £��^,.' g ____ �'_— - �— �: � � . � . �,..>,.. 3: � , `� \ � I: � .. _ . _._ I ` I - .�c�, `. \ . � l � g 47� � `\ � � 1 � -ry � � M�r�T�9 '6' ` \ E ...s.d` �� O � ' y �/i w � �� '� '� 4 - V a � � '� ° . � ':? � � � � �i z .A.' F . . __ � �� . E /� �� - � � � _ ' > � . .�. e � �. o. a'ed �y � � ,: 6q 305 � � e __. g �, �� . k� - g � ��- ° � �� b �. .�a�� -� � - � �� , � �� . �� >.� � ��; ,�� i i� l i�i � V f -, / � � � �� il �y /: 1 ` � � � ; ' I �� ? ( � ` C � I' �� , �!i I u v� �°�� 1 1 i _. � a � � dS � � ' a ,� / � . � -- � �� 1 ' �� Ea �� . . � �sar raw�� Yenn '! .. � \\��.. 10-136 � � � 1. SL7NRA'Y-BAZTLECR�EK-HI('iH�TirO�D 2. HAZEL PARK T HTLLCREST 4. ' AAYTON'S �LU�F ' 5. PA�I*IE-PFi�L,EN . �. NORTH END 7. TT�OMAS-DAL.E 8. SUivi?vIIT-TJNI'V�RSTTY 9. WEST SEVEN"I'II ' IQ COAGiO � � 1f. HAIvtLINE-Ip1T1?WAY 12. ST. ANT'LTONY PARK , 13. MER1ti�tvi PARK-LEXINGTOI�I Ht1IviLINE-SNELLTNC's HAMLINE 14. MACALESTEI2 G120VBLAI�ID 15. F3IGHZANll � � 16. �IIMMTT I�Id, � . 17: DOVJN"£OWN °� . � � �� d�"� --„ CTTIZEN PARTTCR'A'I`�O�I PT..ANNING DI3TRTCTS 10-136 �i01Yllllli111'l7� Communitp Council Otfice BatEle Creek Palice Storefron{ . Er General Office and Disfict 1 Nevvs A Communiry Parinership - 2Q9Q Cornroay Sf, Room 126 2107 Oid Hudson Road Sdnt Paul, MN 55119 Sun Ray Shopping Genter . (651 ] 5Q7 -63?5 (,ohore) Sairtf Patt), MN 551 "19 (651j 50"I-6346 (iax) (651) 702-6770 (phone) ' - �stricticrouncilQaol.crom (651) 714-8229 (fax) www.disiricflcounciLorg dstrict1CPC@aol.cwn John Hardwick Board of Zo I1tIIg AppeaLs 375 Jackson St, Suite 220 St Paul, NIN 55101-1806 Re: 09-305725,1891 Suburban Avenue, sign variance November 5, 2009 The I?ishict 1 Community Council sirongly opposes the request for a variance to fhe sign code proposed by LILSS Holdings LLC for 1891 Suburban Avenue based on the following facts: • The proposed variance is contcary to the Sun Ray 3uburban Small area plan which states tbat sigas should be pedestrian scale and oriented to the community, not to freeway traffic (policq 48 of the plan); • The business at 1891 Sub�sban is clearly failing, has been for sale for many years, and does not have enough inventory to warrant any further visual blight for the neighborhood; • Another illegal electronic sign is only present in this area (at Wendy's) because of an error made by city staff in eval"a� the applicabie zoning; • A lazge-scale dynamic billboazd is being p� in near the White Bear Avenue and Old Hudson Road inteisection and noue of the existing billboards in the neighborhood will be removed These circumstances are o��no despite neighbors baving r�uested the removal of several billboards along I-94 betwean White Bear and McKnight � � Given these facts and basect on Section 61.601 of the city code, the variance should not be granted because: • The current "reasonable use" of the property will not be enhanced by this variance being granted — abundant signage is already present aY the site and the business is still failing. 'i'�r �tP�t�� c��tl�r ewrw�i�to sell rhP �nP�3'; •"Fhe plight of the Iandowner is not due to the circumstances of ffie property, but rather to the circu*nctances of the business, wIuch is inappropriate for this location; • The pmposed variance is in d'uect conflict with the spirit and intent of the Sun Ray Suburban Small Area Plan, an approved amendment to the city code; • And the request for the variance is based solely on the mistaken impression ttiat'ncr 11� lna this sign will increase the income potential of the parcel. ' The District 1 Community Coimcil opposes this request on behalf of the residents of the entire district. Respectfully submitted by, � L for the District 1 Community Council Board of Directors '� ��,� Our mission is to create oppwtunities fw th2 people who live and work in our neighbornoods to e,ngage wrth each other and with our govemment officaals in atler to build a more viBrant and welcoming community. _ ,. _�- �.. 10-136 �o�� Reviev� — Comra��itv RESp�� Prouertv: 1891 Suburban Issue: sign variance � Communitv Response at Meetin�*�: Pros none Meeting Dafe: e-meeting between- Oct 28 - NovS==��:� _ _. - - - Meztinu'Tncafinn'- - - - - - �._ - ' -- _ _- ��) � iess/ properry oryneis in _ istrict 1*: 7 ' Cons ■ Does not conform to community vision in small area plan ■ Business is not Likely to stay anyway and the sign won't help � Not another sign ■ The area is looking more and more trashy and crowded �F I�c�b� * Prior to the mee ' all properties within 350 ft. of the ropertp ia qaesd were informed of the issae . No�catlon was aLso made on our neighborhoo$ listserv an our website/blog. + ' All tisted respoases were given 6y individaals living, workiag or owning properiy in tite boundaries of District 1 Commanity Council. � LLtiII1CC GoIDIDllRR}' I,QllIICI� S IIII.SSIOn Ig TO_GLC21C up�,lon4IIlnGS zoi LRe pGUpAG wltu llve allu wo1K ul uuC uctj'RWrtAWtLti w�gagc wiuC �� '" each ofliei and"our goVemvCenf o�cials to tiuild a more vbrant and welcoming commwnty. - Respectivlly submitted by: Betsy Leach Community Organizer � �, - Disfict 1 Communiiy Council - Land Use/Zoning Commitfee Commnnitv Response Outside of Meetin�**: 10-136 CITY OF SAINT PAUL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS RESOLUTION ZONIlVG FILE NUMSER: 09-305725 DATE: November 16, 2009 WHEREAS, Tom 7ones — Lawrence Signs has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 64.504(5) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to a variance of the sign code requiring that electronic message signs must be 660 feet from the other electronic message signs, in order to construct a freestanding pylon sign with an electronic message @isplay for Suburban Chtysler in the B3 zoning dishict at 1891 Suburban Avenue. PIN: 352922330009;and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Boazd of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on November 16, 2009 pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Secfion 64.203 of the I,egislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The new tenant of fhis caz dealerslup would l�ce to install a freestanding pylon business sign with an electronic display to be read from the adjacent I-94 freeway. The electronic portion of the sign will be about 150 square feet in size and the non-electronic porlion will be about 130 square feet in size. The sign is being moved from another dealership to this location. The code requires a spacing of 660 feet betwcen electmnic message boazd signs. There is an e�sting message board sign about 432 feet to the west and one about F7 7. fPr.t tn thP Pa�r a, electronic message business sign is an important tool to attract customers to a business located along a freeway. The proposed siga is a reasonable and pernutted use of this pmperfy that cannot be accompiished under the sfrict pmvisions of the code. 2. The plight of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to this properly, and these circumstances were not created by the Zand owner: When the spacing requirement for electronic message board signs was adopted a few years ago Permits were issued on a first come basis. This left many properties without the opportunity to ever have electronic message boazd signs. There are signs on either side of ttris properlywhich•effectivelyprevents anybusiness onthe site from adverkising their business in an electronic dispIay mode atong the freeway placing them at a competitive disadvantage. This is a circumstance that was not created by the cutrent pmperty owner. r� i oca � � �3 � � `J 10-136 • File #09-305725 Resolution 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the City ofSt. Paul. This request conforms to the provisions of Section 64.207, the findings necessary for sign variances, as follows: a. The variance is due to uixusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or IoG This condition is met. The proposed sign will provide needed identificafion for the business from the I-94 freeway. b. The sign woutd not create a hazard This condition is met. The sign will be setback a good distance from the roadway and should not interfere with traffic. c. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This condirion is met. No objections to this request have been raised from adjacent . property owners.. d The sign would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and ltghkng. This condition is met. There is no residential properry near this properfy. e. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This condifion is met. There are electronic message board signs on both sides of Suburban Avenue. The Sunray/Battle Creek Sign District does not regulate business signs and therefore the proposed sign is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. 4. The proposed vardance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essential character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish established property values within the surrounding area. The proposed sign will be located in the middle of this lazge parcel and will not affect the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. � Page 2 of 4 r� , ,�� ,, 10-136 File #09-305725 Resolution The name of tlus business recently changed but the use as a cat dealership rema�nc the same. The proposed sign is necessary itt order to ideniify the dealership from the freeway. However if the use of the property changes the freeway sign would no longer be as criticat and the sign should be removed There are other similaz signs along this section of the freeway. The pmposed spacing is not unreasoriabTe and as long as the sign is operated in compliance with tlze allowed modes of display, the requested variance would not change the character of the neighborhood or have an adverse impact on siurounding properties. 5. The variance, afgranted, would not permit any use that is not permi#ed under the provisions of the code for the properly in the district where the affected Ianr1 is Zocate� nor woudd it alter or change the zoning district class�cation of the property. Accessory business signs are permifted in this zoning distuct. The proposed variance would not change or altet the zoning classification of the pmperty. 6. The request for variance is not based primarily on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of Zand The business owner's primary desire is to adequately identify his business from the freeway in order to be competitive. � • NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paut Board of Zoning AppeaSs that the provisions of Section 64.504(5) aze hereby waived to allow a variance of tiie sign code to allow an electronic message sign with in 432 feet of the existing sign at 1825 Suburban (Wendy's) oxt u an � er an or a variance of 238 feet and 48 feet respectively, subject to the condition that if the use of this property changes the eleclror�ic message hoard sign must be removed, on property located at 1891 Suburban Avenue; and legally described as Regi stered Land Survey 276 Subj To Rds; Tract C; in accordance with the application for variance and the site plan on file with the Zoning Administrator. MOVED BY: nzo�ron SECONDED BY: Bogen IN FAVOR: 6 AGAINST: o Page 3 of 4 , �� 10-136 � • � File #d9-305725 Resolution MAILED: November 17, 2009 TIME IdNIIT: No decision of tiie zoning or planning administrator, planning coinmission, board of zoning appeals or city council approving a site plan, permit, variance, or other zoning approval shall be valid for a period longer than two (2) years, nnless a bnilding permit is obtained within snch period and the erection or alteration of a buiIding is proceeding nnder the terms of the decis►on, or the nse is established within such period by actaal operation pursuant to the applicable conditions and reqnirements oF the approval, nnless the zoning or planning adminqstrator grants an eg{ension notto e%ceed one (1) year. �P�' �.: Decisions of the Board of Zoning Appeals are £inai subject to appeal to the City Conncil within 10 days by anyone affected by the decision. Building permits sha11 not be issned after an appeal has been Sled. If permits have been issned before an appeal has been £iled, then the permits are snspended and constrnction shall cease nntil the City Council has made a fmal deteruiination of the appeal. CERTIFICATION: I, the undersigned Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeais for the City of Saint Pani, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my oft'ice; and find the same to be a hue and correct copy of said originai and of the whole thereof, as based on approved minntes of the Saint Paal Board of Zoning Appeals meeting held on November 16, 2009 and on record in the Department of Safety and Inspeetions, 375 Jackson Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. S PAUL BOARI) OF ZONING APPEALS � � �� Debbie M. Crippen Secretary to the Board Page 4 of 4 z t . , : �'1 � �- 10-136 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TF� BOARD OF ZONING APP AAT.S C1TY COUNCII, CHAMBERS, 330 CITY HALL ST PAUL, MINNESOTA, NOVEMBER 16, 2009 PRFSENT; Mmes. Maddox, Bogen, Linden and Morton; Messrs. Wazd, and Wilson of the Boazd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Warner, Ciry Attorney; Mr. Hazdwick and Ms. Crippett of the Department of Safety and Inspections. ABSENT: Vincent Courtney�` *Excused The meeting was chaired by Joyce Maddox, Chair. Tom Jones (#09-30572� 1891 Suburban Avenne: A vaziance of the sign code in order to construct a freestanding pylon sign with an electronic message display located within the 660 foot disrance required from another electronic u�essage sign. The applicant is requesting to pIace an electronic message sign 432 feet from an e�sting sign at 1825 S�burban to the west and 612 feet from an existing sign at 1925 Suburban to the east for a variance of 238 feet and 48 feet respectively. Mr. Hardwick showed slides of the site and reviewed the staff report with a recommendation for approval. No letters were received opposing the vaziance request. One letter was received &om District 1 recommending denial of the variance reqnest. The applicant TOM JONES, LAWRENCE SIGN - 945 Pierce Bufler Route, was present with Mr. Steve Sams, 1891 Subvrban Avenue. Mr. Sams stated he has been the occnpant of the property for over 30 yeazs. It was a Cluysler dealership they lost the franchise in all the financiai commotion last yeaz, they aze operating it as a service center and a pre-owned lot. All they really want to do is to replace the big sign that they had for over 30 years so people know they are still there. He had to take down the sign because it was a product sign. Ms. Maddox questioned if he had met with the commuaity organization or the district council? Mr. Sams replied no, they have always supported ]um. Ms. Maddox suggested that he respond to wt�at they aze objecting to. Staff passed him a copy of the letter from the District Council. Mr. Sams stated that they say that the business is clearly failing and has been for sale for many years. He contended fl�at they have been for sale for six months, they are profitable and they have been operating for 30 years. The billboazd sign they want to put up is small in comparison, Wendy's