Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019/02/28 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - RegularAGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 28, 2019 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2.Approval of Minutes: January 24, 2019 3.Consent Agenda: 4.Public Hearing A.Variance: Knollwood Village Mall – Request for Sign Variances Location: 8906 – 8912 Highway 7 Applicant: Gator Knollwood Partners, LTD, Thomas Hultgren Case No. 18-73-VAR 5.Old Business 6.New Business: A.Election of Chair and Vice-Chair 7.Communications 8.Miscellaneous 9.Adjournment If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2572. Auxiliary aides for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952/928-2840 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2019 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Members Present: Justin Kaufman, Henry Solmer Members Absent: James Gainsley Staff Present: Jennifer Monson, Planner 1.Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Kaufman called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of November 27, 2018 3. Consent Agenda: None 4.Public Hearings A.Variances: Mexico City Café – required minimum parking spaces Location: 6416 Lake St W Applicant: Sharon & Julio Margalli Case Nos.: 19-01-VAR Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report. The variance requests is to reduce the required parking from 21 spaces to 3 spaces. Ms. Monson stated the applicant has an agreement to lease the space at 6416 Lake St W and operate as Mexico City Café. The applicant wishes to update the site inside which would remove seating space for sit down dining. Ms. Monson summarized the previous uses in the space and the reason a variance request was now required, and presented analysis of the criteria for the variance request. Ms. Monson stated that a small area plan is underway for Historic Walker Lake, which is examining the parking in the area. She said preliminary analysis showed parking is never more than 60% full during a normal week day. The chair opened the public hearing. The applicant, Sharon & Julio Margalli, introduced themselves. 2 Mr. Margalli expressed his excitement and appreciation to be able to open a business that will bring cultural and healthy options from his native Mexican cooking. He’s been a part of the community from the beginning with his family and expressed his joy to bringing his love of cooking to the area. As no one else was present wishing to speak the Chair closed the public hearing. Mr. Kaufman made a motion to approve the variance to allow three parking spaces instead of the required 21 spaces. The motion was approved on a vote of 2-0. 5.Unfinished Business: Election of Chair and Vice-Chair 6.New Business: None 7.Communications: None 8.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elena Roberts Recording Secretary 3 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Date: February 28, 2019 Agenda Item: 4A 4A. Knollwood Village Mall – Request for Sign Variances Location: 8906-8912 Highway 7 Case Nos.: 18-73-VAR Applicant: Gator Knollwood Partners, LTD, Thomas Hultgren Recommended motion: Motion to deny both variance requests. REQUEST: The applicant requests: • A variance from Section 36-362(e)(4) to allow a rooftop sign, which is specifically prohibited by this section of city code. • A variance from Section 36-362(f)(19) Table 36-362A to allow 690 square feet of sign area instead of the maximum allowed 300 square feet. SITE INFORMATION: Current land use guidance: COM-Commercial Surrounding land uses: North: Commercial East: Commercial South: Commercial West: Residential Current zoning: C-2 General Commercial Site area: 177,025 square feet (4.06 acres) Current use: Shopping Center Proposed use: Shopping Center 4 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL: Gator Knollwood Properties, LTD is the owner of the Knollwood Village Mall located adjacent, and to the north of the Super Target store located at the corner of Highway 7 and Highway 169. They request a variance to allow 390 square feet of rooftop signs, as illustrated below. Rooftop signs are specifically prohibited, so they request a variance from this prohibition. Also, the site already has 300 square feet of sign area, which is the maximum area allowed, so they also request a variance to add 390 square feet to the total sign area allowed. Applicable City Code: The purpose and findings for regulating signs adopted by the city are stated in Section 36-362 (a) and (b). They are as follows: (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to establish minimum requirements for the size, placement and maintenance of signs by adoption of regulations governing all signs in the city. The sign regulations are intended to permit a safe, efficient, effective and aesthetic means of communication using signage which recognizes the need to maintain an attractive and appealing appearance of property in the community, including that property used for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, public development use, and the air space above and between those uses. These regulations are intended to permit signage which is adequate for effective communication but minimizes distractions to traffic and prevents visual clutter and visual pollution which can be caused by the unregulated use of signage. (b) Findings. The city finds that: (1) The manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community. (2) An opportunity for identification of community business and institutions must be established. 