CR 92-180 Sign Variance - 917 Mainstreet
~-----~_._-
(' 1
"i' \ \ y, 0 I
m
.y , '"
. August 17, 1992 op K t ~, Council Report 92-180
SIGN VARIANCE - 917 MAINSTREET
proposed Aotion.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution 92-74A denying a sig~ variance at 917 Mainstreet.
Mr. Johnson moved and Mr. Gullickson seconded a motion to
approve a sign variance (Resolution 92-74B) for a
perpendicular sign at 917 Mainstreet. The vote was 6-1, Ms.
Reuter voting nay.
overview.
The applicant, the owner of the property at 917 Mainstreet
is requesting a variance to erect a perpendicular sign that
is larger, lower and further into the right-of-way than
allowed. The applicant is proposing to erect this
perpendicular sign on the front of the building.
The building at 917 Mainstreet is a multi-tenant building
and the applicant has indicated that the proposed sign will
help customers find the businesses located in the building.
The proposed sign does not meet the size, height or
projection requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
~ The staff reviewed the proposed sign and the recommendations
of the Business Council. The Business Council was in favor
of the sign variance. Jean Mason, the applicant, appeared
before the Commission. There was a great deal of discussion
on the building, the mansard roof to the east of the sign,
the size of the sign, the number of tenants, and various
al ternatives. There was no one in the aUdience to speak
regarding this sign.
primary Issues to Consider.
o What does the Ordinance allow?
o What the specifics of the proposed sign?
o What are the standards for granting a variance?
o What hardship does the property have?
o Does the applicant have any other options?
o What is the staff recommendation?
o What was the Business Council's recommendation?
supporting Doouments.
o Analysis of Issues
o sign Diagram
o Resolution R92-74A
o Resolution R92-74B
. .
, Nancy S. Anderson, Planner
~--,..'" --
t', Y:,
CR92-180
Page 2
, . primary Issues to Consider.
o What does the Ordinanoe allow?
Permitted use Maximum area
Name plate or symbol in The area of such signs
the shape or form that shall not exceed three
denotes the nature of the square feet and shall
business being conducted extend no more than 24
within, at right angles inches from the wall or
to the building wall are side of the building to
permitted at intervals of which said sign is
not less than 15 feet attached and shall be
mounted no lower than ten
. feet from the sidewalk
o What are the speoifics of the proposed sign?
The proposed sign will be used by a multiple tenant
building. Several tenants are proposed to be on the sign.
The proposed sign will be 5' x 3', which is 15 square feet.
The sign is proposed to hang 4'6" from the wall and be 8'6"
from the sidewalk.
. The proposed sigh does not meet the size, height or distance
from the building requirements.
o what are the standards for granting a varianoe?
A variance is a modification of the terms of the zoning
ordinance in order to provide relief to a property owner in
those cases where the ordinance imposes undue hardship to
the property owner in the use of his land. The hardship
must not have been created the action of the landowner.
Some factors used in determining whether a landowner has
incurred undue hardship are the-following:
1. Does the landowner have reasonable use of the property?
2. Does the property have a unique circumstance? If the
hardship is common to several properties the variance
cannot be granted.
In this case the landowner has reasonable use of the
property and the circumstance is not unique to the property.
For example, there are other properties along Mainstreet
which are located adjacent to businesses with mansard roofs
or awnings.
.
,,"" ."\
CR92-180
Page 3
. By granting a variance in this case could allow other uses
that need a conditional use p~rmi t for a sign to also be
granted a variance.
0 What hardship does the property have?
The applicant has indicated that the hardship is that they
are unable to lease the building and the sign is needed for
potential customers to quickly identify that there are
several businesses located in the building.
0 Does the applioant have any other options?
The applicant does have an area on the building to use as
signage for the building. A sign can be placed on the brick
area in the front of the building showing all the tenants.
Also, the applicant can put up the smaller perpendicular
signs on the building.
0 What is the staff reoommendation?
The proposed sign will be large when compared to the
existing perpendicular signs. The proposed sign will be 5
times larger than allowed by the ordinance. The proposed
. will also be in the right-of:"way twice what is
sJ.gn over
. allowed.
When the sign ordinance was changed to allow perpendicular
signs, there was a great deal of discussion on the
requirements for the sign. It was decided that these signs
were not to be large and the signs would be limi ted to 3
square feet.'
The height of the signs was also discussed at great lengths.
It was decided that "10 feet would be a good height because
at a lower height the sighs still could be tampered with and
be a safety hazard.
The applicant has indicated that they are unable ,to lease
the building and that the proposed sign will help potential
customers to quickly identify that there are several
businesses located in the building.
The applicants reason for a variance is similar to many
other buildings in the downtown area. By granting a
variance would allow all the other multi-tenant property
owners to also receive a varianee.
0 Business counoil reoommendation
. The Business Council was generally in favor of the sign
variance. The mansard roof on the building to the east was
felt ,to be a hardship. It was also suggested that if the
-- -----
,',. .
CR92-180
Page 4
. mansard roof is removed, the sign should be brought into
conformance with the Ordinance.
Alternatives.
1. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able
to erect a sign which does not conform to current code.
2. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able
to erect a non-conforming 9ign.
3. continue for further information. If the City Council
indicates that further information is needed the item
should be continued.
.
.
.
.
~! i .hlJ ~ 17(84) (110)6 ~ f ~ 19 (97) (8~)! _ ~
- l, ;::s ~ 16(83) (111)7 ~ ~, ..18 (9~ (8S) 7 ~
'I ~ ~ 15(82) _ _ (/I2j8'/ " 17' (87) 8 ~
I' ~h) h) '"
, S ~ 14(81) ~ ::::;. .16(95) (88) 9 :::::
. ,C)~):l\ 0') C)
(65)10 ::::: , Q .13(80) Q /5(94) (89) 10 :::::
10 I~ ~ 10
(66)11 ~ ~ 12(79) (95) 9 ~ Q 14 (93) Q
---~
(67)12 ~ ~ II (78) 10. ...., 13 (92 ~
'STREET
73-65 ~ 24(54 (41)1 ~
---- ~
59-63 _ _ _ ~ 23(53 (42) 2 ~ I 1<),
~ (43)3 ,~ ~ 20(77
11-49 ~ 4 I ~ 19(7S (62)2
~ (44)5 -:-~ '~ 18(75) (6;3
63) - - - ' - - -
.~ 6 [ (64) 4
~~ '.,.
I ',.,' 18,. , I . 7 ~ 5
--'7-'1-8- ~ ,~-,;1i/.3lff8-~ 'I (S5)S '"
?/-29 - - - -f I ~on - :::: -' - -I 1- - -- 7 .
IS .-9 . ,. IS 9
I I T I
15t'413~'2111 101
~) ( I (46 '
It) .... ~
.... " '-1
F::: ::::: r::::: r:::::
'; '"
I ~[
J 7 27 ; L - 1.. -,:,': '
25 I r:- - - r, ~ ;- - - -1' 8 !Q' 27(117
1(85)8 ' '" 26' r-- - - ,
- i, .... '-3,'9 ~ ,~; ~
~ 4 , 9 ~ - -2'5 r":" - -. 26(1/6 9'
- -. - - - "" ::.H"'fI) 10 ' I IW)
~3' I' 10 ~7"- ~ -..:... :", ___ C\/ 25(1/5 (02)10:
, -,,- - - - . ,~4 , 43) I ' .
:2 I I /I - "": - q'J..,.- .....;,~ ," , I 24(114 (103)// , ::
;-J i(;.".. - - ~ ;:J::.. '-:'22~" ;(44)J~ : i3;j- 0, _~. 004H. fil ;:,...
- -/ ~ - '- - (\. ~ J. ~4~lJ (45):~3 I<) ". IJ::,' ,,'~
~8~) '... ~:.. _ ~ ~ " 21:,!, ',4 C), Q) ~:- -- ~ I " "
3 "/4 .,', ,"""- - - -, r- - - - """- - - -,I' 1<)21(113;, '(/06)14 QJ....
- 1/_ - - 144) , 19(72) (S7) 14 20 " I . 15' ;' , , '. " . ,
I ' } I ?, , , - - - - ..... ~ - - - '. 20 ,. /5 ~
_ /5 18 (13()-;'143) 15 19, (~45) 16 ~ - - --11- - - '
'I 10 --- --I :-- -.-- -... - /" ., '" /9(150) 16 ~
1/(87)IS '" 17 110;':'1127 16 I~"(j7 (4~) 17 - 18 -;... - -
1ST -.. ,~STR~ET SO.-
~ 18 (1/4) (102)/ ",Q . _ _'8~,I:l ~I.::.. _L ~~J I I ~_
~ 17 (f~ (103)2' Q 17 f,r 2' - r ;. ~
0) , ---- L__.....l 3
Q 16 (/12) (I~3 -..: g /6 :'f', 3 I I I
~ /5 (Ill) _ _4_ _ . _'5'J :~2~~ _ L _ _ J ,(6)
::::: /4 (I/O) 14' I' 5 r I
~'/3(109) -6 - -I~-' --6" - : ;
Ie) - - ~ I (5) I
(93) ~ j ~ 12 (108) (I05)? ~ _
<:J 0') ---
!., a IV) (\, " (,,,..,., -
.l. ~e <C,J
;.-~ ---.. () - ~ -
. ~K ~ l. .1&
't.
U!~;;
rlri >
.y;.: . .u . ~ .
. t.~ .~t') ~ ill 2 .,.,
.. ~ ,7 V)
~ ~/J ~ tt."
i , ~ '~ ~ - '1
~ ~
~ :t I
::>4- 1
- ~
1
.. j I
.
~
. ~ . l.
.....\ ;r.-
.
. .... ~ .
~ f " .
.
.J
.
- ~
. ~ ~ }... I - O\...~
-t". I I
~ tl' .
) .
I
. .3 i
- I.
.
, (). - ..- :
--
cJ .
# .
--- .
- ..i;~. .
.
I · :- J .
.
. J-.. ..
.
~ .
f .
- ~ .
.~ .
I
V
i ~j .-..
;'. .
I - J"
;z. . ,
~. I -..J .
..j
r' .' .-,
. .
-....
. ....
-....
~ .. .-. I
,.
. (': -', i ..
..
<t.
'. ... .~ . ,----.-
\ ~
..i .,
.' . v -;; (}1- (J I
.
I
, 11 I I
,
i. .
.. ~ ~ ......-. ,.-
, ,
~- .~-_..~- ~-- .-- -
~-
.' - '"
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota'
RESOLUTION NQ: R92-74A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Var iance titled VN 92-2 made by Jean
Mason is denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for VN92-2 was filed with the city
of Hopkins on May 29, 1992.
,1--
2. That the Hopkins Planning commission reviewed such
application on August 25, 1992.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a hearing on August 25, 1992: all
persons present at the hearing were given an
opportunity to be heard.
. 4. That the written comments and analysis of the City
Staff and the Planning commission were considered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN 92-2 is hereby
denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the subject property does not have the hardship needed
for a variance.
2. That the subject property does not have a unique .
circumstance required for a variance.
Adopted this 1st day of September, 1992.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
.
. James A. Genellie, City Clerk
,
.. " ,: '/'}.
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION N0: R92-74B
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-2 made by Jean Mason is
approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for VN 92-2 was filed with the City of
Hopkins on May 29, 1992.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on August 25, 1992.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a hearing on August 25, 1992: all persons
present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be
heard.
4. That the written comments and analysis of the City Staff and
the Planning Commission were considered.
.OW .
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN 92-2 is hereby
approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the mansard roof on the abutting property creates a hardship
as it blocks the view of the signage on the applicants building.
2. That the applicant's multi tenant building has internal tenants
which creates a hardship as they do not have their own area to
post signage visible to the public.
3. That the applicant's building configuration is a unique
circumstance in the downtown as it contains a public walk-through
area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for VN92-2 is hereby approved
subject to the following Conditions:
1. That the proposed sign is 10 feet in height.
2. That at such time the mansard roof on the adjacent property is
removed, the applicant's sign will be brought into conformance
with the Ordinance.
.
Adopted this 1st day of September, 1992.
. Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, city Clerk