has a sign and they have been in there for only about 2 years, he is only hying to repiace the sign he had. He restated that he just wants to replace the freeway sign that he had. Ms. Morton questioned Mr. Sams whether the sign sl2own in the packet is the sign they will have? Mr. Sams replied yes, the top portion. There was no opposition present at the hearing. � \J • An-nDw-�o �toy� �� r � �� 10-136 � � � File #09-305725 Minutes November 16, 2009 Page Two Heazing no further testimony, Ms. Maddox closed the public portion of the meeting. Ms. Morton moved to approve the variance and resoluuon based on findings i duough 6, the Boazd added the condition that the sign be removed if the use of the properry changes from an auto dealership. Ms. Bogen seconded the motion, which passed on a roll call vote of 6-0. Submitted by: John Hardwick Approved by: Gloria Bogen, Secretary AA-ADA-EFA Employer ;�---�� 10-136 Appeal — 1891 Suburban Biliboards are ugiy. They add an element of grit to any neighborhood and are particularly despoiling to big-city neighborhoods where dilapidation, litter, petty crime and poverty already comprise a recipe for downscale life. Allowing new billboards is the "one more naii in the cofFin" formula for city planning. Electronic billboards are Ugly 2.0. As a driver who passes the new electronic billboard at the exit onto White Bear Avenue near the La Quita hotei in District 1, I feel as if someone is setting off a series of flash bulbs in my face. It seems almost impossible not to look at the rapid explosions of light for at least a few seconds. Wear a seat belt, safety experts warn us. (It's the law!) Don't text while driving. (It's against the law!) Remember, a few seconds' distraction can lead to a serious accident. But, hey, you have to look at this electronic distraction the city allowed a biliboard company to erect along I-94 because......... of what? Electronic billboards should be seen as part of an emerging business approach toward selling: force the consumer to pay, in this case, attention.* Who stands to gain by forcing people to look at something? And make no bones about it: this is force. The reason biliboard companies are turning to electronic big-flash billboards are because peop{e have fearned to tune out regular ugly billboards. In the United States, people can say just about anything. But they can't be forced to listen. Why should we allow ourselves to be forced to look at something? Summing up: the city Board of Zoning Appeals should not grant any variance for an electronic billboard anywhere in the city because it's not fair to the people who live and drive here. St. Paul is our home. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Jean Wulterkens 413 Totem Road St. Paul, MN 55119 *[Perhaps we should require, in exchange for each electronic billboard granted a variance in St. Paul, an electronic billboard erected on the front lawn of the home (homes?) of the CEO and other executives of the biliboard company? Wauldn't that make for a lively debate?] 10-136 Statement of District 1 Community Conncil regarding its appeal of the BZA Decision to award a variance to the sign ordinance for 1891 Suburban Ave (File #09- 305725 — LRSS Holdings, LLC� Jannary 6, 2010 Presented by Betsy Leach, Executive Director, on behalf of the District 1 Boazd 2105 '/z Old Hudson Rd, St Paul, MN 55119 Madam President and Council Members, The District 1 Community Council has outlined the general grounds of our appeal in the materiais you have been given. These aze that errors were made in the findings of fac� I enumerate those errors in detail here. 1. The property in question cannot be put to reasonable use under the strict provisions of the code. The BZA specifically states that the sign is being put in "to be read from the adjacent 1-94 freeway" and that such a sign is a reasonable and permitted use of the property that cannot be accomplished under the strict provisions of the code. This is in error. In fact, this is not a pernritted use of the property under the provisions of the SmiRay Suburban Small Area Plan, a formally approved addendum to the City Comprehensive Plan, which specifically states that "Signs should be in scale to a pedestrian environment and not to highways and streets and not to the vehicle." (objective #48) It is also in error because there has not been such a sign at any of the other auto dealers that have occupied this site. That is, previous dealers have followed the strict provisions of the code at this site so it is unreasonable to expect that it cannot continue under strict provisions of the code. 2. The plight ojthe land owner is due to circumstance unique to this property, and these cfrcumstances were not created by the land owner. The BZA states that the land owner (and tenant) is at a competitive disadvantage because of the timing for implementing the spacing requirement on electronic message signs, leauing "many properties without the opporhxnity to ever have" such signs, and that "there aze signs on either side of this properry effectively" preventing