5 (3) The safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and other users of the public streets and property are affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that divert the attention of drivers. (4) Installation of signs on the tops of buildings constitutes a hazard during periods of high winds and is an obstacle to effective firefighting and other emergency services. (5) Uncontrolled and unlimited construction and placement of permanent and temporary signs adversely affects the image and aesthetic attractiveness of the community and undermines economic value and growth. (6) Uncontrolled, abandoned and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs, which are commonly located in or near public rights-of-way or at driveway and street intersections, result in roadside clutter, obstruction of views of oncoming traffic, and a visual distraction to drivers and pedestrians. (7) Electronic signs, including video display signs, are highly visible from long distances and at very wide viewing angles both day and night and are designed to catch the eye of persons in their vicinity and hold it for extended periods of time. If left uncontrolled, electronic signs, including video display signs, are highly distracting to drivers and driver distraction continues to be a significant underlying cause of traffic accidents. The sections of city code that are the subject of the variances are as follows: City Code Section 36-362(e)(4) Prohibited signs. The following signs are prohibited in all use districts: (1) Flashing signs. (2) Signs on or over the public rights-of-way unless the city council grants permission for a temporary sign on or over the public rights-of-way for a period of time not to exceed ten days. (3) Searchlights, beacons, strobe lights or other illuminated signs emitting a beam consisting of a collection or concentration of rays of light. (4) Rooftop signs. (5) Rotating signs. (6) Billboards. (7) Off-premises signs. (8) Inflatable signs and tethered balloons. (9) Signs painted directly on a building. (10) Signs mounted on chimneys, rooftop equipment, observation towers, flagpoles, cooling towers, elevator penthouses, commercial antennas, communication towers, belfries, church spires and cupolas. (11) Signs, including the sign structure or any other component of the sign, that rotate, revolve, scroll, move, flash, blink, fade, or are animated. City Code Section 36-362(f)(19) & Table36-362A Sign area and height. The allowable sign area and height are established by table 36-362A in this subsection (f)(20) and adjustments to table 36-362A in subsection (g) of this section according to the parcel size or PUD site size and use district in which the sign is located. 6 TABLE 36-362A SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT Use District & Lot Size (sq. ft.) Maximum Sign Height (feet) PERMANENT SIGNAGE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE REAL ESTATE SIGNAGE Maximum Total Area (sq. ft.) Maximum Size of Sign Face (sq. ft.) Maximum Total Area (sq. ft.) Maximum Total Area (sq. ft.) C-2/M-X 0 -10,000 25 100 75 80 80 10,000 - 20,000 25 200 100 80 80 20,000 - 50,000 25 250 150 80 80 50,000 - 200,000 25 300 150 80 80 Over 200,000 25 400 300 80 80 (The complete table is attached as an exhibit to the report) The table works by comparing the zoning and size of the property under question. The subject property is zoned C-2, and is 177,000 square feet in area. Therefore, it qualifies for 300 square feet of sign area according to the table above. ZONING ANALYSIS: Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards. As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the following prior to ruling on a variance. Below is staff’s analysis of each point. 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. The manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. Sign area variance: Signs are regulated because too much sign area impacts safety on the public streets by creating distractions and clutter. The amount of signage allowed in the ordinance was determined by the city to balance the need for businesses to identify their presence without creating a nuisance or hazard to those using the public streets. Given that the users of the public streets includes a mix of motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, it is important to maintain safety for all by minimizing distractions for all users of the public streets. Rooftop sign variance: City code specifically prohibits rooftop signs, and specifically identifies them as a hazard in the city code findings, “Installation of signs on the tops of buildings constitutes a hazard during periods of high winds and is an obstacle to effective firefighting and other emergency services.” 7 Additionally, in 2018, the city approved a four-story, 61-unit apartment building adjacent to the subject property. The proposed 390 square foot illuminated rooftop sign would be approximately 350 feet from the residences. See illustration below. The large illuminated rooftop sign poses a potential nuisance to the future residents. 2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. As noted above, the requested variances are contrary to the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Rooftop signs are specifically prohibitedin the city code, and specifically called out as a hazard because of the clutter, distraction and challenges they create. Below are a couple photographs of rooftop signs that used to exist in the city, and illustrate the clutter, distraction, and hazard they present, which is why the city decided to prohibit them. 8 The code allows up to 300 square feet of signs to be used by the property owner to identify the mall and its major tenants. The full 300 square feet of sign area was recently utilized by the property owner to construct a pylon sign in the parking lot which identifies the mall and its major tenants. A picture of the sign is to the left. In addition to the 300 square feet of sign area allowed for the property, each tenant is allowed to post a sign on their storefront as shown in the illustration below. The request for a total of 690 square feet of sign area, which is 130% more than what is allowed by code, is more sign area than allowed for any commercial property in the city. Allowing one commercial property to have a 130% increase in sign area and rooftop signs is not a consistent application of the ordinance, and is contrary to the ordinance. The sign area allowed by code and already present on the property is sufficient to identify the location of a business located in the mall. 3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The request is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The first Livable Communities goal of the comprehensive plan states, “Provide attractive public streets and spaces that contribute to creating connections and a sense of community”. One of the strategies listed to accomplish this goal states, “Continue to reduce the level of obtrusive signage within the City by promoting a balance between aesthetics, safety, and communication needs”. Additional strategies include, “Enhance commercial corridors’ compatibility with nearby residential areas.” 9 The request for a 390-square-foot rooftop sign, which city code prohibits, along with a request for a 130% increase in sign area is not consistent with the Livable Communities Goals of the comprehensive plan, nor is it compatible with the adjacent residences to the west as illustrated above. 4. Whether or not the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to setbacks and height limitations. While signs are permitted in the commercial district, rooftop signs are specifically called out in our code as prohibited. The prohibition is the result of an intentional decision of the city to prohibit signs on the rooftop, which it used to allow until 1985. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The applicant states that the signs are needed to improve visibility for its tenants. Staff notes that the subject property is not adjacent to either Highway 169 or Highway 7. It is located approximately 500 feet from Highway 7, with a Target store and its parking lot located between it and the highway. It is also approximately 700 feet from Highway 169 with several multi-story apartment buildings located between it and the highway. Not being adjacent to a highway is not a unique circumstance necessitating a variance. Similarly, development of property located between it and a highway is also not unique, and does not warrant a sign variance. The applicant also states that the slope of Highway 7, and the presence of the Target store diminish the visibility of the property. Staff finds that the property is visible from Highway 7, as illustrated by the photograph below. The signs on the subject property (outlined in yellow) are more visible from Highway 7 due to the elevation of the highway (approximately 29 feet above the grade of the parking lot). Also, there is not a substantial property right, especially for a property that is not abutting the highway, to be visible from a highway. 10 c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Rooftop signs were allowed by the city until 1985, and were commonly used until the city adopted an ordinance prohibiting them. The prohibition is the result of the city determining that they are a hazard, distraction, and contrary to the character and image the city. Additionally, the amount of signs allowed by code establishes the proper balance in this community between businesses’ need for identification and protecting the character of the community and neighborhood. Both variances, if approved, will have an adverse impact on the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. The applicant states that the grounds for the variance are the topography of the land and the nature of the surrounding properties. As noted above, staff finds the topography of the land benefits the subject property by creating clear sight lines over the Target parking lot. Additionally, not being located adjacent to the highway, nor having development between your property and the highway, are not grounds for sign variances. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This criterion is not applicable to this application. 5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the property including the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property. As noted above, the applicant states that the topography of the land and the presence of the Target store are unique circumstances. Staff, however, finds that there are no unique circumstances requiring a variance to the sign code. Not all commercial properties are adjacent to a highway, and the Highway 7 grade change improves visibility to the subject property instead of hindering it. 6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. All properties are allowed an amount of sign area as specified in the ordinance. Additionally, no properties in the city are allowed to construct a rooftop sign. Therefore, the request for 130% more sign area than other commercial properties of the same size are allowed, and a rooftop sign that no other business in the city is allowed to have, cannot be identified as a substantial property right. Businesses have the right to identify their location with signs. The subject property is allowed 300 square feet, plus tenant wall signs, to meet this need. Visibility from a highway is not a substantial property right, and especially if the property is not adjacent to the highway. 