CR 97-03 Sign Variance-903 Main StreetDecember 31, 1996
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 97 -2 denying a sign
variance at 903 Mainstreet
At the December 30 Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Blair moved and Ms. Boen seconded a
motion to approve Resolution RZ96 -21, recommending denial of a sign variance at 903
Mainstreet The motion carried unanimously.
Overview.
The applicant, Hillary Feder, is proposing to install a perpendicular sign at 903 Mainstreet.
The subject building is located in the B -2 zoning district. The zoning ordinance allows the
type of signage proposed, but in this case the building already has more signage than allowed
by the zoning ordinance.
The subject sign will be three square feet per side. Ms Feder is requesting a sign variance to
allow more signage on the building than allowed. The building is allowed 52 square feet of
signage, the building already exceeds the signage allowed by eight square feet.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What are the sign requirements for the B -2 zoning district?
o What is the applicant requesting?
o What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
o What can the applicant do for signage?
o What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Sign diagram
o Resolution 97 -2
t S I L IB ,L
Nan . Anderson, AICP
Planner
SIGN VARIANCE- -903 MAINSTREET
Council Report 97 -3
•
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What is the applicant requesting?
CR97 -3
Page 2
o What are the sign requirements for the B - 2 zoning district?
The B -2 zoning district is allowed two square feet of signage per front foot of building. The
subject building is allowed 52 square feet of signage. The building currently has 60 square
feet of signage without the new sign being requested. The building has a 4' x 12' and a 3' x 4'
square foot sign.
Perpendicular signs are allowed in the B -2 zoning district. The requirements are three square
feet per side and 24 inches from the face of the building.
The applicant is requesting a perpendicular sign of three square feet per side for a total of six
square feet. This sign will exceed the maximum signage allowed for the building.
o What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
The zoning ordinance requires that a variance be granted because of undue hardship due to
circumstances peculiar and unique to such parcel. The property is not unlike any of the
properties on Mainstreet. The problem with this building is that one tenant has taken most of
the allowed signage for the building, limiting the other tenants to very limited signage. The
existing sign ordinance allows for the building to have enough signage if the signage was
shared.
Although the applicant's request is small, the other tenant in the building who also does not
have great sign visibility can also request a sign variance and can claim that they are entitled to
a variance because they have no sign. A variance could be requested on every multi -tenant
building in the City.
o What can the applicant do for signage?
The applicant can put signage on the front window or the signage on the building can be
re -done to accommodate all the tenants in the building (window signage is not regulated).
The applicant could take the small sign down which would allow four square feet additional
signage. The applicant can put up a perpendicular sign of two square feet per side.
o What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Staff reviewed the applicant request with the Commission. Ms. Feder, the applicant had
written a letter to the Commission stating that she could not be at the meeting and asking the
Commission to approve the variance. The Commission indicated that this was an issue
between the landlord and tenant and not something for which a variance could be granted.
The Commission indicated that if this variance was granted, it would open the door for more
CR97 -3
Page 3
variances to be granted. The Planning Commission discussed other options for the applicant.
The following options were discussed:
Alternatives.
o Redo the existing large sign so all the tenants have signage.
o Add window signage for the applicant.
o Make the address larger on the building.
1. Approve the sign variance. By approving the sign variance, the applicant will be able to
erect the signage as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative, findings will
have to be identified that support this alternative.
2. Deny the sign variance. By denying the sign variance, the applicant will not be able to
erect the sign as proposed.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
4-
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN96 -3 made by Hillary Feder to erect a sign at 903
Mainstreet is denied.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN96 -3 is hereby
denied based on the following Findings of Fact;
1. That the applicant does not have a unique hardship to warrant the granting of a
variance.
2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property without the granting of the
variance.
Adopted this 7th day of January 1997.
ATTEST:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN96 -3 was filed with the City of Hopkins on December
2, 1996;
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a meeting on the
application and reviewed such application on December 30, 1996;
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City Staff and the Planning Commission
were considered;
4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows:
That part of Lot 11 lying east of a line running from a point in north line of said lot
distant 30.97 feet west from northeast corner thereof thence southeasterly 105.09
feet to a point distance 25.88 feet west measured at right angles from the east line
of said lot thence continue southerly to a point in south line thereof distance 25.88
feet west from southeast comer thereof, Lot 11, Block 68, West Minneapolis
Second Division.
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 97 -2
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCE
AT 903 MAINSTREET
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor