CR 99-80 Variance - Hopkins Bowling Alley Sign
CITY OF
~
NaPKINS
. April 29, 1999 Council Report 99-80
VARIANCE-HOPKINS BOWLING ALLEY SIGN
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 99-33A denying a
variance to allow a larger and higher sign than permitted at 107 Shady Oak Road.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Ms, Boen moved and Mr. Gross seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZ99-4, recommending approval of a sign variance at 107 Shady Oak
Road, The motion carried unanimously, Resolution 99-33B is the resolution approved by
the Commission,
Overview,
Hopkins Family Bowling Center currently has a sign located along Shady Oak Road, The
existing sign is shaped like a bowling ball, The existing sign does not meet the zoning
requirements for size, Shady Oak Road is proposed to be reconstructed. Because of the
reconstruction of Shady Oak Road, the existing sign will have to be moved. Once the sign is
taken down, it looses its grandfather status,
e Situations such as this are good opportunities for the elimination of non-conforming signage
in the City,
Primary Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property?
. What is the required size and height for a sign in the B-3 district?
. What are the specifics of the sign?
. Why does the sign need a variance?
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
. Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property?
. What is the staff recommendation?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supportin2DoClIllll"lIts,
. Analysis ofIssues
. Site Plan
. Resolution 99-33A
. Resolution 99-338
e ~~arrl~
Nancy SAnderson, AlCP
Planner
CR99-80
Page 2
. Primal"\' Issues to Consider,
. What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned B-3, General Business,
. What is the required size and height for a sign in the B-3 district?
The maximum size allowed for a sign in the B-3 district is 80 square feet The maximum
height for a sign is 35 feet
. What are the specifics of the sign?
The sign is approximately 200 square feet per side and 42 feet high,
. Why does the sign need a variance?
The sign as it exists is grandfathered, The zoning ordinance states the following: no
structure shall be erected, converted, enlarged, reconstructed or altered, and no structure or
land shall be used for any purpose nor in any manner which is not in conformity with the
provisions of this code,
. The rationale for this section is that once a non-conformity is removed it will not be replaced
with the same non-conformity,
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance is a modification or variation from the
provisions of this code or variation from its provisions granted by the board and applied to a
specific parcel of property because of undue hardship due to circumstances peculiar and
unique to such parcel. The Zoning Ordinance also states the following: that the Commission
must find that the literal enforcement of the provision of the Zoning Ordinance would cause
an undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration, and that the granting of a variance to the extent necessary to compensate for
said hardship is in keeping with the intent of this code,
In this case the subject property has no undue hardship, There is nothing unique to the
applicant's propel1y that prohibits a sign that meets requirements of the zoning ordinance to
be erected, The subject propel1y has no undue hardship for the granting of the variance,
. Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property?
The applicant will be able to use the property with a sign that meets the zoning ordinance
e requirements,
CR99-80
Page 3
. . What is the staff recommendation?
Staff would recommend denial of the variance for the sign, This recommendation is based
on the fact that the property does not have a hardship for the granting of the variance,
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms, Anderson reviewed the applicant's request with the Commission, Gene Wright, the
applicant, and Larry Marofsky, the applicant's lawyer, appeared before the Commission, Mr,
Marofsky stated that the existing sign is a landmark and identifies the business, He also
stated that the County is necessitating the removal of the sign and this is not the fault of Mr,
Wright. The Commission noted that the sign has not been maintained,
Alternatives,
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to erect the
existing sign after the road construction is completed, If the City Council recommends
this alternative, Resolution 99-33B will be adopted.
2, Deny the variance, By recommending denial of the variance, the applicant will not be
able to erect the existing sign, If the City Council recommends this alternative,
. Resolution 99-33A will be adopted,
3. Continue for further information, If the City Council indicates that fulther information is
needed, the item should be continued,
.
~ ...
,.cti't= ~ ()~
.? Q...u
i /Z:zU ~~
;:::c 0 -
,?: ~ 9l [l ~ ~.
