The URL can be used to link to this page

95-1105�vl��fl it� i � -- lo�lff�°�5 Council File # �p '1�� i � Green 8heet # ' / � t � RESOLUTION C1TY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Ey Referred To Committee: Date Whereas, Graphic House, Inc,JBig Wheel Rossi made application to the Planning Commission for a sign variance to allow a(1) new projecting sign 39 square foot sign area and (2) ta allow a sign to project 8 feet into the public way, pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for property located at 1469 University Avenue West, legally described as lots 16 through 24, Block 6, Lyman d. Baird's Addition to the City of Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota; and Whereas, The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted a publia hearing on July 20, 1995, after having provided notice to affected property Owners, and submitted its recommendation to the Commission. The Commission, by its Resolution 95-58, adopted July 28, 1995, deoided to grant the application based on the following findings and conclusions: The proposed sign is not unique, but there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for the site given the traffic speed and circulation on university Avenue. A larger projecting sign will allow motorists to identify the business without the need to take their attention away from the road. In addition, the projecting sign will not project beyond the existing overriang at the building entrance on University Avenue. b. Trie proposed sign conforms to the intent of the sign code. The sign code provides for promoting safety, convenience, and enjoyment of public travel along advanced speed arteries. The applicant is not requesting more signage than is allowed on the site, only a larger projecting sign than allowed. c. The proposed sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. Since University Avenue is a state highway MnDOT reviewed the sign plan and concluded that there is no problem with the sign as designed. d. The proposed sign will not be objectionable to adjacent property owners since a11 adjacent properties on University Avenue are used commercially. e. The sign wi11 not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting since the signs are not directly visible from residential property. f. The proposed sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 64.206, University United, Hamline-Midway Coalition and the Snelling-Hamline Community Council, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planning Commission, requesting that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 64.206 through 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on September 6, 1995, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and Whereas, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby 1 2 3 4 5 6 � 8 9 14 11 IZ 13 14 1$ 16 17 I8 19 20 21 22 23 24 �1 S - i � �S Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby modify the decision o£ the Planning Commission in this matter so as to grant ��- r� variances described as follows: `�- 1. Variance to allow two projecting signs on the existing over hang at the store entrance (the sign ordinance allows one projecting sign per entrance on a street frontage). 2. Variance of 8.25 square feet for eaeh projecting sign (the sign ordinance states that signs which project into the right-of-way more than 18 inches shall not exceed 25 square feet in display area. The portion of the signs that project beyond 18 inches is 33.25 square feet, or 8.25 square feet more than the allowable 25 square feet). This will permit two projecting signs, each of which will be permitted to be 42 inches in height and li feet in length. Further Resolved, That the appeal of University United, Hamline-Midway Coalition and the Snelling-Hamline Community Council be and is hereby granted; and, be it Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to University United, Hamline-Midway Coalition, the Snelling- Hamline Community Council, the Zoning Administrator and trie Planning Commission. Requested by Department of: Hy: Form Ap ved by City p Attorney BY � _ _ f `��_�l�� sy: Apps By: L by Mayor for Submission to By: Adopted by Council: Date ��,� q.S Adoption Certi£ied by Council Secretary °�s-��ns DEPAflTMENVOFFlCE/COUNCIL DATEINITIA7ED �O � • O � " c�t coun�� g/g/g5 GREEN SHEE CONTACTPERSON & PHONE INITIAWATE MI7IAWATE � DEPpRTMENT DIRECTOR O CITV COUNCIL N3IIC Anderson �^'"�GN OCITVATTORNEY OCffYCIERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL ACaE�[JDA BY (DATE) NUMBEN POF � BUDGET OIRECTO O FIN. 8 MGT. SERVICES piq. ROUTING q 4 � OHOEN O MAYOR (OR ASSISTAN'n O aiU TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAG£S (CIIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED. . Finalizing City Council action taken on September 6, 1995, granting the appeal of University United from the decision of the Planning Commission which had granted variances for a si for Bi Whee1 Rossi, 1469 Universit Avenue. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Re�ect (R) pERSONAL SERYICE CANTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING OUESTIONS: _ PL4NNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �� Has this persoNfirm ever wOticetl untler � contract Fo� this department? _ GIB COMMITTEE _ YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city emplpyee? _ STAFF — YES NO _ DIS7RICT CAUftr _ 3. Does this person/5rm possess a Sktll not normaliy possessed by any currenf ciry employee� SUPPOfliS WHICH COUNGL O&1EC71VE? YES NO Ezplain all yee answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM. ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, WI+eB, Why) A9VANTA6ESIFAPPROVED � �� +6�sYSVx ;t=."�5::�� .-.�if� . S�P � �' �g95 DISADYANTAGES 1F APPROVED DISADVANTAGES fi NOT APPROVED� TOTAL AMOl1NT OF TpANSACTfON $ COS7JREVENUE BUDGETED {CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDIfdG SOURCE AC71VI7Y NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (E%PLAIN) Council File i� Green Sheet # Presented By Referred To Committee: Da�Ee � C Whereas, Graphic House, Inc.lBig Whee1 Rossi made application to e Planning Commission far a sign variance to allow a new projecring sign (1) 39 sq e foot sign area vaziance and (2) variance to ailow a sign to project 8 feet into the publi way pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning Code for property located at 1469 niversity Avenue West, legally described as lots 16 through 24, Block 6, Lyman d. B'rd's Addition to the City of Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota; and Whereas, The Zoning Committee of the Planning Co ssion conducted a public hearing on July 20, 1995, after having provided notice to affe ted property owners, and submitted its recommendation to the Commission. The Co mission, by its Resolution 95-58, adopted July 28, 1995, decided to grant the application ba ed on the following findings and conclusions: a. The proposed sign is not unique, but t1 sign needs far the site given the traffic Avenue. A larger projecting sign wil without the need to take their attenf n projecting sign will not project be ond entrance on University Avenue. er�' are unusual conditions pertaining to a�peed and circulation on University illow motorists to identify the business away from the road. In addition, the the e�sfing overhang at the building b. The proposed sign conforms to he intent of the sign code. The sign code provides far promoting safety, conven' nce, and enjoyment of public travel along advanced speed arteries. The applica is not requesting more signage than is allowed on the site, only a larger projecti g sig� than allowed. a The proposed sign wi not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. Since iversity Avenue is a state highway Mi1DOT reviewed the sign plan and conclude that there is no problem with the sign as designed. d. The proposed adjacent prog� e. The Eil RESOLUTION C{TY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA will not be objectionable to adjacent property ownexs since all on University Avenue are used commercially. not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and the signs