HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-23 Planing Report 0 0
IN Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
AC U R B A N P L A N N I N G D E S I G N M A R K E T R E S E A R C H
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: 23 July 1992
RE: Oak Park Heights - St. Croix Mall Sign Variance
FILE NO: 798.02 - 92.05
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
Oak Park Partners -St. Croix Mall have submitted a variance
application for placement of a monument business sign on Osgood
Avenue. The variance is required in that the addition of a
monument sign in this area is not addressed in the sign plan
adopted for the St. Croix Mall in January of 1988. Any revisions
or additions to the sign plan require issuance of a variance from
the City Council.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Sign Location
Exhibit B - Sign Elevation
Exhibit C - Pictures of Site
Exhibit D - Pictures of Site
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the report to follow, our office recommends that the
request for a monument business sign adjacent to Osgood Avenue
within the St. Croix Mall property be denied in that it does not
meet the criteria for issuance of a sign variance.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595- 9636•Fax. 595 -9837
ISSUES ANALYSIS
The applicants have submitted a proposal for a monument business
sign sized 13 feet high by 15 feet wide. The structure would be an
aluminum frame with a poured concrete base painted to match the
mall building. The sign would be double faced and internally lit.
The actual sign faces would be 10 X 15 feet with 150 square feet of
sign face per side, for a total of 300 square feet of sign area.
The sign would be located on mall property to the south of the curb
cut access to the lower mall from Osgood Avenue. The sign is
placed so as not to create potential conflicts with visibility for
vehicles exiting or entering the mall parking lot.
The purpose of the sign would be to identify specific businesses
within the lower portion of the St. Croix Mall, those primarily
visible and accessible from Osgood Avenue. The sign plan for the
St. Croix Mall allows for only the one existing freestanding sign
on the mall property. The signage allowed by the sign plan for the
lower mall calls for canopy signs on the facade of the mall not to
exceed a maximum area of 90 square feet or 15 percent of the facade
for a single retail unit, whichever is applicable. The close
proximity to Osgood Avenue of this facade and signage did not
justify a deviation from the Ordinance standards, as was allowed in
the upper mall area.
A review of the existing allowed signage indicates that the
existing canopy and the signage to be attached is highly visible
from Osgood Avenue (see Exhibits C and D). When driving on Osgood
Avenue and viewing the canopy from the north and south of the lower
mall entrance, the sign area already allocated for this portion of
the mall will be adequate to afford visibility of the businesses
located there.
The applicants have stated that the visibility is not adequate for
the lower mall and that a separate identification sign is needed.
Their reasoning is that the lower mall is not connected internally
from the primary mall area and it is accessible from a separate
street entrance, thus warranting a separate identification sign.
They feel that a sign at the proposed location would add visibility
along Osgood Avenue and assist potential customers in finding the
correct entrance to this area. What they have proposed is a
business sign only advertising businesses within that area of the
mall. The proposed sign does not identify the area as, for
instance, "The Lower St. Croix Mall ". If the Council is to allow
the applicant more signage for the mall in this area, then it
should be an identification sign only, and not include additional
business advertising. Additionally, if an identification sign is
allowed, it should be smaller than what is proposed, not to exceed
150 square feet of total sign area.
2
The Zoning Ordinance makes a provision for sign variances. The
City Council serves as the Board of Adjustments and Appeal and
shall make a finding of fact that an undue hardship or injustice
exists if a variance were not granted. The City Council grants
such variations based upon consideration of the following:
1. That particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the specific parcel of land involved exist.
The site is relatively flat and visibility of the businesses
and the canopy signage is not adversely impacted by topography
or physical surroundings.
2. That the condition involved is unique to the particular parcel
of land involved.
There are no unique conditions to this particular parcel that
would warrant issuance of a variance.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based exclusively
upon a desire to increase the value of income potential of the
business involved.
The applicants' desire is to increase the visibility of the
business that will locate in the lower mall. Adequate
visibility and signage area has been previously approved for
this site thus the income potential would not be necessarily
increased with an additional sign.
4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the
Ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently
having an interest in the parcel.
No hardship or difficulty exists presently in that adequate
visibility and signage is allowed for the lower mall.
5. That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements
in the neighborhood.
The proposed sign will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or affect other property or improvements in the area.
6. That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets or interfere
with the function of the police and fire departments of the
City.
The proposed sign will not impair or interfere with the right
of other property owners or affect the safety factors of
police and fire departments.
3
CONCLUSION
A hardship or difficulty does not exist in this situation to
justify issuance of a variance as requested. The goal of the sign
plan for the St. Croix Mall has been to reduce and minimize the
number and overall square footage of sign area on the mall
property. Granting this variance for additional business signage
may only open doors to additional requests for variation, thus
reducing the original intent and success in achieving a more
attractive area around the St. Croix Mall. As stated before, the
Council may choose to allow additional identification signage for
the St. Croix Mall in this area. Staff is willing to work with the
applicant in developing plans for the addition of identification
signage.
pc: LaVonne Wilson
Mick Kaehler
Mark Vierling
Brad Henning
4
L..0
LLJ
C D�
109 CARS
a a `�
x HERBERGER S
•
E51,5 00 eq f t:TOT9
���.��
(�.. cr
o� to • MONUMENT
N
J 2 :7 C A R SIGN LOCATION
f
135 CARS
i•
r
EXHIBIT A
. .
MO UM' L' - �)IOKI G S C CIti MA I
o� J
, Oo b le - GCCJ in,,
! .� ✓ Q
: Dp +� Sp (a r q rr
Red b oc ll round
Dug D � A�v.r+iwkvr� �..•�iac�.'7,
i
t
m
r
x
oo
lA
.As.
I ..
Y.
—
• 0
F NA Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C U R B A N P L A N N I N G r D E S I G N - M A R K E T R E S E A R C H
TRANSMITTAL RECORD
DATE: 23 July 1992
TO: LaVonne Wilson
Oak Park Heights
FROM: Scott Richards
VIA: ( ) Mail ( ) Pick -Up ( ) Delivery ( X) Fax
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: 5
QTY OF DATED - DESCRIPTION
1 Planning Report - Revised 7/23/92 St. Croix Mall Sicnve
REMARKS:
LaVonne:
Please copy Mick Kaehler on this revised report.
Thank you!
RE: Oak Park Heights - St. Croix Mall Sign Variance
JOB NO. 798.02 - 92.05
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595 - 9636 -Fax. 595 -9837