~----
, L- __._..
l' ,,'t= .
n
_.-- Q ---
--, .,i-'--
-
1== .3
."
\ ~ 0
~ :::z
~
. ~
....~~ ~--E - \. -
J -
o.L
~\~\ \ .
'-.. r~- -T---' I ..' >-
8 t-
- - -:z.
='
'::h- ~_.---- 0
'>- \= " ~
~ ~
-
~ .- ~
-'
!.-~.- - p..
~ ~- ::>
dL ~
. ~
\ -- 0
,; -"- \ c.l
:z.
-
~g ....
"'" ~
~ -= - -' ~
r .t:-
. III t
~ IU ~04
~ I
t\ io,.... y
._ I t _
0' Bill W - ~
~, " \
~? - - 1 ..d
~ - - .OZ,.., ?l >1 ;:1
" ~ ~ III
c .{
~ 1 . ...
~
~ ~ ~ ~ -0\ CJ
~
i . .
-~ ~~~ '~ ~ \
~~ ~ ~:: ,t
" "r1 _ ~ \, {:, _ 4
'r-
~ '(n ~ ~ c).. it L ol'
i -~~
"
:s.. . I ~ ts'- .~ ~ -' -
. o,-tu
\'> \S -:;: ~ . ~ ''1. '<:\-- .
t- 50.S ~ (j ~
\1t~~~~~\-,~ t
4It, ~ ~ "" 'S-: ~
" . , ~ 't ~ ~ ~ ~ ." . - ....-
~- -:
'.:. ~ ., ~ ~ Q:, ,j~:)'!L" j, ,. .'
~ . 0\ 1 0 S$\.~ , 'f"- -- ,....."':,....
\' ~ ~ cI ~
S:( h ~ , ,~ ~ ~ . . - _ ,;1~ 1.... ""- .
.~~ ~ ~ 1\ ~,:J \~ -< . ~J~
~ 'Jr-~,,',,~ r.^~'llY BOWL I1%.Y6:l-'72;f J b
. . c~. ,,,,, ,') .".i
( ;=, ,_:-,.", C,'lX ROAD 23-//7-22:.
, H~-'" !\iN r:,-343
.... \ .V.-".\,j\0 I LI ....,0 "
, "~ 938-4090 t ~~
--../
. V G).fj^L t4- 6c1S;...J&-~S CJ:4s /))-7~77ff~ 67' ;4.;. . ........
C-AJh (JJML ~.61\.) I-r- ulodc-.:b ~ 4p/:4.v.5 &')Ulc---~
---;-rfr/0f 1/34/2. s ,:OIL- ----r/-/;:l6'fi_ G/?/oJW+77o#'i'> ;:D&tJT7rr'
/lIi8 t:o~ t9/d ~ C? frh-~ ;/3 "l J ..57"6/1)..
IJ ~lf//C4 pp:: ---rr6~ #/1) /:IA-s 6~~ c/~-2J ~/Z--.30
y~s //1.) ;4dJtI~R-77SrAj c;;; h~~/'/4A~ &cue--,
C17;1-b/NC/~ ~-D
~ ;;;;:6~ / s;: 5?Z- X~ x 04 dt/;;h4hL c; ~ c-L-
~cJr- c2,0o 5aJfi/ZL flLr- /%42- c57.1JL-- /Pd-- ;4-
r- ~c..-- &~ .f'oo J:1 /;[h..:r-; 9GlrJ rt-?-5o I/j C!-UJ2>€-5
0) 1-7-- t //hJ4=U tJ~04/.-7'1k-- 0,J wr!-7m ~5
t 1---B-- ff~ .
e ~4///L--n~~
~5 >6/c) ~ ~,J C;;r.?--M0~~Jd) ;J k~
/1h./t( Y &472-5:> ,
g&!A4t6L-- ~ Cbc!Aip? /s &5t''vC; ~ ~611)
/ti ~~6- /1i7d~ ~C;kdsr-&cJl2- oL3c.J6!C?7~uls;;:~ ulL-
;1-I2L ,4-svA/ G -/0 hodL 77fL .s:;tht) 7D 7H€.
