Loading...
Sign Variance-Parking Ramp SiteMay 23, 1988 L„' h dAraLucri Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: That the variance request by the City of Hopkins to locate two off - premise signs is denied by Resolution No R88 -45• Denial of this motion will not allow the applicant to place two signs on the north end of the parking ramp. Overview. The City parking ramp is proposed to begin construction in June. This ramp will block the rear area of the businesses along Mainstreet. All of the stores presently have signage along these rear walks. In meetings with the merchants in that area this was one of the main concerns expressed about the ramp. To help alleviate this concern and provide a good identification for these merchants after the ramp is constructed the staff has proposed to erect two signs on the north side of the parking ramp. One sign will be along 11th Avenue and the other along 10th Avenue. These signs would be considered off - premise signs which would need a variance: in order to be constructed. Issues to Consider. o Is there a hardship to the Mainstreet businesses? o Should the Zoning Ordinance be changed to allow off - premise signs in business districts? Supporting Documents. o Location Map o Background • CifrauLom NaneyL. Anderson Community Development Analyst 0 SIGN VARIANCE - CITY OF HOPKINS Parking Ramp Site Planning Report: VN88 -6 o Analysis o Resolution o Legal Opinion • Detailed Background: VN88 -6 Page 2 The maximum size for a sign in a B -2 districts is 60 square feet. The proposed signs are 60 square feet. The signs will be internally lit with changeable panels. The proposed signs will have the proper setbacks. Analysis. - Is there a hardship to the Mainstreet businesses? The ordinance requires that in order to grant a variance there must be findings to support that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause an undue hardship. In this case, the Mainstreet businesses do not 1111 have a hardship. There is no guarantee to the owner of a business that another taller building will not be constructed next to and /or around. The ramp complies with the height restrictions of the district. The parking ramp will block the rear view of the Mainstreet businesses. However, there will be a wide alley for cars to turn into if a person were unsure where the business was located. Also, if a customer was unsure of the location of a business they would probably park their car in the ramp and then locate the business they were looking for. Enclosed is a memo for Jerre Miller supporting the denial of the variance. Should the Zoning Ordinance be changed to allow off- premise signs in business districts? A few years ago the Zoning Ordinance was changed to decrease the amount of signage in the City. One of the changes was to decrease the maximum size of signs in B -2 and B -3 districts. Off- premise signs have never been allowed in B districts and are currently allowed only in industrial districts. There would be no practical reason to change the ordinance for one situation. Alternatives. VN88 -6 Page 3 1. Approve the variance to allow two off - premise signs. By approving this variance the Commission will have to identify Findings of Fact to support the granting of the variance. 2. Deny the variance to allow two off - premise signs. By denying the variance the City will not be able to erect the two off- premise signs on the north side of the parking ramp. 3. Continue for further information. If the Commission feels that additional information is needed, the item should be continued. DATE: May 26, 1988 TO: Steve Mielke FROM: Jerre Miller RE: Parking Ramp C I T Y O F H O P K I N S M E M O R A N D U M You have called my attention to the construction of a two and a half story parking ramp in Parking Lot 400. Adjacent to the north side of the proposed ramp will be an alleyway which abuts the rear entry of approximately six buildings from which various businesses are conducted. Almost all of the businesses have rear entries with directional signs affixed to each respective building entry. At present because of the unobstructed view across the parking lot the signs furnish a clear view of the various locations. It is contemplated that the view will be substantially restricted by the construction of the ramp. Because of this it is anticipated that one or more of the business owners will request some sort of relief from the City to restore the visibility of their directional signs. This relief may be in the form of a variance to the specific requirements of the Sign Ordinance which could involve free- standing signs on the property of the business owners or more likely free - standing signs of some nature on the property of the City upon which the ramp is to be built. The authority to hear requests for variances from Ordinances is given the Cities in Minnesota Statute Section 462.357, Subd. 6 (2). The , language of the Statute allows a variance only when it is demonstrated that granting it will still maintain the intent of the Ordinance. The term "undue hardship" which is the basic thrust of such a request is defined to be property which cannot be put to a reasonable use if it is used under the conditions allowed by the Ordinance or the problem facing the owner is due to unique circumstances for the property that he did not create. Finally, if granted the variance won't change the essential character of the locality. The Statute cautions that economic concerns alone do not constitute "undue hardship ". For your convenience, I have outlined the section of the Statute in total. 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935 -8474 An Frtlial (lnnnrinnifir Cmnin.rcr • • • Steve Mielke May 26,1988 Page 2 (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinances. There have been cases which have defined "undue hardship" to be such hardship that the property can't be put to reasonable use if it is used as allowed under the Ordinance and if that problem didn't originate with the owner. The cases also emphasize that economic losses do not constitute hardship. In the example you have referred me to, there was nothing unique about the business properties prior to the contemplated building of the parking ramp and uniqueness is not created on the premises of the business owners by the construction of the ramp. An unobstructed view which may be an advantage to certain buildings has not ripened into a property right by any reliance that the parking lot would exist in perpetuity, nor does the restricted view of the signs caused by construction of itself create a unique circumstance to the property or hamper the commercial endeavors conducted thereon. Based on these observations, I do not believe the owners of the business properties would be able to claim "undue hardship" for the construction of some other sign devices on their property and conversely the City is not in a position to claim an "undue hardship" for construction of signage on its own property for the benefit of abutting owners. JAM:njj Enclosure CITY OF HOPKINS RESOLUTION NO: 88 -45 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN88 -6 WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN88 -6 to all two off - premise signs at the north side of the municipal parking ramp is denied. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN88 -6 was filed with the City of Hopkins on May 6, 1988. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on May 31, 1988. 3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a public hearing on May 31, 1988; 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 the Hopkins City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to Variance VN88 -6: 1. That there are no warrants presented by the applicant in regard to hardship or unique circumstances to justify the requested variance. 2. The Mainstreet businesses have reasonable use of their property with the construction of the parking ramp. Adopted this 7th day of June, 1988. Donald J. Milbert, Mayor Po,Ki F.c;I;+y (Ps r) N 11111111 T timonimbleire .,..... . ..........•..,.. •:: 7 , 441 1: t St 10+1, Ave. S. Exi.+. 6141. Ie4nt FIG:1;4r (N,ce IL) 11 Ave. S. S I TE P LAK1 e. • D61 5. -•- 044 f•t A t '71 Mr:d4Y-' . A, ,As.,.m.,(11114 • r . , A li • .ariliv 1::; 9. • •