the business from advertising. This is in error. There is one electronic sign to the west of this site that is only there due to an enor on the part of city staff. It should not have been allowed and city staff aclaiowledged this error after the sign was erected, and felt legally bound to allow it to remain. The BZA statement implies that, since that enor was made, it should be compounded by adding more illegal signs. The statement also implies that the business in question is in competition with adjacent businesses, which is not irue. The adjacent business with the electronic sign is a fast-food restauraut, as are a majority of the businesses along this section of street, and is cleazly distinguishable from the large used car lot, simply by visual examiva#ion. 3. The proposed variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code, and is consistent with the health, safety, comfort; morals and wedfare of the inhabitants of the City of St. Paul. 10-136 The BZA states that the request conforms to provisions of Section 64.207. That statement is in error in the following ways: a. the variance is dne to unusual condifions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot — due to "needed identifica6on for the business from the I-94 freeway" — The BZA does not note that objective 48 of the SunRay Suburban Small Area Plan states that an orientation to the freeway is unacceptable in this area. The business is cleazly recognizable as a caz lot from the freeway without any sign, as former businesses at this location prove. e. the sigu is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area — due to there being "message boazd signs on both sides of Suburban Avenue." The character of the surrounding area is defined by the SunRay Suburban Small azea plan that prohibits the type of sign proposed. In addition, the sign to the west of the site is only there due to error on the part of city staff. The sign across the stteet to the east is scaled to pedestrians, intended for pedestrian and neighborhood traffic, and is not visible from the freeway. The BZA has ignored the SunRay Suburban Small Area Plan in establishing its findings in this regard. The land owner is Irnown to haue multiple temporary signs at this location so that visual clutter at the site is an on-going issue and a violation of code. In addition to the for sale si�ns, the site is overwhelxned with signs, again, in violation of code. 4. The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, nor will it alter the essentiad character of the surrounding area or unreasonably diminish properry values within the surrounding area. The BZA states, again, that the sign is necessary to identify the dealership from the freeway and that there are similar signs along this section of freeway, implying that this defines the essential chazacter of the surrounding area. The only similar sign to that proposed is an illegal one that is there due to an error on the part of city staff. The essential chazacter of the area is defined by the SuuRay Suburban Small Area Plan, which dces not a11ow ttus rype of sign. 5. The variance, if granted, would not permit any use that is not permitted under the provisions of the code for the property in the district where the affected land is locatec� nor woudd it alter or change the zoning district classification of the property. This type of sign is not pernutted by the small azea plan, and granting the vaziance invalidates the community vision that neighbors established with this plan. 6. The requestfor variance is not based primaridy on a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of lana'. The only reason this variance is being requested is to increase the value of tke parcel as the land owner seeks to sell it. To say that the sign is needed to be competitive is in enor, given the length of time that a car dealership has been at this site. The business is not in comperition with any other business in the surrounding azea. 10-136 At the community level, the majority of neighbors have responded negatively to the increase in signs along our business district. Against the direct request of neighbors to have signs removed &om our business atea, we haue also recently become the site of a new dynawic display sign, with no subsequent removal of signs. Now we aze asked to accept another message sign in direct opposition to our stated wishes and our city- approved small azea plan. When the SunRay Suburban Small Area Plan was developed, PED studied the traffic pattems of the area and the growth of businesses to our east in Woodbury. The results of these studies acknowledged that our business azea must focus on our neighborhood needs in order to be successful. The sign restriction was one outcome of these studies. The vision developed in the Small Area Plan is worldng towazds making o� business district successful. We ask that you overturu the BZA decision to award this sign vatiance and help us to enforce the provisions of the applicable small azea plan that we worked so hazd to get into place. Thank you.