11 7. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. As noted above, the city allowed rooftop signs until 1985. The city began prohibiting rooftop signage in 1985 because they found that it constitutes a hazard during periods of high winds and is an obstacle to effective firefighting and other emergency services. Additionally, in order to minimize distractions to traffic and prevent visual clutter and visual pollution, the city regulates the amount of signs a property is allowed. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. As noted above, staff finds that a practical difficulty does not exist. The subject property is not adjacent to the highway, and it benefits from the Highway 7 elevation which improves sight lines over the Target parking lot. The applicant’s letter, dated January 28, 2019, states that the national tenants they recently signed leases with, including Aldi and Advance Auto Parts, and the tenants that already exist in the mall, such as Five Below and Dollar Tree all require highly visible signs. These tenants chose this location for various reasons, presumably its proximity to Target, traffic volumes in the area, and its visibility to adjacent streets and even Highway 7. Whereas staff finds these tenants may desire additional signs and the rooftop signs, the variances are not necessary for these businesses to operate. They signed leases with the property owner, two of them are already operating, a building permit was issued to the property owner to create the tenant spaces for Aldi and Advance Auto Parts, and Aldi has already applied for the building permit to finish its space. Staff believes these national tenants are prepared to occupy the building as is without the requested variances. It is worth noting that sign permits were issued for Aldi. They are permitted up to 114 square feet of signage on their front wall which is visible to highway 7. They requested 46 square feet. Below is an image of their proposed front façade, which includes their proposed signage. 12 Recommendation: Given the competitive nature of businesses and the role signs play in attracting the attention of people using the streets, it is imperative that the city adhere to the regulations adopted by the council and not grant variances to improve visibility of one business over the others unless a clear justification for the variance is established. Staff find the two variances do not meet the required findings and recommend denial of the request for a variance to Section 36-362(e)(4) to allow a rooftop sign, and denial of the request for a variance to Section 36-362(f)(19) & Table 36-362A to allow 690 square feet of sign area instead of the maximum allowed 300 square feet. Attachments: Table 36-362A Draft Resolution Applicant letter with attachments Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor 13 TABLE 36-362A SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT Use District &Lot Size (sq ft) Maximum Sign Height (feet) PERMANENT SIGNAGE TEMPORARY SIGNAGE REAL ESTATE SIGNAGE Maximum Total Area (sq ft) Maximum Size of Sign Face (sq ft) Maximum Total Area (sq ft) Maximum Total Area (sq ft) R-1 6 2 2 6 6 R-2 6 2 2 6 6 R-3 0-15,000 6 2 2 6 6 Over 15,000 6 25 25 25 60 R-4 0-30,000 10 40 40 25 80 Over 30,000 10 60 60 25 80 R-C 0 - 30,000 15 60 40 25 80 Over 30,000 15 100 60 25 80 C-1 0 -10,000 25 100 75 80 80 10,000 - 20,000 25 150 100 80 80 Over 20,000 25 200 150 80 80 C-2/M-X 0 -10,000 25 100 75 80 80 10,000 - 20,000 25 200 100 80 80 20,000 - 50,000 25 250 150 80 80 50,000 - 200,000 25 300 150 80 80 Over 200,000 25 400 300 80 80 O 0 - 20,000 25 100 100 80 80 20,000 - 50,000 25 200 100 80 80 50,000 - 100,000 25 300 150 80 80 Over 100,000 25 500 300 80 80 I-P /I-G/ BP 0 - 20,000 25 100 75 80 80 20,000 - 50,000 25 200 100 80 80 50,000 – 100,000 25 250 150 80 80 100,000– 200,000 25 300 300 80 80 Over 200,000 25 400 300 80 80 POS 0-30 acres 15 80 60 80 0 Over 30 acres 25 450 150 80 0 14 BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A ROOFTOP SIGN AND DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW 690 SQUARE FEET OF SIGN AREA INSTEAD OF THE 300 SQUARE FEET ALLOWED FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8906-8912 STATE HIGHWAY 7 BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. Thomas Hultgren, on behalf of the property owner Gator Knollwood Partners, LTD applied for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36- 362(e)(4) to allow a rooftop sign, and Section 36-362(f)(19) to allow 690 square feet of sign area instead of the maximum allowed 300 square feet. 2. The property is located at 8906-8912 State Highway 7 and described below as follows, to wit: Lot 2, Block 1, Target Second Addition 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 18-73- VAR on February 28, 2019. 