aze not directly visible from residential property. sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. reas, Pursuant to flie provisions of Section 64.206, University United, Hamline- Midwa Coalition and the Snelling-Hamline Community Couticil, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the determination made by the Planning Commission, requesting that a he 'ng be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and `} 5 -11os Whereas, Acting pursuant to Sections 64.206 through 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties a pubiic hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on September 1995, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and � Whereas, The Council, having heatd the statements made, and having consi red the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning ommitte� and of the Piauning Commission, does hereby Resolve, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby rev se the decision of the Planning Comtnission in this matter and does hereby deny the vari es appiied for, based on the following fmdings of the Council: 1) The Commission ened in its fmding that unusual conditio s existed pertaining to the sign needs for the site given the traffic speed and irculation on UniversiTy Avenue. The unusual conditions outiined ' the Zoning Code are to apply to the actual building site or lot and not to the urrounding azea. This location should have less of a problem with visibili , because there is not competing signage from the neighboring business d there is a large parking lot on the other side rather than a business with competing sign. 2) The Commission erred in its interpretation o the intention of the Zoning Code pertaining to signs. The Code clearly outli es that the allowable dimensions of projecting signs not be used as grounds f adding another nonconforming sign. 3) There is disagreement in the business ommunity as demonstrated by University United requesting this appeal. The ommission failed to fully consider the contents of the letter and portions of the U versity Avenue Corridor Study. The variance sets a bad precedent for busines trying to outlast each other with larger and larger signs. Existing neighboring bu nesses may not compete or object to the proposed sign, but future businesses mi t do so. 4) The sign is not in keeping ith the chazacter of the conforming signs in the area. In 1990 the City adopted as olicy the t3niversity Avenue Conidor Study which called for unprovement of the verall image of the Avenue by reducing and improving sig}iage. This vazianc requested unnecessarily hurts an area which is slowly coming into compliance and ' proving its image. Further Resolved, Th the appeal of University United, Hamline-Midway Coalition and the Snelling-Hamline Co unity Council be and is hereby granted; and, be it i z 3 4 Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to 1 United, Hamline-Midway Coalition, the Snelling-Hamline Community Council, the Administrator and the Planning Commission. Requested by Department o£: Adopted by Co Adoption Cert By: Approved by Sy: Date by Council Secretary Date Sy: Form Ap v By: Appr ve by Coun ' By: by City 9S -�tos for Submission to �YTl �L. fi .c � z ;� ROBERTA MEGARD Covncilmember MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: C`iITY OF SAINT PAL`L OFFICE OF THE CITY COLNCIL October 18, 1995 Council President Thune Councilmembers Councilmember Roberta Megard ��'`� Big Wheel Rossi Sign Variance and Appeal Item 42 on Today's Council Agenda '�S - i��s ANN D.CIESLAK �gis:atiti'� A�3e I intend to introduce the attached resolution as a substitute for the resolution on the Council agenda. It reflects the compromise worked out by Universiry United, two district councils and the business. I hope you can support it. Attachment CITY HALL THIRDFLOOR SAiNT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 612f266-8640 Sa�b6 Prmted on Rerycled Paper � �5-1( •��I Interdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SAINT PAUL DATE: Ocrosax 11, 1995 To: ci� Cour�ciL FROM: KnDY DaDLEZ �/ � `` I RE: COMPROMISE REACHED REGARDING BIG WHEEL ROSSI SIGN VARIANCE � BACKGROUND On September 20, 1995 the City Council delayed taking final action on the appeal by University United of the planning commission's decision to grant a sign variance to Big Wheel Rossi for a new projecting sign. The Council re-opened the public hearing for the purpose of allowing the two parties an opportunity to reach a compromise on the signage for the site. October 18th is the date scheduled by the Council to heaz from the parties whether a compromise agreement had been obtained. • The City Council has been notified that University United and Big Wheel Rossi have reached compromise on signage (see attached letters and drawings). The compromise consists of the following: two projecting signs, each measuring 3'6"x 11', will be installed on the existing over hang at the store entrance perpendicular to University Avenue. These two signs still require variances from the sign ordinance. RECOMIVIENDATION Staff recommends that the city wuncil grant the appeal of University United, and modify the decision of the planning commission so as to approve the following variances to implement the compromise reached by University United and Big Wheel Rossi: Variance to allow two projecting signs on the existing over hang at the store entrance (the sign ordinance allows one projecting sign per entrance on a street frontage). 2. Variance of 825 square feet for each projecting sign (the sign ordinance states that signs which project into the right-of-way more than 18 inches shal] not exceed 25 square feet in display azea. The portion of the signs that project beyond 18 inches is 33.25 squaze feet, or 8.25 squaze feet more than the allowable 25 square feet). • K:ISHARED\CADIROSSI MEM '�i�% � � GRAPNIC NOUSE ItIC. October 3,, 1995 Roberta Megard,. Council Member St. Paul City Council 310 City Hall St. Paul, NII� 55102 RE: BIG WHEEL ROSSI SIGN Dear Roberta Megard: I'm pleased Co inform you that on Thursday, September 28, all parties interested in the Big Wheel signage i�,ssue meet and were able to come to a compromi.se. The sign agreed on will be 42" x ll'-0" and will mount £lush to the existing overhang. A drawing of the agreed upon sign is enclosed for you. Thank you very much for your he1p. Please inform us as to our next � step in this process. Thanks again,, Roberta. Sincerely, �� Mike Johnson � Graphic House., Inc. MJ/sy Enclosure cc: Ann Cieslak C� 9204 Packer Drive Wausau, WI 54401 Phone 715-842-0402 Far 715-848-9108 � � 4. � � � � � � � ( �^ J 3 'n Y �yJ V / _^ � r� � � �� .J � � � ��5� � 1 � � � 1 , ► . p •r � � � � � � � • a �� w oa m: s�:m a g m • g.� G' � E : , £' � fiE:°s'� Ha� E 5 °" q.�g..S i E9g. me,�,�: 8 � $�,'.. .� o' 8 . . ti. �� '� q a ¢ J �i u � �"<S �':� � 8'� � ° e�$�� $3�8�'� ��O qYri�i Y G�.CV.� �, 0��< L 92� i. ��' �, �Z�� .i i � ,?y 'I University UNITED �5 - ► �os 1600 University Avenue • Suite 4• St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-3825 •(612) 647-6711 • FAX 646-2297 De[,EC.a�s tarncs cvrrzn Midway Chamber of Commttce Put Presidrn4 Univc¢ity (7N17ED Piaa PapS Wiiliam GaM1r Summit-Univcrsity Planning Comq4 Distria 8 Presidrn4 �nivesity L7t31TED Minnesota Department of Transportatiov Mat Hollinshrad M<rriam Park Community Coundl DisMa 13 Past &esident, U¢iversity UNITED MerriamParkPast William Huutis Midway CAambez of Commerce DS & B Realty, Nc. Pe[e May Frogtown Action Ailiance, Disvia 7 Bev Ryan Past &esident, University UNII'ED Midway Chamber of Commerce Ryan P{umbing & Heating Kate Severin Thomac-Dale/Distria 7 Planning CounN Mmnesota Department of Human Services Linda Skaliman Lexmgon Hamiine Cortuuuvity Counril District 13 Ramsey County Personnel Ken Sm�th Midway Chamber oE Commerce Midxay National Bank Bob S[aughn Vice Presiden4 University UN17ED St- Am6o�y Park Community Coundl, Distna 12 �7cCnann Shea Faozen Camival Straughn & lamb Bevita Tasselmyer Hamline Midway Coalition, Distric[ 11 0.5. Postal Service BuIA Mail Center John Van Hecke Snelling-Namline Community Covucil Distritt 13 Univenity of Minnesota AITERNATE