Loading...
CR 93-170 Sign Variance - Now Sports ~ . ". (I \ i YO' '-1 . ..,'- . September 29, 1993 -$' 0 ~ Counc1.l Report 93-170 P K \ SIGN VARIANCE - NOW SPORTS ProDosedAction. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 93-109 denYing a sign 'variance at 426/430 Mainstreet. At the september 28 Zoning and Planning meeting Mr. Winship moved and Mr. Racek seconded a motion to approve Resolution RZ 93-19, denying the sign variance at 426/430 Mainstreet. The motion was approved on a 5-1 vote. Mr. Hutchison voting nay. Overview. The applicant, Now Sports, recently had a sign painted on the west side of their building. This sign is 10' x 15', which is 150 square feet. The sign is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance allows a maximum sign size of 80 square feet in the B-3 district. Also, the applicant's sign painter did not secure a permit the sign. '. The applicant has now made application for a sign permit. He is also requesting approval of a variance to allow the subject sign to remain. Primary Issues to Consider. o What options does the applicant have.? o Does the applicant's property have a hardship? o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property? o Is this sign grandfathered? SupDorting Documents. o Analysis of Issues o Sign sketch o Resolution 93-109 ~~ . Anderson, AICP . . " CR93-170 Page2 . primary Issues to Consider. o What options does the applicant have? The applicant has three options which include the following: 1. Remove the sign. 2. Repaint the sign to meet the requirements of the B-3 district for signs. 3. Secure approval of a variance. It should be noted that staff is generally not supportive of variance requests after the fact as it encourages individuals to undertake activities in violation of the Zoning Ordinance knowing that they can request a variance later. o Does the applicant's property have a hardship? The Zoning Ordinance requires the property in question to have a hardship that is unique to the property. In this case the applicant has stated that his business is slow and therefore wants more visibility. There is nothing unique, to the applicant's property that would justify a unique hardship situation. Seve~al years ago the Ordinance was changed to permit . a maximum size of 80 square feet in the B-3 district to control the size of the signs on Mainstreet. o Does the applicant have reasonable use of..the property? The applicant is using the west part of the building for retail space and will continue to use the property forret,ail space with or without the sign variance. He has the ability to provide a sign which complies with the zoning Ordinance. o Is this sign grandfathered? Robert Sumada and Paul Himmelman, representing Now Sports, appeared before the Commission. They explained there had been a sign painted on the west side of the building for a number of years. This sign was removed and there had been no sign for about a year. They stated the new sign in question is the same size as the original. There was discussion regarding whether the sign wasgrandfathered because of the previous larger sign in the past. Staff informed the Commission that when a sign is removed, any new sign which is put up would have to conform to the existing sign ordinance. If the original sign was retained it could have been maintained and would be grandfathered under the Ordinance. The staff noted that . other signs painted on walls, when repainted" have received permits and conformed with the existing ordinance. ..- '" . . CR93~ 170 Page3 . Alternatives. 1. Approve the sign variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be allow to keep the sign. 2. Deny the sign variance. By denying the var.iance, the applicant will have to remove the sign. 3. continue for further information. If the Planning 'Commission indicates that further information is needed the item should be continued. . . - -- ------~ .- ,~;;', ~ . . CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 93-109 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING A SIGN VARIANCE AT 426/430 MAINSTREET WHEREAS, an application for a variance VN93-5, made by Now Sports to allow a sign which is larger than the Ordinance allows, to remain painted on the west side of their building is denied. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a variance VN93-5 was filed with the City of Hopkins on August 30, 1993. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on September 28, 1993: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard. 3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff and . the Planning commission were considered. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for variance VN93-5 is hereby denied based on the following Findings of ,Fact: 1. That the applicant's property does not have an undue hardship to justify granting the sign variance. 2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property. A Adopted this 5th day of October, 1993. Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor ATTEST: James A. Genellie, city Clerk -