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variances do not meet the requirements of Section 36-34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings: a. Granting of the variance would create an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The purpose of the sign regulations is to permit a safe, efficient, effective and aesthetic means of communication using signs which is adequate for effective communication but minimizes distractions to traffic and prevents visual clutter and visual pollution which can be caused by the unregulated use of signs. b. The safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and other users of the public streets and property are affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that divert the attention of drivers; and c. Installation of signs on the tops of buildings constitutes a hazard during periods of high winds and is an obstacle to effective firefighting and other emergency services. d. The proposed 390-square-foot illuminated rooftop sign may create a nuisance for a four-story apartment building approved in 2018 which is located approximately 350 feet from the requested sign. 15 e. The requested variances are not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan establishes strategy to reduce the level of obtrusive signs within the city by promoting a balance between aesthetics, safety, and communication needs and to enhance commercial corridors’ compatibility with nearby residential areas. A rooftop sign and a 130 percent increase in sign area is not consistent with these strategies. f. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other extraordinary conditions on the lot which necessitates the requested variances. Highway 7 is approximately 29 feet above the elevation of the subject property which improves the sight lines from the highway to the subject property. g. Granting the requested variances is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. While signs are permitted in all zoning districts, rooftop signs are not permitted in any of the zoning districts in the city. The request for rooftop signs would allow the property a type of signage that no other property has a right to install. Additionally, the property is permitted 300 square feet of sign area, which is the same allowed for all properties of that size in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district. The property is visible from Highway 7 and other adjacent roads; therefore, no variances for signs are warranted. h. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships or difficulties under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variances do not exist. 5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 18-03-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby denies the requested variance to allow a rooftop sign and denies a variance to allow 690 square feet of sign area instead of the maximum 300 square feet allowed for property located at 8906 – 8912 Highway 7. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: February 28, 2019 Effective date: March 11, 2019 ___________________________ Justin Kaufman, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator 16 January 28, 2019 Gary Morrison Assistant Zoning Administrator | City of St. Louis Park 5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Office: 952-924-2592 gmorrison@stlouispark.org RE: Additional Allotted Signage Square Footage Requested for Roof Sign – Knollwood Village – 8906-8950 State Highway 7, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Dear Mr. Morrison: Gator Knollwood Partners. Ltd. is the owner of the shopping center known as Knollwood Village located at 8906-8950 State Highway 7. This letter is in reference to the Variance Application we are filing requesting additional signage area to be allotted for the addition of a roof sign on our premises. This past summer, we opened a Five Below store and have signed leases for Aldi and Advance Auto Parts. These three tenants along with the previously existing Dollar Tree are high traffic, national tenants who require highly visible sign language. In order to continue to revitalize this sight, it is necessary to have identification of each tenant, especially the large, national tenants. In keeping with this concept, we have just installed a new pylon sign to the maximum code allowed square footage and we plan to redo the whole shopping center’s storefront façade within the next 6 months. We seek this variance to increase the allotted signage square footage allowed for a shopping center to include the square footage needed for the roof sign that will further invigorate and preserve the retail environment of Knollwood Village. This roof sign will not in any way be a detriment to public safety or general welfare of the neighborhood. We believe the increased visibility afforded our tenants will greatly assist in allowing the continued revitalization of this shopping center. The success of these national retail tenants and the accompanying effect for the local tenants will be a great asset to the City of St. Louis Park. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Thomas Hultgren Project Manager Gator Knollwood Partners, Ltd By: Gator Knollwood Investors, Inc Its: General Partner GATOR |.W Y V V T M V H T V 17 HARDSHIP & VARIANCE SUPPORT STATEMENTS 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon health, safety and welfare of the community. The applicant submits that the proposed variance will have no effect on health, safety and welfare of the community. The permission sought is to place a sign in a commercial district which is not unusual nor does is cause any threat to health, safety or welfare. 