DELEGATES lolm Bennelt Midway Chamber of Commerce Mend�an National Bank Dave Crzndalt Memam Park Commuvity Council DistriR 13 Jawanna Enteryrises Jeffrey 7. Fenske Midway Chambe� of Commerce Ri¢er & Fenske, Ltd. Henry KrisWl Midway Chamber of Commerce Embers Restaurents Dav�d Liset TAomas-Dale/Distria 7 Planning Counril l'nrveaity of Minnesata'Celemmmuniations Barb Lowell Midway Chamba of Commem E'ast 6ank Nat't Assn— Midway Office Shidey Reidtt Sneiling HamLne Community Council Districc 13 Atromey at Law PaulSavage St Antfwny park Commumty Covnci4 Distria 12 Lyngbloms�em Care Cen[er � Michael Darger Esecutive Di*ecwr October 11, 1995 Roberta "Bobbi" Megard 4th Ward Counciimember 310 City Hall St. Paui, MN 55102 Dear Bobbi: University UNfTED is pleased that we have reached a compromise sign arrangement with Big WheeilRossi for their business at 1469 University Ave. Last night our board unanimously supported the compromise arrangement of 42" by 11' signs to be mounted on the sides of the existing marquis of the buiiding. This compromise was arrived at in a meeting inc{uding myself, Benita Tasselmyer, John Van Hecke, and Bob Straughn from University UNITED and Dick Shaifer of Big WheeflRossi and Mike Johnson of Graphic House. Tasselmyer suggested the comprornise because it would provide signage consistent with the existing signage dimensions from the front of the buiiding onto the marquis. Aiso, it wouid not impose a projecting sign inta the sight{ines above the marquis. We befieve that this 'ss a win-win solution for the business and the University Avenue Corridor. In the interest of preventing future appeals we would suggest that City staff direct any simiiar University Avenue commercial zoning or variance applicants to both the district council and UNITED. We wiii continue to take an active interest in such issues throughout the Corridor. Thank you for your continued leadership on tfllS ISSU@. Sincerely, �-Q G `- ichael P. Darger� Executive Director / Economic Development Coordinator megbig95 University Neighborhood Investment Through Economic �evefopment �S -1105 Interdepartmental Memorandum DATE TO FROM CITY OF SAlNT PAUL OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Suite 400 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Phone: (612)-266-8710 FAX: (612)-298-5619 September 8, 1995 Ms. Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 3rd Floor City Hall Jerome J. Segal Assistant City ° a9iS�%!?�:s �.:�}::'., bsu'.��`.S! �E' � � i995 SUBJECT: Big Wheel Rossi/Sign Variance Attached is the requested City Council resolution granting the appeal of University United from the decision of the Planning Commission which had granted variances for a sign for the property at 1469 University Avenue. � Council hearing on this matter was conducted on Wednesday, the 6th of September. �,� i #\ � � '. �. September 19,, 1995 St. Paul City Council Offices 25 West Fourth Strset St. Paul,, i�II�T 55102 Dear st. Paul City Council: Graphic House,, inc.,, as a representative of Big Wheel Rossi. Znc., is trriting this letter in support of the delay oE the decision in regards to the Big wheel Roesi., Inc. signage bey�sd the required 60 day period. Graphic House,, Inc. Will be in axmiunication wirh the University United gtoup in regards to th3.s issue before the October 18 public hearing. Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerelp� .!/' � .��inis°._ Mike Johnaon Graphic House,, Inc. tu/sx 9204 Padcer Drive Wausau, W154401 Phone 715-842-Q402 Fax 7�,5-a48-9108 r��ra. �i� � �5'� � �o`� ��nnu :tiHdH2J�J 90I6 8b8 SIL S£:EI 6L-60—S66I S�P TUE 1�53 PM UN[V.UNITED/MIDW�Y CH�M FAX N0. 6496711 P. 1 Universi UNITED �S_ <<�S Spruce 7ree Centre +1600 University Avenue • Suite 4� St. Paul, MN 55104-3825 •(612) 647-6711 • Fax (642) 646-2297 September 19, 1995 Roberta "Bobbi" Megard 4th WBrd Councilmember 310 City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Bobbi: University UNI7ED formally requests a 30-day continuance of the hea�ing regarding the appeaf of the sign variances granted to Big Wheel Rossi, 1469 University Ave. We consent to a delay beyond the 60-day period within which the law dictates that there be a disposition of our appeai. The reason for this request is that we intend to meet with representatives of Big Wheel before October 18 to attempt to arrive at a suitable compromise sign configuration. Therefiore, we need some additional time so that the business does not to have to reappfy for a different variance, if that can be avoided. Thank you for your continued leadership on this issue and other important issues to business in the University Corridor. Sincerely, �� 0 Michael P. Darger Executive Director / Economic Devefopment Coordinator Post-It° Fax Note 7677 r ' �»bb� e�-nrd ColDep�. Ci� CG+L C.I Pna,en 266 ' $6Ke F�x 266 -S S�`i 7�1 d- Nelghborhood Investment Through Economic Development DEPAATMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor August 14, 1995 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Councii Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: Drvaion of Plannmg 25 Wesi Fourth S�eet Sa:mt Paul, MN 5�702 95 - ilos TeZephone: 6l2-266-656i Facsimile 67L228-3314 I would like to confiim that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for ��C?��nr�zi�n �e�te�er;{;�"'�'995 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision: Appellant: University United, Hamline-Midway Coalition, Snelling-Hamline Council File Number: 95-179 Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting a sign variance to allow a new projecting sign for Big Wheel Rossi. Address: 1469 UniversiTy Avenue (north side between Pascal & Simpson) Legal Description of Properly: Lots 16 thru 24, Block 6; Lyman D. Baird's Addition Prevlous Action: Planning Commission Decision: Approval, vote: unanimous, 7/28/95 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval, vote: 7-0, 7/20/95 My understanding is that �2�,a�9A5 and that y�ti�°�`F�'{ili�?��o`tt��`o�; �_��,eg�� Please call me at 266-6582 if you have any questions. Sincerely, � l�� Kady Dadl z City Planner Zoning Section li;�� 4 i�95 ' ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING cC: File #95-179 The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a public heazing on 4Vednesday. Mi1C0 KiSemeC September 6. 1995, a[ 3:30 p.m. in the Ciry Council Chambers, Third Floor, DOTlriB $3rideiS City Hall, to conslder the appeal of Universiry United, Hamline-Midway Coalition. and Snelling-Hamltae Council to a decisibn of the Planning Commission granting a sign variance to altow a new projecting sign for 8ig Wheet Rossi.1469 UniversiCy AVeaue(north side tiehween Pascal & Sunpson). � � Da[ed August 15, 1995 - � � ` NANCY ANDERSON � - Assisfant City CouncIl Secretary . (Augus[ 17. 1995) � - _ _u .. K ;_�, __< <;� • C� C� DEPAR'IMENT OF PI,ANNING & ECONOIvAC DEVELOPMENT CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Colem¢n, Mayor Division ojPlanxing 25 West Four(h Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 August 25, 1995 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #95-179: University LTNITED, District 11, and District 13S City Council Heazing: September 6, 1995 the right-of-way. � S �„VS Telephone. 6l2-266-6565 Facstmile: 612-228-3374 PURPOSE: Appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance to allow a new projecting sign for Big Wheei Rossi on property located at 1469 University Avenue (north side between Pascal & Simpson). Big Wheet Rossi requests a sign of 64 squaze feet to project 8 feet into the public right-of-way; the sign ordinance allows the sign to be 25 square feet and project 4 feet into PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVAL ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: DENIAL SUPPORT: No one spoke. OPPOSTTION: No one spoke in opposition. One letter from University LINITED was received in opposition to the vaziance. Dear Ms. Anderson: University LiNITED, the Hamline-Midway Coalition, and the Snelling-Hamline Community Council haue appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to grant a variance to Big Wheel Rossi to allow a new projecting sign on property ]ocated at 1469 University Avenue (north side beriveen Pascal & Simpson). The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the sign variance request on July 20, 1995. The applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 7-0 to recommend approva] of the vaziance. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for approval on a voice vote of 15-2 on July 28, 1995. This appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on September 6, 1995. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have siides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, � Ken Ford Planning Administrator KF:kd Attachments ca Ciry Councilmembers � APPLtCATIQN FOR APPEAL • '�j„�, Department ojPlanning and Economic Development IrTTT11 Zoning Section f��.� - II00 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 sntaf�+re heari� date._ : ::._' ,. ,._.: - C . .: ::- ...:....:... . ---..� .---�. _ .___ . . ..� � , l ��: �.�i=� — FY ,n. �: 2 t�,`.m+4..�"� �.a.cn. APPELLANT Name,�,�r'vc'.r Ur� ITE.T {-� 11�;�,1w� �r.. � _ Address� V�;vers:-�-., Aven 5�:,�fie `i City Sf"- �c��.� � St.�"��Zip �� ic`t Daytime phone�Y� t 1 PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION . .. .. bi-w • Name U I'fz�µsr .�-r ation�`�6`i � U�;vers��, �ve (� ) � , f c.CGn' Ct.'�.c� �.`i.-.oC: n . �JC��e I TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: on �Lt � y _ ZS� , 1 (dafe of decision) ❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �1 City Council / under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 2-U� , Paragraph l� of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the P�qn�; +� � P�..,.,,,,.: �:`.:� File number: `(S��S' "Zc:�;^n �i le clS- I3� 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 fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. S e �. �� `�4 c �e �,� • Attach addifional sheet if necessary) ApplicanYs Z -��. Ie-�,- � City agent P�f k"�� jh:�hc.e1 �' ��r i � �cecc.,fi�e. � i � c�r� Uni.rc.rs;�t.� (,IN t'�� University UNITED 1600 University Avenue • Suite 4• St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-3825 •(612) 647-6711 • FAX 646-2297 Dr� F I CATES ,�a c,�,� Midway Chamber of Commerce Past ftesiden4 University UNTCED � �� watiem c�n� Summit-Unevasity P7anniq,v Cwmril, District 8 Presidrnt Univnsity UNITED Mimesota Depattment of Transportaoon Mat Holl'mshead Mertiam Pazk Community Coundi Distritt 13 Pas[ PreatlenS Univwsity UNITF.D MemiamPaskPos[ William Huestis nsawa cn�eu�e c��rce 0.S & B Realty Iuc. Pete May Frog[own Aaion Ailiauce, D�stric[ 7 ee� xyaa Past President, Unive�sity UNiTED Midway Chamber of Commerce Ryan Plumbivg & Hwting �te ��o �rno�-natwuum� � ri�t� cA��t Mimesota Depar�ent of Human Services Linda Skallman I.exiogton Hamliue Community Coundi Distria 13 Ramsey Couoty Personnel KenSmiW Midway Chamber of CAmmerce Midway National Bank Bob Streuglw Vitt Resident, Universiry UNITED Sc (wthony Pazk Commuvin Coundl, District 12 M�Gnou Shea Freozen Camfval Svaugla & lamb aevr� r�a�,ya Hamlive M�dway Caalition, Distritt 11 [1S. Postal Servitt Bulk Mail Certta Johv Van He&t Snelling-Hamline Community Council Distric[ 13 uri�;ry �sn�;�� r.?�uae� nFrx�erec �ona eew«� Midway Chamber of Commerce Meridian National Baok Dave Crmdail Mertiam Park Community Council Divria 13 ]awauoa Eateryrises Jeffrey J. Poaske Midway Chamber of Commercc Ritter & Fenske, Ltd. xenry tc�;� Midway Chmnher of Commerce Embus Restaucao�s David Liset ThomasDak/Disvia 7 Pleming Univecsity MMimesota Telecammuniations Barb LowNi Midway Chamber ofCommerce First Bank Nat'I Assn— Midway Office SL'uky Reider Sneiling Hamliue Community Council Distric[ 13 Attomey a[ Law PaulSavage St Authony Park Community Caunril District 12 Lyngblomstem Ca�e Center STAFF Michael Darga Fsewtive Dixector Grounds for Appeai This appeal is made and funded joinf(y at the direction of the boards of directors of University UNITED, Snelling-Hamline Community Council, and Hamline-Midway Coalition. Our appeai is based on ercors i� the findings of the Planning Commission Resolution 95-58. The foilowing are our responses to their findings, point by point. 2. a. We disagree that fhe speed of traffic on University Avenue requ+res projecting signs larger than permitted. Speed on the street is kept down by several factors inc{uding congestion, buses, truck traffic and the cross-street traffic signais. As the staff report notes, this justification woutd allow the majority of businesses on University Avenue larger pro}ecting signs than permitted. The business can instalf up to a 25 square foot projecting sign, in addition to the signs already on three sides of its buiiding. This gives it a reasonabie opportunity to identify itself without vio4ating the aesthetic standard that the University Avenue community created through the University Avenue Corridor Study. The Comdor Study was adopted by the City Councii on March 6, 1990 into the City Comprehensive P(an as the primary basis for University Avenue development poiicy (with seven exceptions, none of which related to signage issues). b. We disagree that the proposed sign conforms to the intent of the sign code. As the staff report notes, one of the purposes of regulating projecting signs is to prevent businesses trying to 'outshout' each other. Also, a four-foot variance is a significant deviation from the code. There are no existing above-standard projecting signs in the area and we are concemed that creating a prececfent wili provide other businesses the impetus to request them. c. University Avenue was decertified as U.S. Highway 52 last year and wiii be reclassified as a Ramsey County state aid highway in November, 1995. Currently it is not posted with highway signs. This is significant in that most communify residents and business persons do not perceive " the road as a highway. d. We rea►ize that no compiaints were received from adjacent commercial property owners. Yet business owners are concemed with the image of their commercial distnct. Business members of the Midway Chamber of Commerce spurred the creation of University UNITED and subsequently, in conjunction wifh community councils, the University Avenue Corridor Study. appeai85 � • • University Neighborhood �nvestment Through Economic �evelopment 2 9s-��s � e. We agree that there wiN be no direct adverse impact on residential property. f. We disagree that the sign will be in keeping with the general characfer of fhe surrounding area. Certainly, there are some large out-of-compliance signs that were grandfathered in before the sign ordinance was enacted. However, as the staff report noted there is only one other projecting sign and it does not project beyond what is permitted. Furthermore, the University Avenue Corridor Study called for reduced and improved signage in the area. Since the Corridor Study reflected the consensus of the community for a positive redevelopment of University Avenue, we urge the City to use this envisioned image of the area rather than the historical laissez faire business image as the standard of reference. That envisioned positive image is happening. in secent years well over $130 million of redevelopment funds have been invested in the University Avenue Corridor (Pioneer Press, JuVy 24, 1995). In conclusion, we urge the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission's decision to prevent a precedent for unsightly signage • escalation on University Avenue. There are a couple of general points that need to be stressed. First, our organizations are co{{ectively thri{led that Big Whee{ Rossi has invested $250,000 in the formerly blighted building at 1469 University Avenue. Their presence is highiy vaiued and many of us are customers. Our appeal is intended to uphold a positive vision for the commerciai district and not be seen as artti-business in any way. Second, there is a general concem that this area is underrepresented on the Planning Commission. We will be proactive in nominating individuais to represent our area as the opportunity arises. � appeal85 3 s.. ls .''� � '- � ii��''a� � � , �� A��c� �� i :�: �_ . � .-:--__-�- ��i�o�r� S} A . - • �� . _ � ---� � T�.� � I � .,. APPLICANT �I� W��' �� PURPOSE Glllil�l 1�i�r7^RniL-� �ILE # � ' �� DATE LG ' '`b • S f� MAP# �O� lS PLNG. DiST SCALE 1" = 400' �� ' .. �� ►' : aoec� �� . I I . �r � � DD�G � �� . o � r'",� ��••D� . . �ocacoacoo � � 0000QOO� ee � eeee�e eeoeeee�� s:iL:: y Q � �.' - � " I�� ' ' �A.- ��..� ` — - � ♦ �{ � � _ _ _ ''z,_ - - - - - _�, - - - � - " � - _ .. _ -.'�."_. . . • • 4:.� S LEGEND ..�� zoning district boundary � subject property 0 one family ¢ iwo family �-¢- Q muttipte famity n �' • • ^ c ercial � r� � industrial V vacant 9s-��os city of saint paul • planning commission resolution file number 95-5$ �te July 28, 1995 WHEREAS, GRAPHIC HOUSE INC.JBIG WHEEL ROSSI, file #95-135, has applied for a Sign Varinnce under the provisions of Sections 66.202(fl(2), 66.206(a)(3) & 66.409 of the Saint Paul I.egislative Code, to allow a new projecting sign: 1) 39 square foot sign area variance (sign area of 64 square feet requested and 25 square feet maximum allowed for a projecting sign) and 2) variance to allow a sign to project 8 feet into the public right-of-way, on property located at 1469 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, legaily described as I.ots 16 thru 24, Block 6; Lyman D. Baird's Addition; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 7uly 20, 1995, at which ali persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul I.egislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the � following findings of fact: 1. Big Wheel Rossi is requesting permission to install a new projecting sign which will project 8 feet into the public right-of-way and be 64 square feet in area (signs are allowed to project 4 feet into the right-of-way but if they project more than 18 inches into the right-of-way they may not exceed 25 square feet). The new projecting sign will be instalied above the existing overhang on the building. There is signage on the overhang which will remain. The applicant states thac the building is built up to the property line and that with the speed of traffic on University Avenue the proposed sign wouid help point out the store location. The applicant adds that because the buiiding is close to the property line along University Avenue the present signage is not easily seen because of the traffic flow. The applicant adds further that the sign will be of quality construction. If the variance for the sign is granted the sign will nnprove the safety on Universiry Avenue as it will enhance visibility of the site to drivers so that they will not need to turn their attention away from the road to see the sign identifying the business. moved by Morton seconded by � in favor 15 against 2 5 Zoning File #95-135 Page Two of Resoiution 2. The ability of the applicanYs request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 is as follows: a. The proposed sign is not unique, but theze are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for the site given the traffic speed and circulation on Universiry Avenue. A l�arger projecting sign will allow motorists to identify the business without the need to take their attention away from the road. In addition, the projecting sign will not project beyond the existing overhang at the building entrance on University Avenue. b. The proposed sign conforms to the intent of the sign code. The sign code provides for promoting safery, convenience, and enjoyment of public travel along advanced speed arteries. The applicant is not requesting more signage than is allowed on the site, only a larger projecting sign than aIlowed. c. The proposed sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. Since University Avenue is a state highway MnDOT reviewed the sign plan and concluded that there is no problem with the sign as designed. C� d. The proposed sign wiI1 not be objectionabie to adjacent property owners since aii adjacent properties on University Avenue are used commercially. e. The sign will not adversely affect residential proper[y through excessive glaze and • lighting since the signs are not directly visible from residential properry. f. The proposed sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding azea. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislafive Code, the application for a Sign Variance to allow a new projecting sign: 1} 39 square foot azea variance to allow a sign of 64 square feet; and 2) variance to allow the sign to project 8 feet into the public right-of-way, at 1469 UNIVERSITY AVENLTE WEST is hereby approved. • ■ q 5 - ��os • PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAINT PAUL CiTy Hail Conference Center 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 A meetin� of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was hetd Friday, 7uty 28, 1945, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Bader, Fazicy, Geisser, Lund-Johnson, Maddox, Morton, Treichel Present: and Wencl and Messrs. Chavez, Field Jr., Kramer, Lee, Mardell, McDonell, Riehle, Schwichtenberg and Vaught. Commissioners Mmes. Carter and Messrs. *Gordon, *Gurney and Mahoney. Absent: *Excused • Also Present: Jerry Segal, Assistant City Attorney; Allen Lovejoy, Acting Planning Administrator, Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Roger Ryan and Larry Soderholm of the Planning Staff: I. Approval of Minutes of July 14, 199� • N Zoning Committee #95-127 Richard & Deborah Schultz - Nonconforming Use Permit to allow an existing triplex to remain (584 E. Magnolia Ave; zoned RT-1). MCiTi(3�: _ .Gcr�rnissianer R+�asto�:meiye� appr¢vat_ctf, �e sequested,�ooac3nfat�iitag �5e �e�nat to ailoiv an existing trs�Zi�zc to rein.aitr. Ti�e triotion carrie8 ananas�oust� o� a vui�$ ... ... .. vb#e: � #95-135 Graohic House Inc.Bis Wheel Rossi - Sign Variance to altow a new projecting sign (1469 University Ave; zoned B-3). 11�f{3TL£)i+I -�t�mntissi�ruer MTor€��i: m€�ved a�tp�va� af €�c x�u��ked s�gn_ uat�FancQ to z1Faw a nexv pr�}�cting ��g� whi�h carrte�l ian a v�iee Yote r�f 1'S tp �: �95-132 Winos & A Praver Inc.- Nonconforming Use Permit modifying conditions to increase the physical dimensions of the commercial space for the restaurant, extend business hours, and clarify the ability to serve 3.2 malt liquor beverages (2057 Laurel Ave; zoned RT-i ). 7 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL CHANffiERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JULY 20, 1995 • PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Morton; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gurney, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Segal, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Dadlez and Traeger; and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division ABSENT: Wencl, excused Time: 3{50 - 4:05 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson. uxHrni� nvu5�; iN�. trii; wnr:�L x�o�i 14b7 universa� ti enuc w»-i � i ii Variance. Two sign variances to allow a new projecting sign. 1) A 39 square foot sign area variance. A sign area of 64 square feet requested and 25 sguare feet maximum allowed. 2) A variance to allow a sign to project more than 4' into the public right-of-way. Kady Dadlez, Planning Division staff, reviewed the staff report and presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the sign variance based on findings 2a and 2b. The Hamline-Midway Coalition did not take a position on the sign variance. Oniversity UNrTED did send a letter saying that they were very supportive of Big Wheel Rossi but were not supportive of the sign variance. Both Commissioners Field and Vaught inquired about the relationship of the existing overhang and to what extent the proposed sign would protrude. • Ms. Dadlez stated that the applicant will be able to respond to that question. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the total sguare footage of signage proposed would be within the limit allowed for the business if the sign variance were permitted. Ms. Dadlez said that it would. Mike Johnson, Graphic House Inc., representing the applicant, spoke. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the overhang was already on the building when Big wheel Rossi bought the building. He said that the overhang is li feet in length and that the sign would only protrude to within 3 feet of the existing canopy. Mr. Johnson indicated that the site is a2lowed 469 square feet of signage and that with the proposed sign the total signage would total only 442 square feet, within the total signage allowed. Mr. Johnson distributed photographs that show the views o£ the sign from the perspective of a vehicle travelling on University Avenue, i+7r. Johnson said that the photos showed that the Big Wheel Rossi signs on the building are not visible from a vehicle, nor the parking lot sign set quite a ways back from the road. Mr. Johnson claimed the only signage visible from traffic is the - temporary signage in the vinyl striping around the existing 11 foot canopy. He said this signage is vinyl lettering, applied directly to the metal on the canopy, which he said could be easily removed. Mr. Johnson pointed out that Big Wheel Rossi feels that the vinyl lettering is not adeguate because it is fairly small and the signage does nothing for the store in the evening hours, This is not satisfactory, as Hig Wheel Rossi is an after market auto parts store open often in the evening hours. • 3 r ° I S -\105 Mr. Johnson said that he did a survey of signage in the area, and contradicted the staff report which stated that there was only one other sign in the area • that was like this one. He claimed that there are four other signs that aze overhang projecting signs, and that one block away west of Snelling Avenue there are seven projecting signs on that block. Commissioner Field asked whether the existing sign protrudes 11 feet. Mr. Johnson said that the existing canopy protrudes 11 feet, not the existing sign. However, he explained that the vinyl lettering is currently and temporarily applied to this canopy. Mr. Johnson explained that the new sign will be installed above the canopy, and that the proposed sign will not project �ut as far as the canopy, and will not be visible from under the canopy. Commissioner Vaught, in an effort to determine whether he had a conflict o£ interest, asked who owns the property. Mr. Johnson said that Big Wheel Rossi owns the property and the parking lot, and are leasing space to All Tune and Lube. Mr. Johnson, in response to the staff report indicating that ".., the intent of the law is so that one business couldn't try to outblast another business with a larger further projecting sign..." said that this is an unlikely scenario given that on one side is a tenant who has no intention oE any projecting sign, and given its location they are not infringing upon any other business' abiliCy to display their signage. The public hearing was closed. Commissionez Vaught moved approval of the sign variance. Vaught requested that staff amend the findings of fact to state Chat despite the new sign, the • total signage would sti11 be less than the total signage allowance for the property. He asked that another,finding be added atating that the fact that the sign itself doesn't project on any side over the existing canopy appears to justi£y that it does not violate any air space requirements that are not already violated by the canopy. Commissioner Field seconded the motion. Commissioner Vaught encouraged the applicant to remove the plastic signs, but did not require it as part of the motion, as they are still within their allowable square footage area. He said that he believes that the signage requirements of the property are unique and said he was very persuaded by the photographs from the perspective of an automobile on University Avenue. The motion carried with a unanimous voice vote of 7 to 0. Submitt d by: Approved by: ��, Kady Dadlez Gladys Morton, Chairperson C J 2 � ZONING COAIDfITTBH STABF RSPORT _____________________________ • FILB # 95-135 1. APPLICANT: GRP.PHIC HOUSE INC (Big Wheel Rossi) DATS OF HEARING: 07/20/95 2. CLASSIFICATiON: Sign Variance 3. LOCATION: 1469 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST (north side btw Pascal & Simpson) 4_ PLANNING DISTRICT: 11 5. LB6AL D85CRIPTION: see file 6. PRESBNT ZONING: B-3 ZONING CODS RSFERBNCS: §66.409 7. STAFF INVSSTIGATION AND RHPORT: DATS: 7/13/95 BY: Kady Dadlez __ __ A. PIIRPOSB: Two sign variances to allow a new projecting sign: 1) 39 5quare foot sign area variance; 64 square feet requested and 25 square feet maximum allowed; 2) variance to allow a sign to project more than 4 feet into the puhlic right-of-way. B. PARCEL SIZa: The property has 234.75 feet of frontage on University Avenue and is 121.2 feet in depth for a total lot area of 28,451.7 square feet. C. EXISTING LAND II58: The property is occupied by a large commercial • building and surface parking Zot. The building is occupied by two tenants: Big Wheel Rossi and All Tube & Lube. D. SIIRROIINDING LAND IISS• North: One and two-family homes in an R-4 zoning district. East: Commercial uses along University Avenue in a B-3 zoning district and Midway MarketPlace currently under construction in a B-2 zone. South: Midway Shopping Center in a B-2 zoning district. West: Commercial uses in a B-3 zoning district. E. ZONING CODS CITATSON: Section 66.206 of the zoning code reguZates signs in B-2 and B-3 zoning districts. The following provisions apply: 1) in a B-3 zone one projecting sign per entrance on a street frontage is permitted. Any sign which projects inta the right-of-way beyond eighteen inches shall not exceed twenty-five square feet in display area; 2) the sum of gross surface display area in square feet of all business signs on a lot shall not exceed two times the Iineal feet of lot frontage or seventy-five square feet, whichever is greater. Section 66.409, Variances, of the zoning code states that "the planning commission shall have the authority to grant variances from the strict applications of this chapter for unique signs or unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot, provided such - signs would not be contrary to the general intent of this chapter, would not create a hazard, would not vio2ate Minnesota State Statutes or rules and regulations developed pursuant thereto, would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners, would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting and provided that the signs would be in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. The commission may not grant a variance that would permit the sign within a • zoning district which is not otherwise permitted in that zoning district J.i 9s -��os • � Zoning File #95-135 Page Two F G H under the provisions o£ this chapter." HISTORY/DISCIISSION: There is one previous zoning case concerning this property. The case is from 1992 and involves a site plan review for a Blockbuster Video which was withdrawn. DISTRICT COIINCIL RSCO2�NDATION: The Hamline-Midway Coalition did not take a position on the sign variance. FINDINGS• Big Wheel Rossi is requesting pexmission to install a new projecting sign which will project 8 feet into the public right-of-way and be 64 square feet in area isigns are allowed to project 4 feet into the right-of-way but if they project more than 18 inches into the right- of-way they may not exceed 25 square feet). The new projecting sign will be installed above the existing overhang on the building. There is signage on the overhang which will remain. The applicant states that the building is built up to the property line and that with the speed of traffic on University Avenue the proposed sign would help point out the store location. The applicanC adds that because the building is close to the property line along University Avenue the present signage is not easily seen because of the traffic flow. The applicant adds further that the sign will be of quality construction. If the variance for the sign is granted the sign will improve the safety on University Avenue as it will enhance visibility of the site to drivers so that they will not need to turn their attention away from the road to see the sign identifying the business. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 is as follows: The proposed sign is not unique, and there are no unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for the site. The applicant states that the traffic speed and circulation on University Avenue is an unusual condition pertaining to sign needs for the site and thus, a justification £or a larger projecting sign. Flowever, such an argument would allow the majority of businesses on University Avenue a larger projecting sign than permitted. The business already has signage on the overhang on three sides, thus accomplishing the need to identify the business to motorists on University Avenue. In addition, a pzojecting sign of 25 square feet is permitted without a variance if it does not project into the right-of-way more than 18 inches, so there is reasonable opportunity for visibility and identification of the business. b. The proposed sign does not conform to the intent of the sign code. One of the purposes of regulations relating to projecting signs is to prevent one business sign from blocking another business sign, essentially to prevent businesses from trying to "outshout" one another. A projection 4 feet beyond what is permitted is a significant variance from the code provisions, as is the size of the projecting sign, more than two and on-half times that allowed by the code. c. The proposed sign will not create a hazar Statutes or rules and regulations. Since • state highway MnDOT reviewed the sign pla is no problem with the sign as designed. d or violate Minnesota University Avenue is a n and concluded that there � �l Zoning File #95-135 Page Three d. The proposed sign will probably not be objectionable to adjacent property owners since all adjacent properties on University Avenue are used commercially, although the zoning administrator points out that most complaints about business signs come from other businesses. e_ The sign will not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting since the signs are not directly visible from residential property. f. Generally speaking the proposed sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. However, there is oaly one other projecting sign in the area, and it does not appear that that sign projects more than 4 feet into the public right-of-way. I. STAFF RSCO2�NDATION: Based on finding 2a and b, staff recommends denial of the sign variance. � �� • • • • � � L" W � r� � V � �s Z � N � ZONING BOARD � � S�`�� O S � APPLICATION FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE CITY Of AIt�IT PAUL Z C Z � ( t ' ��`2 � IT �E �� A VARIANCE OF 20NING CODE CHAPTER , SECTIOt� "' PARAGRAPH� IS REQUESTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POWERS VESTED IN THE BOARD OF ZONING AP- � � PEALS TO PERMIT THE Ne'� �O t � C�� N�� .� �.0 ON PROPERTY � v DESCR BEL OW. A. Applicant; NAME: GY0.Pn.c /�OKy� , �+c.� ADDRESS ��d�f ��" �r 1�r •, _ DAYTIME TELEPHONE NO. '�$' $�' °1 - �Oz Property interest of applicant: (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) �� Co✓'h ZIPCODE� / 2. Name of owner (if different) "y�; W}�Ex (� �:�;; � j ,CKn b Qa� Ma++�o�4 ffe �S�t'Es '; B. PropertyDescription: ADDRESS ��4 U''r�'�'ers;�� ° W ^,,,• V"T-- 1. Legal descriptwn: LOT BLOCK ADD. 2. Lotsize: �� h �� ' 3. Pre Us �NS� v� SS P resen t Zoning Di st. �� 3 • � C. Reasons for Request: �� g X y� ��,� � �.,,,� 7. Proposed uge To ��c p �'�F iI w'�+: ye^YL�:S .c d� C � uas 2. What physical characterisiics oi the property prevent its being used for any of the permitted uses in your zone? (topography, soii conditions, size and shape of lot, etc.) �� a� � :I,�.�. g ' 't4rt� 'L � � U n,.,w.� '7`�� W � p/ �?lo�nX .A'a-` �7.L�t�--�. � � �L 3. State the specific variation requested, giving distances where appro riate. - t'+v. 5.��. w� f 1 /�+r� �.�u l:� 6� ��.anJ�� .>Le I /� p � ( /�� "�a.C;.AI .a„utv..� �... 2/�.✓��i.+^S 1 ittr�.Ce"fia..++ I 5ee �/ic /DS . l (. UflR� i� RG[.D�/ �1nD�ic�� C� t�+o2t7'l+a�J J.l-�fP i ,.. ,. , . � . �-- S ' �rl O ot� il�,i��r'e� i� ylLvcJ �c�ncr � / 4. Explain how your case conforms to each of the following: ��8 as S�• t I- a. That the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or exceptional practical drfficulties, or exceptional_ undue hardsh�iy s. , Betac...x Yh.i �_;��:,��..; � 7,.�� 8� � �/u �'f'P' �'H..e � v�;,«.,�� .4-.�v. -�.� D _� � �,.�f �... .Z.��c -da' ��. b. That the gra�ting of a variance will not be a su6stantial detriment to CASHIERS USE ONLY public good or a subsiantial impair- i r „ ment of the inteni and purpose of 3�..,:.�'l95nr_,pgg,j;_qp,; _I ��:( j : � t - h r e f ZoningOrdinance. y�s jy�.';aU[F i??j,;'{; - ' K �J:C..yf� Z? Lf'�G:.ti 4 �'�J,'v`C � a ' . �t VQrttctiM.ey �"' `�S�r� r 3�n � �! �� - �. 0 .� �scCR .evC //, � -�, � � �° �� 5 � _ � w�.s - �`'^" . " ,. 'fa,�""`.i.,�` _ ��i�%u�� .. �1 (� , i S I� V + .� _� � � Q � ,. x �� .� � -- a - 'F R a f; . ' �� ' e E S �} �y �g Y � �G3 : C �S 8 3?� r ; s sa?= B� s 44dy:Ey a v � 3 as sa��3 : } Q�S �i ' '�:�� j°�e9 =� � " � �=� ]x?��:a¢�2=F9 =:`i yE�^53�$�isp; � t ` ; ; ��I ; OI j E � � i ssa�� a 5� �� -V F`�➢ ; � ��5 i S j t I fs? s d : S�+ a � ¢ y�° ' � v a S "CT'y 44 ;! s�. e.,aSz - �� °d�'-'"a� 4 i +�Se.w. 2".a 3� i ; 3�as �=_ .c.:=8 � =�e ��yF�j ; °; _ i---'— i . -_._ i j Y ---; . ry' -- _ � h — - �� -- - i + �: al:l � q -. .-- . �'. _� sl �:.-__� �� _ --a 3� ; � � —•r � ! , _—� i � $ 1 ; � ,_ �� 3 1 - '_ _.3 .4 � . .. � _ - , 1_.___.� A �p n�� z � . _�- , i ,� �� I � Iif � g { 1 3 I- � 1 ' �- �" �f ";ff�'.� _ . � �:=� I f � �# 4 y�;ici : �, _ ` � .. � �� 'S� �T'� 8� }� '`� b'� � : �( ia4il'�I� x.. � i ; I a�d;�� ?-�E ' •. ��I�' =l � � ;: - ` a� a � 3 ��_ �k9"�.e � ��}:�: E �� '4 1 ' y t - �� F s ' �4y 1 9 �` ��3�:{ �+ ` �' � ' E — 1 `i s';:i i; : � � � E � �I F � � �, stl�t ;i # - ° I j $ —. i i.vi��i ,� i �, �. '� ' . j � i s ! ;i 3 � I � �S � -- -- � •-^..��: _� f : ; .. .., , ; i � —� � f . , � � � � > _ �� _ �i � � ' l A � :;-_-__ -' � � �� =�� _ - _�'` ' 7r�� _ :__ ��'__. �.� ._� ; �� tu ; -..� — S . ��--=; ; .� � �: � � . _ , � ��'—�— , � ` _ � � • � `, 's � w � . C ��M � � � ' <: � Il N (� �5 ��p� r{( � {� . � __ { � r _ _ 0 0 � p �! .s �rL-' -_' __ � �f ' ( � o. C� � � � O v` i r- J _ ;` �— � � � f-�� ( �. �i - - .! -r- � - �; 2 ji o , _� < �� . �11 i _' �i � �� '} � -_ � i il = __t. , ._..�.� I a� � i i Y �� !=aI 3 � i='� � i v� . _ . v? �� CL . '\? � '= �w-� �� '�a �� cr• cn - �=- W � �o:z W � � Z;s ', `�J— M � x Ql N o co a , 3 � o � � I — 1 � . � � r..::r r � t' .* � � �v� _ _ _ 4 � _`._ �i'•"�y. .._-.-^..'.'-.,-.:_':"_..- "'� `�� _ _�' — .. ' �—� —�/ � �. ..d � .__ _ I � ' �� ' ' � ' � � ` ° ' -� i 4 ,.1 '�� _�,� • � '_ ,. ' } n�4` .__'. �� { . � a :,.��/. I �- ' _ ' .' � .,,. � ._.. - e f�7 � _" _�._. _ .._.... � _"'_._ _ _ ,.... . � -. _.._. . �i, . . :— ..__.. - . If . __ _._—_._ r � , ..._ .,..� ...... . __. � . � ' ... _.. .. . ... __.. -� . r ..,.,."._—,.< ' . ' __ J � � - " _' —�..� _. .._ . .. ... ° i -- _ _ t V , �1,_. � �� 612 � .`• �:;t � / ...... - '; � :?;I-20-05 ?HU :'S8 PM UNt',`.UhTIT:E�,;�ID��S' CHn?;�. FA:: N0. 6�707?1 University UNITED � !L 4800 University Avenue• Suite 4• St. Pau1, Minnesota 551Q4-3825• t612) 647-67i 1•�pX 8qg-�297 M�!�'•:s�re5 Aavid &ngnsac' Midway Cb�mtu cFtcmme�a Nnetlan HinK N..4. iuna Cumn AtiAwaY �amMr afC0�H2CT:t past Ptcsideet, Uaire�ah fiNfiED ea�. P�a wvunm o,u,� SumuU.bUOIuUS?�y P6munBCanc1.''J�.u�ict8 I� P�aidenyUniversity C�N3T6D �� Miwi•aW. W.Qrtnw.naofl4an+y'oM�oe l Muklotlin�ead' A�mrirk[kmm�e�y Cauac�7 ptyula 13 Pasl PasidptLUnivenity UNIlED ManimnPanEPo,v w�m�w.�u�s MEway CkambuoS Commercc 1�C.0 A A..uy. liv. r��Y F��,�.�.��AU��.�� aYb� Poct Pcaideat, VA�wsiry UNCI'ED Midmsy �Tambraf CYVTmrm 7tyan YW m.bin8 6 Nnting Kate Sevain '�nomas-Va�o•visvuc 7 rumunp cawnt Minnaas fJep+rweat oiHummServices ,.� ��.�� t,eting�o¢ Haraiine Commamty Ca'rciJ Dw[iat3 Ram9et CouµY Paeom@ Bob51[wghn Va F29itleql,Univeesity UNCCED 3'. AwDew� Pa1 CouHw+nAY Cwne� 9inria L' MeGronn Sbw Fo,ued Caemv�i SMUgIu k Lamb eeniu 7SUeh�ayer Hiaflhw btidwry Coditim, Cutriee 13 US. PoNd Service Bulk M�A CeC�r leyn Von Hee1m SOC�111$-HBPllne C0��1nGl�f �UC1l DisV!ct 13 u�rny otta�nw�.w .4�,�ru� pe�rr.arr_a �onn mm�ea Midway CbArtlberaECbmmera Mendun Neticuof 6a� w�chm�, dSerrhm Patk Cammoniq Cwacf n�e za Jtwtnna Fdteryrixs JsBroy L £�usFx pttaw�ry Charcdx� otauuww KiNef & PeM�e. L1d, xenn xr�td M �� Y �F�be�s�R a� n D�riJLiett 'fhwnerDale{Di,�ria 7 Plan»1�8 Cou¢dl l3aivaSU9 dMinoesotaTefewoWcWe+tions &fb (awdt Mdw�r Cl��mbee oLCommeR fict &Wc Nu7 Asm— Midany Offia Shidry AeWu SeelGng [lamline tkrtppuvity Counc! DuYic� 13 .�.tW[Rq �[ LlW Pxa7 Saw�e SL Anthoay Parttbmvain�g c:ounu� Disrtia 12 LypBbianstec CY�e Cenea a4`l'AFF 3uly 20, 1995 RECEiVED Jl1L 2 0 1995 ZONIN� To: The Zoning Committee of the St. Paul Planning Commission From: Michae� Darger, Executive Director SubjecL Request for two sign variances at 1469 University Avenu@ by Graphic klouse Inc./Big Whees Rossi As many of you are aware. Universily UNITED sponsared ths comprehensive plan for tJnive3�s�Ey Avenue severa4 yaar� ago, the llniversity Avenue Corridor Study. This plan was accepied, wittr son� exceptions, by the Pianning Commission and the City Counoil as the p[a� for Universiiy Avenue (3-6-199Q). The plan's Area 2 Recfevetoprtsent Cor�ept, a section which inoWdes 1489 Universiiy Avenue, called For reduced ar� improved signaqe along the Avenue. The vartance r�quest by the currertt applicent is not consistent with this goal. Therefore, on the behaif of our organizafion I would request tnat this variance appiication be denied. tn no way shoutd this requsst be construed es a negative comment about Big Wheet Rossi_ On the contrary we are thrilteci thaE thgy are a member ot our 6usiness cxymmunity and especiatty thaf they comeRect the blighted former Metro Mazda bui�ding into a bright new commercial use. However, we are strategicaliy cancemed with improving bOth the aesthe#�cs and tha perception of Un+versity Avenue_ In that irderest vre betievs that the City sign ordinance sheutd be uphetd. Miehtct Dulter' FaecuSivcD'¢eclx zor�com75 University Neighbofiaad Investrrtent Through Economic Devetopment �� • I� L • as-��os • UNNERSITY U\TI'ED is away from industrial toward more commu- nity scale and regional scale commercial, making the smaller industrial uses out of char- acter with the area. Another significant land use compatibiiity issue is presented by the St. Anthony Apartments on St. Anthony and Griggs. The single tall apart- ment building surrounded by asphalt parking lots, the concrete freeway, and office, industri- al, and commercial uses, represents a very bleak and isolated residential environment. The crime statistics for this building are very high and, from a land use planning perspective, this is no surprise. By design and location it is a use which is not conducive to providing a stable and desirable residential environment. Further to the east on Central Avenue just • west of Le�ngton is a small isolated residential neighborhood of a few homes and apartment buildings. This area may be too small to be developed and enhanced as a viable neighbor- hood, considering the surrounding commercial and office uses. �Sienaee A problem all along the Avenue is image, and a significant part of this problem is signage. Both business signs and overhead billboards constitute a major visual blight to the eaperi- ence of University Avenue. A new Ciry sign ordinance has recently been adopted which is beginning to have an effect on individual build- ing fronts, but this will continue to be a prob- lem until many more business signs come into DAHLGREN, SHARDLOW, A,1�D UBAN, INC. U�7VERSITY AVE11iE CORRIDOR S'TCiDY Page ;7 compliance with the ordinance and something is done to address the presence of billboards. Parkino In some areas on University Avenue, parking is in short supply. At Qeak use times, either parking must spill over into residential areas, or the businesses suffer because frustrated pa- trons will go elsewhere. This is not a large problem for the ma}or uses in the super blocks: Rainbow Foods and the other businesses in Midway Center, Montgomery Ward, Target, and the Sheraton, because these uses conform to generally accepted standards for the number � • V� Signage contributes significantZy to the image of University Avenue � "ERSCIY UNITED . The Redevelopment Concept is based on ral goals for the area: Develop a commitment to a regional foc¢s. Perhaps the most important issue to be understood by business leaders and residents alike is the great untapped commercial potential of this portion of University Avenue. Snelling and Univer- sity is at the center of a regional com- mercial market area, and if the area can be developed successfully to meet this demand, the tax base will be expanded and strengthened, bringing benefits to all in the area. If smaller issues can be seen in the light of this one larger issue, many problems in the area such as image, eco- nomic viability, and the general quality of the environment on University Ave- nue might be solved. In sunple land use terms, this means concentrating regional commercial activity in the area from Snelling to Dunlap, sou[h of University. Develop a compatible tier of neighbor- hood land uses supportin� and buffering the regional commercial activity. This would translate as concentrating neigh- borhood or community commercial activ- iry at the Snelting Avenue node north of Universiry, around the Lexington Ave- nue node, and in the entire strip north of University from Fry on the west to Synd- icate on the east. Encourage a reduction of strip eommer- cial use and the extension of viable neigh- LGREN, SHARDLOW, AI�'D UBA,\, ING li\1VERSITY AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY Page 42 borhoods by reintroducing residential uses onto University Avenue where feasible: north and west of Midway Hospital, in the three blocks west of Lex- ington, and in the three blocks west of Victoria. 4. Encourage office/service uses, rather than industrial, in the area on Aldine Street across from the residential neigh- borhood. 5. Create adequate buffering for signiflcant land use transitions, through landscaping, high qualiry design and building materi- als, and performance standards in the zoning ordinance. Where feasible, con- vert whole blocks to a single land use, rather than maintaining the existing split at the alley. 6. Enhance existing green spaces on the Avenue and create new spaces where possible within development groposals. This would include vigorous protection of Dickerman Pazk and the Midway Improve the overall image of the AvenLe by reducing and improving signage, and daveloping a unified streetscape concept involving paving, lighting, landscaping, and building massing at strategic loca- tions. -�.—....'__.__-.._...... _._.____"'_ ,.___.-____'__ . ry . _ ._'__ ' _ _. ._. _., _"_ ' ..� � '• �s -��os C 1. S[INRAY-BATTi.ECREEK-HICsHWOOD 2. HAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PHAI,EN b. NORTH END 7. THOMAS-DALE 8. SUMMIT-UNIVERSTTY 9. WF.ST SEVENT'H 1 11. HAMLINE-MIDWAY 1'Z'"�I�I6�^�"P� 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXII�IGTON HAI�ILINE-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHLAND 16. SUMMIT HILL 17. DOWNTOWN } ZC?NiNG FILE ��''�' � r,;!;; CITTZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS 3 • • HAMLINE—MIDWAY DISTRICT 11 ON '°° i 00° Z°°° '°°° sO0° '°'° :w� �� •i� + • 0 07/27/1995 16:14 6128709749 FURLONGSTUARTDASHER PAGE 01 � 5 �^`.`�� u.�...w�.,.. # Snelling < { g Hamiine t �Community �� Council 1�73 Seiby �1�'e. • I,iberty State Bank Bldg. Rm- 319 • 5t. Paul, �fl�: 5�104 •(612) 6�-1(� Iuly 27, 1995 To: St Paul Pianning Comtnission members From: Shiriey A. Reider, President Snelling Hamiine Community Council (Disttict 13j Re: Requested Sign Variance foz Gtaphic House Inc.! Big Wheel Rossi Our Council strongly suppons the basic cancept tt�at policies and plans that have been fom�ally adopted by consensus after study and debate, should control decisions and not be disregarded. The Si. Paul City Council adopced the L3niveisity Avenue Corridor Study on Mazch 6,1990 as the governing document for the development policy along University Avenue. In addition, the Pianning Coaunission's review dated Janvary 26, 1990, strongly supported amproving the Avenue's image through better regulafion and consistent enfotcement of signage. Therefore, I wouid request that this variance be denied because it is contrary to the adapted policies to impmve and reduce the signage along University Avenue.