t2AS~ /7/72- 6JOUGff ~ ~ oc/r- &P 0,_ 5?~
b~oF (0 ;C'~ A-rV:D pr-~77ft7L tf-AcJ€-
oJIL- C:;~lb ~4-- N&~ I<€s;;z;#~ 50 A-5
~ /kC&74-~-~.-' E;t?~/Mc-L- 0;:::' ~s' S~b fv
I A/7D 77k- r{/iZ/~. ...ff -m?s ])/5~UL 'IV
---;J.fL 1in1z5/' (~ ~~ ~(JcJ?I/ ~ b{oC!C- {l~(z3rt.-t'f
. II::; (}frP---5 CoMt!.- {f}cJ;f/~Y~ ~Atc:<VA;b bk2J6L- t?.J
~o'#l-fjo0~ ~cr- o.4/::::- 1:0 fl%:~ hlL ubt/~ ;-1)ovie
/i /lJob7/ UA77e-- ~ :5I~~//JL (~ /,(7E.s?c.:~-$:).
CITY OF HOPKINS
. Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 99-33A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
A SIGN VARIANCE AT 107 SHADY OAK ROAD
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN99-2 has been made by Hopkins Family Bowl;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a sign variance was made by the Hopkins Family Bowl on
AprilS, 1999;
2, That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on April 27,
1999: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3, That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
4, The legal description of the property is as follows:
. That part of the southeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 23 Township 117
Range 22 described as beginning at the northeast corner of Tract A Registered
Land Survey No, 610 thence west along north line to northwest corner thereof
thence south along west line thereof 113 feet thence west parallel with westerly
extension of south line of said Tract A to west line of southeast 1/4 of southeast Y4
of said Section 23 thence northerly along west line thereof distance 388 feet
thence east 168 feet thence south 90 feet thence east to west line of 20th Avenue
South thence south along west line thereto to beginning except road,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN99-2 is hereby
recommended for denial based on the following Findings of Fact:
I, That the lot does not have a hardship to grant a variance,
2, That the applicant has reasonable use of the property without the variance.
Adopted this 4th day of May, 1999
Charles D, Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
.
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
.._-_._-------~--- --
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 99-33B
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
A SIGN VARIANCE AT 107 SHADY OAK ROAD
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN99-2 has been made by Hopkins Family Bowl;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
L That an application for a sign variance was made by the Hopkins Family Bowl on
April 5, 1999;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on April 27,
1999: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
4. The legal description of the property is as follows:
. That part of the southeast Vt of the southeast 1;4 of Section 23 Township 117
Range 22 described as beginning at the northeast corner of Tract A Registered
Land Survey No, 610 thence west along north line to northwest corner thereof
thence south along west line thereof 113 feet thence west parallel with westerly
extension of south line of said Tract A to west line of southeast 1/4 of southeast V4
of said Section 23 thence northerly along west line thereof distance 388 feet
thence east 168 feet thence south 90 feet thence east to west line of 20lh Avenue
South thence south along west line thereto to beginning except road,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN99-2 is hereby
recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact:
L The property upon which the sign is located is subject to an involuntary
condemnation proceeding by Hennepin,
2, The governmental taking is an act over which the applicant has no control and is
contrary to his wishes,
3, That the sign itself is indigenous to the bowling alley is claimed to be a local
landmark.
4. The taking is unique to the property owner and the forced relocation gives rise to a
hardship to the applicant.
.
----
. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Variance VN99-2 is hereby approved based
on the following conditions:
1. That a structural engineer approves the structure of the sign and provides a report to
the staff detailing the structural integrity of the sign,
2. That the sign is upgraded and maintained,
Adopted this 4th day of May, 1999
Charles D, Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
.
.
.- .- -