HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-19 Planner Ltr to OPH ZZ ' r 7 o r,
+� F��/20UEd �r �` f r r`.. tr t '. .C 7 ,� V + t,�,.• -� :ic> x_ / . ,,, .r� {QJ`.�G�
0 0*1 WEHRMAN b. keiM wehrman
October 19, 1976 CHAPMAN b. b. chapman
')kSSOCIATES roy a. andwson
INC john o. bergiy
richard d. fredlund
chades a. wdwberg
Mr. Ken Heuer D ( -f 14 14--
6141 Panama Avenue North
Stillwater, Minnesota 55082
Re: Oak Park Heights Bank Sign Application
Dear Ken:
As you noted in your August 30th letter to the Sign Company, there are several rel-
evant pieces of information regarding the shopping center, the bank and the existing
signs that are essential to the Village's consideration of the variance and special use
permit applied for. It would take considerable time and effort on our part for review-
ing all post applications for the Shopping Center; for field inspection, measuring and
calculating the heights and areas of existing signs; and for providing graphic material
for the Council's fair assessment of the proposal. As your letter implied, the petitioner
should be responsible for providing this information. With the limited information sub-
mitted with the application it is not possible to determine the extent of the variance
required or the effect on other properties in the surrounding area.
No evidence has been presented to indicate that a variance (no matter what the extent
of variance) is necessary due to the "shapesor condition of the parcel in question", or
that "granting the variance is necessary to the reasonable use of the land", or that
"granting the permit will not adversely affect the existing or potential use of adjacent
land", - all required tests of the appropriateness of a variance. Previous council/
developer agreements regarding signs should also bear considerable weight in any cur-
rent decisions.
The fact that the signs have been fabricated and await erection should not be a consid-
eration in the matter. Buildings could be started without building permits, streets could
be built without plot approval and on and on, using the same rationale. The Village's
ordinances and regulations would be meaningless.
The ordinance regulates the shopping center signs both from the standpoint of the in-
dividual businesses and the "overall shopping center" site. As the applicant is request-
ing permits for both varieties, he should consider the method of determining the allow-
able area for each (along with previous council/developer agreements).
planning — engineering — landscape architecture phone 1-612-546-4303-1415 lilac drive, minneapolis, minnesota 55422
Essential information needed for our review and council action includes:
From Petitioner:
Location size and area of existing "overall shopping center" signs
Location, size and area of existing bank signs
Specific location and elevation drawings of the bank signs relative to the
building, the grounds, pedestrian area and other nearby signs.
Design features of the signs: single or double faced, sign material and colors,
type of illumination, etc.
Unusual site circumstances requiring a variance from the applicable regulations.
From Ci ty Records:
- Minutes of all actions relating to the shopping center sign permits and approvals.
If we receive this information by next Tuesday (26th), we will be able to advise the Council
on the 28th on scheduling a Public Hearing for November.
Peace,
W E HRMAN, CHAPMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
B. B. Chapman, AI P
BBC:jd
cc: Dennis Jones, Deco Signs
2486 7th Avenue East
North St. Paul, Minnesota 55109
November 1, 1976
REVIEW: OAK PARK HEIGHTS STATE BANK SIGN VARIANCES
TO: Oak Parks Heights Mayor and Council
FROM: Wehrman, Chapman, Associates, Inc.
Pl anning Consultants
SPECIFIC REQUEST: To install additional signing to a use which at present has ex-
ceeded the maximum allowable signing. Whether the calcula-
tions are based on the definition of a "shopping center" (8.07A)
or a free - standing business on a separate lot, the area has pres-
ently been exceeded. Both a variance for sign area and a special
use permit for an advertising sign are requested.
o Calculations based on separate lot:
pp - 50 sq. ft. per lot frontage 50 sq. ft.
- plus 1 sq.ft. for each 100 sq.ft. of
building over 3000 sq.ft. 6000 60 sq.ft.
100
110 sq.ft.
o Calculations based on "shopping center"
definition: (see attached sketch for loca-
tions)
- not possible without calculating total of
al I the f loor area i n shopping center
- 180 sq.ft. for overall shopping center sign
� r
o Existing Bank signs:
- bank directory (6' x 8 J, fi +``� °n c2 �( 48 sq.ft.
- bank identification on building
- rear (4' x 8') 32 sq.ft.
front (4' x 8') 32 sq.ft.
- directional signs (not calculated in
maximum allowable area) -0-
Total Existing Sign Area 112 sq. ft.
o Proposed bank signs: (see attached sketch for
location)
- on bank lot - Sign B 32 sq.ft.
- on "St. Croix Mall" sign - Sign A 61 sq.ft.
Total Proposed Signs 93 sq.ft.
PAST ACTIONS:
The following xer is from Council minutes over the past 2 1 2 indicate 9 P pa / years cats actions
taken previously on recent sign requests in the Shopping Center area.
June 3, 1974
Mr. Joseph of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Mr. Gifford of Lawrence Sign appeared
to request a sign variance.
Sommerfeldt made motion to grant a 207 sq.ft. sign variance to Goodyear. Seconded by
Torgerson. Carried. Absent: Groth and Mondor.
