Sign Variance/Now Sports 1 Y
0
0 n,
September 20, 1993 ti O 5 Planning Report VN93 -5
P K
SIGN VARIANCE NOW SPORTS
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution RZ 93 -19
recommending denial of a sign variance at 426/430 Mainstreet.
Overview.
The applicant, Now Sports had a sign painted on the west side of their building. The sign' is
10' x 15', which is 150 square feet. The Ordinance allows a maximum size of 80 square feet in
the B -3 district. The applicant's sign painter did not secure a sign permit before painting the
sign. The staff notified the applicant that a permit was required. Based on staff review, it was
determined that the sign exceeded the maximum size allowed in that district.
The applicant has chosen to request a variance to allow the sign to remain. In order to justify
the variance the applicant needs to demonstrate a unique hardship.
Pr Issues to Cons
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?
Supporting Documents.
o Analys of Issues
o sign sketch
o Resolution RZ93 -19
J L i vi tio.11
Nan a.. A AICP
Plann
0
VN93 -5
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What options does the applicant have?
The applicant has three options. The following are the options:
1. remove the sign
2. repaint the sign that meets the requirements of the B -3 district
3. request a variance to allow a larger sign than allowed by the Ordinance.
The staff does not look highly on variance requests after the fact as it
encourages individuals to do things 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. Several 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 for retail space with or without the sign variance.
Alternatives.
1. Recommend approval the sign variance. By recommending approval of the variance,
the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval.
2. Recommend denial of the sign variance. By recommending denial of the variance, the
City Council will consider a recommendation of denial.
3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further
information is needed the item should be continued.
38) 9 a 1..:',... 13(158) 9 O 13(73) (66) 6 N N
16(118 (I!I) 9 16(142) (135)9 r
39)10 4 15(117) (112)10 15(141) (136)10 o I (2) (10) 0 12(72) (67) 7 16(
Z
5.O o 14(116) (116) (113)11 0 0 14(140) (137)11 O _I (4) 6 0 II (71) (68) 8 d
N M N O 13(139) (138)12 n (I 7) 509 (11) IF
412 0 0� 13(115) (114)12 0
Location )141ap 1
NORTH c69) 9 i
61) !9(60) (42)1 M M 19(41) (21) t m 1 1 F 2 (12)
�S (70)10 O' 11 10
18 (43) `2 0 IS(40) (22) 2 o M 1 C5) 11,3 (89) (88) �0., (168) N 17(58) (44) N 17E (23) 3 'o M 3 (14)
2 2 M (45) 4• N N. 16 (24) 4 N -4 i (25) 5 N 51
(13) F,-.), 402 3/ g
i)3 N
41) ro E13- h 61 (17) (15) d K 9 8 7
1.) 4 N N 16 (57). Z 14(36) (26) 6 N
°1 15(56) (167) M (34) (27) 7 7 (18) (87) (86) (85)
5_ 1 (351 (6)
1) 6 a h 14(55) (48)6 (28) 8 0 81(19) (16) p
I 1
7 31) 29) 9 (166)1 (8 1 (110)
to I
--1
g 8 12 11 12 1 13
10 9 8 1 7 (33) 17)(66) (0 I! ,525
68) 1 1 5/7 501 I 499 4Q/
m m ti r: t: o 1.1 62/ /1 (170) r
(53)�
(8) A 4201' 4/4 404
0 Q I 1 Site •4 1 A I 12 13 14 I
5 .6 5. 6 1 2 1 3 1 4 (5 1 6 M3 •($f (52)11 (6) (7)
:99)00c (5 (56) (5 t 1 1_ L 31 ri 1 1,
.7_7_q),4:34 s., V s I 1-
-..46e94) i:(59) 7 (58) 42 1- 7 h 30 l I 1,
4a (60) 8 29 (27) 2 1 40 28(26) (9] 3 N
9 62 10 N" 39(50 10 27(25) 4 2-1 1 (32)
4t0, 42 11 38 (33)11 N 26 5 I (51)
t I i _37(49 12 v, 2 (33)
4)t2 A 41 1. !2 ->3 25(2 (10) 6 N N
`L. 40 (I 13 h k. 36 (34)13 (0 24(23) (11) 7 I
3) 1 C (37) (38)
39 1 M 35(4B) 14 M 23(22) (12) 8 O M 3 134) 6
7
)14 v (35) 15 M d (36) 4
15 '0 38 -l). M n• 22 (21) (13) 9 I 5 411
6 I 6)16 r. 21(20 h (35) I
f6 37 -1 1 3 (3 O a 42
36 1 1 it-T1 d. 32(45) (3'» 17 h I,i: 4
(1471 31(44) (38) \l g!•
35 18 O 3: 20119\ \g 58 NO
34 Ig ;o A'4\ 9 N 50.
h 33 1 (73)0
2 1 ��11 s 7� 1� (23)
2 -I 1 l c'° \60 R l
3 SI I 'i
-k 1 ��P N S
R
Z
6 i5 s a
0 'I (25) (24)
(139)
ek
(136) O.('�� GO v"
V
i
0
Z
rA
0
0 1
h
8
'V D
`-e.' k 0
ri1 W
4
Cid I
0
In
d
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ93 -19
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF 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 recommended for denial.
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.
410
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for variance
VN93 -5 is hereby recommended for denial 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.
Adopted this 28th day of September, 1993.
Patricia M. Reuter, Chairperson