CR 95-220 Varience - Theater Signage, Beard Group Project \ T .Y O
- G T
1+. �
\P
ti 5
� Q November 30, 1995 ° P K �� Council Report 95-220
; VARIANCE--THEATER SIGNAGE, BEARD GROUP PROJECT
Proaosed Action.
- Staffrecommends the following motion: Move to aQprove Resolution 95-113 approvin�gn
` variances to a11ow the followin�:
� o exceed the maximum square footage for signage
;
� allowed for the site
� o size of signs larger than allowed
� o a height variance for 13 feet
= for the theater/restaurant proiect �ronosed by the Beard Group at the southwest corner of
� 1 lth Avenue and Mainstreet.
�
,
� At the Zoning and Plann�ng meeting, Mr. Gullickson moved and Mr. Gleeson seconded a
-_' motion to approved Resolution RZ95-34, recommending approval of sign variances for the
: theater/restaurant project. The motion carried unanimously.
;
a
� Overview
? The Beard Group is proposing to construct a, movie theater, restaurant, and retail spaces on
� the former Suburban Chevrolet site located at 1106-1124 Mainstreet. In conjunction with the
� � construction of the movie theater, the applicant is proposing a Hopkins marquee of
� approximately 172 square feet per side and a sign on the east side of the building of
� approximately 186 square feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a maximum size of 80
� square feet in the B-3 zoning district.
�
� Two other variances are also needed �or the height of the marquee and to allow more square
� footage of signage for the site. The Hopkins marquee is 48 feet in height; the Zoning
� Ordinance allows a maximum height of 35 feet. The site is allowed 789 square feet of signage
� for the entire site. The movie theater alone has appro�mately 800 square feet of sign.
� Primarv Issues to Consider.
o What does the Zoning Ordinance require for a maximum size?
o What does the Zoning Ordinance require for a maximum height?
o How m�ch signage is the site allowed?
o What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
o What is the staff recommendation?
o What occurred at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Suaaorting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues.
o Sign Plans.
� o Resolution 95-113.
Nancy Anderson, AICP
Planner
�
�
� CR95-220
a Page 2
,
3 Primarv Issues to Consider.
�
;
o What does the Zoning Ordinance require for a mazimum size?
,
3
� The Zoning Ordinance requires a maximum size of 80 square feet per sign in the B-3 zoning
; district. The two signs that exceed 80 square feet are the Hopkins marquee and the Mann
; sign on the east side of the building. The signage for the retail signs and the restaurant sign
� are less than 80 square feet.
� The sizes of the two proposed signs that require a variance are the following:
,
� o Mann sign appro�mately 186 square feet
� o Hopkins marquee is approximately 172 square feet per side, plus the sign area
in the front of the marquee
o What does the Zoning Ordinance require for a mazimum height?
The Zoning Ordinance permits a maximum height of 35 feet. The Hopkins marquee sign is 48
feet high.
o How much signage is the site allowed?
� The B-3 zoning district allows three square feet per front foot of lot for signage. The site is
allowed 789 square feet of signage. The proposed signage for the theater will exceed the
m�imum signage allowed for the site. The theater alone has approximately 1000 square feet
of signage. The site plan details an area above each retail space for a sign, plus the restaurant
� has a sigri above the entrance. Details of the exact signage for the retail areas will not be
known until the space is leased. However, the plans show approximately 200 square feet for
signage for the restaurant and retail areas. The site will have approximately 1200 square feet
of total signage.
o What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
The special circumstance and hardship with this site are the large size of the buildings. An 80
square-foot sign would not be in scale with the building. Furthermore, the design criteria
approved by the City Council that are part of the development agreement require the marquee
to be of "substantial design," and an 80-square-foot sign would not meet the design criteria.
Also, the height of Hopkins marquee will meet the requirements of the design criteria.
The site also abuts a street on three sides, but the zoning ordinance does not allow any more
signage for the frontage on l lth Avenue or 12th Avenue.
o What is the staff recommendation?
Q Staff would recommend that the applicant is granted the variances for the signs as detailed on
the plans submitted.
i
;
�
�
CR95-220
i Page 3
o What occurred at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
�
; Staff reviewed the need for the sign variances. Staff noted that the design criteria required the
� applicant to have a marquee of a"substantial design." Mr. Blair asked if the sign on the east
� side was similax to the St. Louis Park sign. Mr. Vanney stated that the sign will be very
� similar to the St. Louis Park sign.
� Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance for the signs. By recommending approval of the sign variances, the
applicant will be able to construct the signs as proposed.
, 2. Deny the variances for the signs. By denying the variances, the applicant will not be able
to construct the signs as proposed. The signs will have to meet the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. If the City Council recommends this alternative, findings of fact will
have to be stated that support this recommendation.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
�
�
..yiYiWWWIYYYIII�II��l�ll . ImiYl�lYiWln1 .. �����idtlYOiWYi�n���i��Yu rr�rrri�i�r�tluuii�iiulii��rr�Y�idllll I _ iWUmr�i Il�i��rl�idli i�i i� i�mm�.��� ��..��. ..... .... ,,....... _.____
_ ��
� � � - :��,�:
„��6
� . . . . - � � . � .
