CR 11-081 Sign Setback Variance - 640 - 11th Ave SouthG�TY OF
C20..
S
• August 31, 2011 OPKINCouncil Report 11-81
SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE — 640 -11TH AVENUE SOUTH
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: Adopt Resolution 11-44 approving a sign setback
variance at 640 -11th Ave S.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Fisher moved and Ms. Cummings seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution RZ 11-12, recommending approval of a sign setback variance at
640 -11th Ave S. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview
The applicant has purchased 640 -11th Avenue South and is doing improvements to the
property. One of the improvements is to add signage to the property. Because the building
was constructed many years ago, the setback along I I'h Ave S. is not the required 20 feet, but
approximately 11 feet. The setback for a sign is 10 feet, and if the building was set back the
required 20 feet there would not be a problem. The sign will be eight feet in height and four
feet wide. The proposed sign will display the tenants in the building.
• There are parking areas for the building on the north and south sides of the building, but if
the sign is located in one of these areas, the building would block the signage either from the
north or south.
•
Primary Issues to Consider
• What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
• What does the ordinance require?
• What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
• What practical difficulties does the property have?
• What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supporting Documents
• Analysis of Issues
• Site Plan
• Resolution 11-44
Nancy S nderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
CRI 1-81
Page 2
is Primary Issues to Consider.
• What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
The subject property is zoned I-2, General Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan has
designated the site as Industrial. The existing use complies with both documents.
• What does the ordinance require?
The sign ordinance requires a minimum setback of 10 feet.
• What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant is requesting a zero setback.
• What practical difficulties does the property have?
The new state statute requires three standards for the granting of a variance. The three
requirements are:
is
1. That practical difficulties cited in connection with the granting of a variance
means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner not permitted by an official control;
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner; and
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Signage is an important part of a business owner's leasability of a property. Because this
property was constructed many years ago with a different setback, the sign cannot be placed
were the sign setback would allow. Placing the signage in the parking areas on the north or
south side of the property would limit one direction of traffic from seeing the sign. The
signage could be put on the east side of the building, but in driving by on 110' Avenue this
signage would not be visible.
Surrounding uses
The site is surrounded by commercial to the south, open space to the east, industrial to the
north and west.
• What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning Commission meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed sign setback variance. Ms. Anderson noted that the
• applicant has done many improvements to the exterior of the building. Doug Petty, the
applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Petty stated that there were four tenants in
CRI 1-81
Page 3
• the building and there is no signage on the building.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the sign setback variance. By approving the sign setback variance, the applicant
will be able to construct the sign as proposed.
2. Deny the sign setback variance. By denying the sign setback variance, the applicant will
not be able to construct the sign as proposed. If the City Council considers this
alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
U
0
0
•
•
STANDARD CURB & GUTTER
(B612 CURB k GUTTER)
CURS DETAIL
a 2 ILTA
24
1/2-R
PROPOSED SIGNACsE
au f1TD.
BEAAER
TAIL DOUN
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
1084 Steft Street
St. Paul, Mkmsota 55t19
tet 651-739-7988
fax 651-739-3165
4
INFILL AND EXTEND
-KS CONC. APRON AS
—,P]W. REQ'D TO MATCH EXIST
2'D
DTE:
'LACE ANY DAMACaED
IG DURING CONSTRUCTION
I! MATERIALS AS REQ'D
10401 JAMESTOWN ST. NE
BLAINE, MN 55447
i �r oonrY ma ns .wt swrwrox w .tsar re
eatsu¢n m � dt usn ar omn mvtx�noa neo nw i
taaxta uom nc i..s a nc sue
n wr�o.
a ear w.
eta n.a. �s.,sx on .twar .w
rwtvaltn ar � a um ar sntcr svae�x w nur i
w . our Iso® aronter u+oa1 m un a nc sort
b 18039
mm.
PROJECT NUMBER: 21112
DATE: 6/28/11
DRAWN BY: JL
CHECKED BY: RR
REVISIONS: 7/18/11
PROPOSED SITE
PLAN & SIGN DETAL
A1.2
0 COPYRIGHT 2011 ROSA ARCHITECTURAL GROUP
comer of fence
on property line
EXTERIOR SITE
choin Ilnk=n`e--1
(n
MODIFICATIONS
A_
0
o
m
-
0
640 11TH AVE. SOUTH
o
wood fence
HOPKINS, MN 55343
AF PROx EDGE OF
EXIST. PARKING LOT
Omer of fence 0.8•
D & R REAL ESTATE
INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC
2�:.
-1th of property line
wood fence
20'-0• TTP.
4
INFILL AND EXTEND
-KS CONC. APRON AS
—,P]W. REQ'D TO MATCH EXIST
2'D
DTE:
'LACE ANY DAMACaED
IG DURING CONSTRUCTION
I! MATERIALS AS REQ'D
10401 JAMESTOWN ST. NE
BLAINE, MN 55447
i �r oonrY ma ns .wt swrwrox w .tsar re
eatsu¢n m � dt usn ar omn mvtx�noa neo nw i
taaxta uom nc i..s a nc sue
n wr�o.
a ear w.
eta n.a. �s.,sx on .twar .w
rwtvaltn ar � a um ar sntcr svae�x w nur i
w . our Iso® aronter u+oa1 m un a nc sort
b 18039
mm.
PROJECT NUMBER: 21112
DATE: 6/28/11
DRAWN BY: JL
CHECKED BY: RR
REVISIONS: 7/18/11
PROPOSED SITE
PLAN & SIGN DETAL
A1.2
0 COPYRIGHT 2011 ROSA ARCHITECTURAL GROUP
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
0 RESOLUTION NO: 11-44
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE AT 640 11TH AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN11-2 has been made by Douglas Petty.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VNI I-1 was made by Douglas Petty on
July 19, 2011;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
August 30, 2011: all persons present were given an opportunity to be
heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered;
and
4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
Lots 9 to 12, Block 57 West Minneapolis
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN 11-2 to reduce the sign setback
from 10' to zero is hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the building at 640-11`h Avenue South is constructed in the required
building setback.
2. That the building would block the signage if located in the parking areas.
BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the City Council of the City of
Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement of the 10 -foot sign setback
would cause a practical difficulty because of circumstances unique to the subject property, that
the approval of the requested variance to the extent necessary to compensate for such practical
difficulty is in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, and that the variance of 10' feet
is reasonable.
Adopted this 6th day of September 2011.
ATTEST:
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
Deborah L. Sperling, City Clerk