Apri 1 14, 1975
Clerk was directed to issue the building permit for the theater in the St. Croix Mall with
a letter indicating that the City sign ordinance will be enforced and no variances would
be issued.
April 28, 1975
Mr. Swager introduced Mr. Mann and Mr. Payne of Mann Theaters, and together des-
cribed the signing desired for the theater. Mr. Swager requested and received a verbal
commitment from the Council to approve the request for a Special Use Permit for addition-
al signing to be mounted above the north entrance of the mall. Public Hearing was set
for 8:00 P.M. May 19th at the City Municipal Building.
May 19, 1975
Mr. Frediund reviewed current signing criteria for shopping centers with theaters and
stated that the proposed signing is in conflict with a shopping center atmosphere and not
in best interest of the remaining merchants. He expressed concern of each merchant
desiring similar exposure and the precedent set by approving requested ° signing.
Mr. Mann and Mr. Lux felt that signing on the mall pylon was essential for the theater
operation. Mr. Lux stated that the Mall Merchants were in complete agreement with the
proposed theater signing.
Sommerfeldt moved to issue Special Use Permit to Oak Park Development Corp. for the
proposed sign with the stipulation that no additional signing be allowed on the mall pylon.
Seconded by Torgerson. Carried.
July 12, 1976
Mr. Joseph of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. appeared in regard to the variance request
for additional signing for the Goodyear Store. He indicated that sales in this store were
-2-
significantly less than similar stores in other areas and that sign restrictions were a
hardship for this business. The planner's report was presented which advised that 154
sq. ft. variance was granted when store was built. This request of an additional 108
sq. ft. would increase the variance to a total of 403 sq. ft. or 185% over that allowed
by ordinance. Sommerfeldt moved to grant the 108 sq. ft. sign variance requested by
Goodyear. Seconded by Torgerson. Carried.
August 17, 1976
Mr. Mathews of Gulf Sign Co. requested the Council to consider both the north /south
and east /west streets that pass the Oak Park Heights State Bank as frontage streets for
sign purposes to increase the signing they are entitled to. The Council decided that as
these are private streets they cannot be considered as frontage streets to increase the
allowable signing for the bank. Clerk will so advise Mr. Mathews.
October 12, 1976
G. Malmquist of the Oak Park Heights State Bank presented an application for a var-
iance and an application for Special Use Permit for additional signing. Applications
will be submitted to the Planner for review and recommendation.
Mr. Swager reviewed the Oak Park Heights Bank request for sign variance and special
use permit and introduced the sales representative of the company from which the signs
were purchased to describe the signs they desire to erect.
Arguments against granting the area variance and special use permit include:
1. On May 19, 1975, the Council took action to stop any further signs from being
placed on the "Mall Pylon ". So in effect, the action has already been taken for
the Special Use Permit requested at this time.
2. The Bank has a free - standing building directory with its name' included as well as
two identification signs in metal letters on the brick building facing (one on the
front, the other on the rear). The additional sign proposed to be located on the
bank property does not direct attention to the bank, but to unrelated civic func-
tions or messages.
3. It is questionable whether or not the "reader" type of sign would be permitted in
the RB District, even if the total sign area allotment is not being utilized. The
sians do no r el a to the individual property and, therefore, would be termed
ad signs ", proval of such signs with the variances needed would
virtually pave the way for every occupant and use to demand an equal privilege.
The potential implications are frightening - each one trying to outdo the previous
ones. Advertising signs are not permitted in the RB District.
-3-
4. If this request is approved, two of the "Mall" tenants will be receiving prefer-
ential treatment by advertising on the Mail pylon. We could anticipate a flood
of requests by other tenants. A basis for a Zoning' Ordinance is that regulations
are uniform throughout a Zoning District. Variances are allowed only when a
given parcel has unique circumstances where application of the regulations would
not be justified when compared to other parcels in the same district.
Arguments for granting the requests may include:
1. The size variance and Special Use Permit are needed to provide highway exposure
to a non - highway parcel. The other tenants in the Center would have a similar
argument.
2. The "reader" board is a public service and deserves special consideration. Al-
though a public service it attracts particular attention to the site on which it
is located. Again all other tenants would have a similar right, if this is approved.
3. The signs are already prepared and ready to install. Once the City Council is
seen as a mere rubber stamp to proposals (or actual construction) the procedures
of orderly planning and development will be meaningless. Whether or not the
signs are already constructed the Council should act on the request itself - if it's
good, it should be officially approved - if not, it should be officially denied.
4. The sign ordinance has unrealistically low area requirements and variances are
necessary to be competitive. The request is not for a larger bank identification
sign on the bank but for an advertising sign off the bank premises. Any business
not having highway frontage could have the some argument with a disasterous
effect on arterial streets and highways. The sign proposed for the bank premises
is not an identification sign but a community service sign. So the sign area
variance is not the key issue. Rather the issue is the necessity and desirability
of two additional signs on an already oversigned shopping center site.
Attached find exhibits submitted by the petitioner in support of his request.
-4-