�
BEARD
GR4UP
� �r �� ,
.,.�.,.�.�„�
,��.��..�
- ,
6 I p ��
In' 1.7���.1\�f��IC1V
� . \ / . � � . . . ' ' .
�' Il�t � �
/ �lM� 11�1 �
\
•�
� •Ip-�1.5
4 �� �
_ -� �, ��
o'...,
5 � o�
� W.,
o rr
♦�.�� o �rr.
� : i � . � . � ' . . . .
aao oa
a aoo
� �
� ��
�LL=VATION
�
t I�OpIG aswTiGN � . . . � . � � . . � •+t•r �—.�� . .
JW�11'IIY�i'r�11111111111111111111YI1��Y41'1 ilhmnl�+�nmm,wV,nw.�mdliPoN, 11uu g •�p���I��YiiliilYll��bYIW�I1IWrN;��r;rnYYYW��i+iWrYWYienl�l ,.,.... If �WArY.W�����Y��ri�r�� �YayWl nYl,u�irrwYhtl+lll ll I I II I I rrli I I IIII ,.. ....... _._...
- � . - . _ . - . . .� _�!�1'!T1
_ - l -- "3.�� -- :�..���. s .�. s '
�
�
i
CouaNed+
�
�
O _ BEARD
� GROUP
�iii�i
-� � ,�
� � ' ����
. �
I I � r�u�s c� �
� �� � �
.'� - � w�++ tt�� Nc.
��, �i �
� � � �� �
[� � �a-�rns
r
� dll
� . . . . wi�/ . IIV/IR
O MWI
ar
o �
_ _ — y o ,..e
O iMls
I
I
�� � . . .. . � � � 7p liltl � �n�IVI� .
f \ �� p ��
� �
. ���.�'� � ����� '^��
� � � ''')
' . � ..� L��� 6.
. � . . . � • � �.r� �� � .
�� . �
s !y'71El/
I AYItq� �y{Iip� �
� . � .... _ i�. - � � bq' � .
_ _ __ _
, _ _ _ __ _
_ � CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
_ RESOLUTION NO: 95-113
RESOLUTION MAI�Il�TG FINDINGS OF FACT AND
- � APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCES
- ON T'HE TI�ATER/RESTAURANT PROJECT
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN95-3 made by The Beard Crroup to a11ow variances
_ for larger than permitted signs, height of the marquee on the theater building, and more signage than
= permitted is approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows.
1. That an application for Variance VN95-3 was filed with the City of Hopkins on October
27, 1995.
_ � 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a
meeting on the application and reviewed such application on November 28, 1995.
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff and the Zoning and Planning
Commission were considered.
4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows:
Lots 1 and 6, inclusive, Block 7, West Minneapolis, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the Register of Deed, in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And that part of the North Ha1f of the adjoining vacated East-West a11ey in said Block 7
lying between the extensions across it of the West line of said Lot 1 and the East line of
Lot 26 in said Block 7, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Lot 23 except the South 25 feet front and rear, and a11 of Lots 24, 25 and 26, Block 7,
West Minneapolis, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the
Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with that part of the
South Half of the vacated East-West alley in said Block 7 adjoining Lot 26; Together with
that part of the West Half of the vacated alley in said Block 7 adjoining said Lots 23, 24,
- 25 and 26.
_ �
�
__ _ __ _
__ _ ___ _ __ _
Page 2
- � Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 7, West Minneapolis, except the South 25 feet of Lot 10,
according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds, in
_ and for Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with that part of the East Half of the
� vacated North-South a11ey in said Block 7 adjoining said Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10. Together
- with that part of the South Half of the vacated East-West alley in said Block 7 adjoining
- Lot 7.
That part of the North Half of the adjouung vacated East-West a11ey in Block 7, West
= Minneapolis, lying between extensions across it of the East line of Lot 26 and the East line
= of Lot 6 in said Block 7 and situate in Hennepin County.
- NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN95-3 is hereby
= approved based on the following Findings of Fact.
= 1. That smaller signs would not be in scale with the size of the movie theater.
` 2. That the zoning ordinance does not provide adequate signage for a large scale
= development.
° 3. That the height of the Hopkins marquee is in scale with the movie theater building.
= BE IT FUR'THER RESOLVED that application for Variance VN95-3 is hereby approved based
= on the following conditions:
- � 1. That the conditional use permit is granted.for the construction of the movie theater and
restaurant.
2. That the signs are erected as per the plans submitted.
- 3. That the site is allowed 1200 square feet of signage.
Adopted this Sth day of December, 1995.
- Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
_ �
;