Variance Board Resolution_112 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WHEREAS, the Variance Board has made the following findings: a. The code-compliant way to promote the St. Rose of Lima 75th Anniversary jubilee is an unreasonable requirement, limiting legible font size and restricting the number of days to promote such a very special and infrequent event. Such compliance would eliminate very tastefully designed signs, minimize promotion opportunities, and potentially create driver issues along Hamline Avenue created by viewing smaller, more difficult wording. It is these restrictions that represent the practical difficulty of the variance request; b. Signage, as a general rule, is considered to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to its encouragement of business growth and development throughout the City through the advertising of a specific business and/or the events they undertalce, which supports or encourages such growth. c. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinances because, while the temporary sign regulations support specifically sized signs and their duration, the code does not conterriplate unique events that occur from time to time. As a way to ensure the proposal adheres to the purpose of the Zoning Code, an approval of the variance can include conditions related to the overall size of the 2 promotional signs and their duration. § 1010.07.A3 (Size) limits size to 32 sq. ft., which would be impractical for promoting this event, especially if placing in an area that is 24 feet wide and 36 feet tall. Further, § 1010.07.A4 (Duration) limits the duration of temporary signs to 60 days, however, such events typically are promoted for several months so including a removal date of September 20, 2015, would be reasonable. d. "Reasonable" use of the property would be constrained without a variance because strict compliance with the Zoning Code would effectively require signage that would minimize the promotion of such a very special and infrequent event. Planning Division staff believes that the proposal makes reasonable use of the subject property because the larger sign and its proposed installation location does not look out of place for the building or site, even though the proposal is 4 times the allowance. In addition, the two proposed location identified for the temporary signs are not considered a traffic or visibility concern. Specifically, the Hamline location, being setback a fair distance from the street, should not cause driver focus issues, especially given the legible size of wording on the temporary sign. Similarly, the sign on the bacic of the building will only be viewed by those using the parking lot and drivers using the adjacent eastern streets. e. The property possesses the kind of unique characteristics that justify approval of the requested variance for a number of reasons: first, temporary signs and the sorts of events they support are regulated no differently if proposed in the commercial, employment, or institutional districts. More than 95% of all temporary sign permits are business-related and cover mostly the commercial and employment districts; second, it is rare to receive a request in these districts for something larger than the maximum sign allowed; third, the lion's share of non-compliant permits are those that seelc a banner; fourth, institutional uses are somewhat unique in that they are more of a public gathering type use and in the case of schools and churches usually draw from a nearby neighborhood. Such uses usually have large structures but only have one or two modest signs on the premises; lastly, Planning Division staff believes that the 75`�' anniversary jubilee and the proposed Page 2 of 4