2. The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant believes the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The area in question is commercial. Both the city and the applicant share a desire for the success of commercial properties and visibility of the property in question will be enhanced by the presence of the requested sign. The request is therefore in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance which would be to promote commercial activity in the area in question. 3. The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant believes the request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will promote success of the commercial property. 4. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. This means that: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items. In effect, this is a request for a variance of dimensional items. Signs are permitted in the district. This sign is not expected to be materially different from other signs in the area. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. This criteria is easily met. As a driver travels on Highway 7, the slope of the land, and the presence of the Target store closer to Highway 7 both substantially diminish the visibility of the applicant’s property. These are circumstances unique to the topography of the land and the neighboring properties, and were not created by the landowner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Another sign in the commercial district will not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. 18 The practical difficulties in this case arise from the topography of the land and the nature of the surrounding properties, not solely the economic considerations of the applicant. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. N/A 5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. As set forth above, the topography of the land coupled with the shape of the road and the presence of the neighboring Target store are unique circumstances causing the property owned by the applicant to have diminished visibility which will be addressed by the requested sign. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The applicant’s property is commercial and it has the property right to maximize value of its property. The ordinance, as written now, unnecessarily limits that economic value by limiting the visibility of the property so that drivers who are traveling on Highway 7 and may be inclined to visit the property would not do so. It is a substantial property right of the applicant to seek to maximize exposure of this commercial property. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Nothing about a new sign will raise any risk of the foregoing. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. The practical difficulty is established above. Granting of the variance will address that practical difficulty in a way that nothing else can. It is not merely a convenience. 19 0@©*0©s®«>-i$inlIsOm61*Ke’SjrSvSjrETS„I8'8II1tillms:fid«|Z!ftpSlf51?^llif11....IsSfe!Slpliisniliil!'”|!in|If$ti!Msfll3|S8«;f£|fiflifj{IllIlit;SI6ifiB%IS'4i1rInIsuaio§§1°§>-»i§"|mrKSCOCOIi10§0-fi-ilm"fal:Is!"o?5nsJM*HII••2s»-°fif^<5piiIIII5IfIf{i8n!FVl•:is*i1011§1smmSi!I2Ssi5i53IianmCO5|;Iz3!snHiI?aif“•isI21if!fi;l»lf1»iiIEl§HARRYS.JOHNSONCO.,INC.LANDSURVEYORSCONSULTANTSBLOOMINGTON,MINNESOTAPHONE:952-884-5341FAX:952-884-5344Emal:h^nto®h8)surveyOfS.comf°-Ii20 PHILLIPSPARKWAY-7LOrr%OOo%rtno-ArS\°C>7i21 KnollwoodVillage-GoogleMaps8/7/2018GogleMapsKnollwoodVillageImagery©2018Google,Mapdata©2018Google50fthttps://www.google.com/maps/place/Knollwood+ViIlage/@44.9326407,-93.3944701,260a,35y,353.28h,44.95t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x87f620693b58468d:0x20abf1270d9218b1!8m2!3d44.936738...1/122 23 V .V'\\ >*•v'*v K *44 /1 v1-.tVi 24 8/7/2018MN-7-GoogleMapsMN-7Imagecapture:Aug2017©2018GoogleHopkins,MinnesotaPGoogle,Inc.StreetView-Aug2017IV%https://www.google.eom/maps/@44.9346025,-93.3940198,3a,37.5y,31.78h,86.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw0QGTP1PHZSiHjXSIR4cug!2e0!7i13312!8i66561/225 8/7/2018MN-7-GoogleMapsGogleMapsMN-7ImagecaptureAug2017©2018GoogleHopkins,MinnesotaP*Google,Inc.StreetView-Aug2017%**https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9346025,-93.3940198,3a,75y,31.78h,86.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sw0QGTP1PHZSiHjXSIR4cug!2e0!7i13312!8i66561/226 8/7/20188998MN-7-GoogleMapseMaps8998MN-7Imagecapture:Nov2017©2018GoogleHopkins,MinnesotapPGoogle,Inc.StreetView-Nov2017https://www.google.com/maps/(a)44.9347436,-93.3942832,3a,75y,52.34h,89.78t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY8AHWauVIKgmHVyk1NE5UQ!2e0!7i13312!8i66561/227 B/*"’p^.o-i28 PROPOSED LOCATION OF RAISED SIGNAGE WALL FACING HIGHWAY-7 FUTURE ALDI (SPRING 2019) FIVE BELOW KNOLLWOOD VILLAGE PROPOSED RAISED SIGNAGE OPTION- W.7- REV.6 8950 Highway 7, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (12.21.18- SB) 29 SOUTH ELEVATION VIEW FROM HWY. 7 KNOLLWOOD VILLAGE PROPOSED RAISED SIGNAGE OPTION- W.7- REV.6 8950 Highway 7, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (12.21.18- SB) Level V3 45'-0" Level 12 40'-0"£ Level _11_35'-0"Level 10 32'-0" V Level 9 3 0'-0 Level 8 25'-0 Level 7 V 2 0'-0 Level 6 1 8'-0' Level 5 1 5'-0 Level 4 12 '-0" Level 3 V10'-0 Level 2 %7'-0" Level 1 0'-0" 30 KNOLLWOOD VILLAGE PROPOSED RAISED SIGNAGE OPTION- W.7- REV.6 8950 Highway 7, St. Louis Park, MN 55426 (12.21.18- SB) 31 A ’*-. r4 Advance AutoPartsIS"wu MU LI J.U,;.1\I ,2saA,i /SS!S=I I I.S i 'l l /J In\!\II m 32