VN 92-02 CITY OF HOPKINS
--�
ZONING APPLICATION
SUMMARY FORM �IV�
Application Number q��_
p .I .D .�: 24 117 22 31 0137
Applicant ' s Name ( Last , First ) Owner (if other than applicant)
Mason, Jean Perkl/Mason Partnership
Mailing Address (Street , City , State , Zip Code)
14201 Excelsior Boulevard, Minnetonka, P�innesota 55345
Phone Number: (Day) 935-3486 (Evening) 938-2540
Property Address �17 Main Street, Hopkins, h1innesota 55343
APPLICABLE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT(S) TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST
[ ] R-1-A [ ] R-2 [ ] B-1 [ ] Concept Review
[ ] R-1-B [ ] R-3 [ X] B-2 [ ] Conditional Use Permit
[ ] R-1 -C [ ] R-4 [ ] B-3 [ X] Variance
[ —�t-1 -D [ ] R-5 L 7 I-1 L ] Zoning District Change
I ;-1 -E [ ] R-6 [ ] I-2 [ ] Subdivision Approval
[ ] Ordinance Amendment
[ ] Other
I hereby certify with my signature that all data
contained herein as well as all supporting data
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge: 5-�$-gQ
App ants Sig e Date
-2g-R2
Own s Signatur Date
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SUMMARY
[ ] Proper addendum to application Application received: � oZ �oZ-
[ ] Detailed plans submitted
[ ] Written project deseription submitted Fee Paid : � �� :(�
Referred to City
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Engineer:
Approved : without modifications Referred to City
[ ] with modifications Attorney
Denied [ ] Referred to Watershed
District
Date • G ���? ' �,�- �"2S ��Z- Date of Publie
� Hearing Notice
COUNCIL ACTION Date of Public
Ar ved: without modifications Hearing
with modifications
Denied : [ ]
Date: �1 � I - I �, RESOLUTION N0: C �
CITY OF HOPKINS
�
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
FOR VARIANCE
Application No .
P.I .D . No . 24 117 22 31 0137
A. GENERAL DATA
NAME OF APPLICANT• P�rkl/Mason Partnership
The above named individual , firm or corporation hereby respectfully submits
the following supplemental data in support of the preliminary information
provided on the accompanying Zoning Application Summary Form dated 5-28-92
for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning
controls .
Mason , Jean 935-3486 938-254�
Contact Person Last Name , First Day Phone Evening Phone
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
1 . S ecify the section f t� or �na ce from which variance is sought:
�opkins City Code (Zoning� 57�.5�3 Sec�ion �a
,� Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions f the
o rd in an ee : The proposed s�ign would extend 4'6" from the face of the column, t�ie bottom
� the si4n would be 8'10"- from the sidewa < an t e siqn wou e grea��fi�►�sq, ft.
3 . Explain why the strict enforecment of the Ordinance would cause an
undue hardship or deny reasonable use of the property. Ha d hi to the
applicant is t�e crucial test . Unable to lease the property. 41e fiee�l th�at in order
for otential customers to uickl i enti y t at t ere are severa usinesses oca e in the
buildin that the ro osed si n e a ov�e to e insta e . so wi visua y eno e the
�ntra ce which js recessed bac from � e rqnt o e �i �r�q. ,7acen �!1 ing o he
a_ct_�as an awnina/�ann�y that blocks restricts visual identitv o our bui dinq
4 . Check all additional supporting documents and data which are being
submitted to help explain this project proposal : [ ] site plan , [ ]
topographic map , [X] other (specify) p��t��rPt
I hereby certify with my signature that all data
on my application forms , plans and specifications
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge :
Si ature of Ap licant
ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING VARIANCE
In accordance with the findings stated on the reverse side of this
document , the City of Hopkins hereby �] approved , [ ] denies the foregoing
1'^��ication for Variance . If approved , said approval is subject to the
ral and Special Conditions following the Findings section on page 2 .
By= 11'� l �rt�l� ,
ut� orize Signature Title ate
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
PAGE 2
VARIANCE FINDINGS
�...—
1 . This matter was heard at a public hearing before the Zoning and Planning
Commission on:_� '3�� �� ��� � �' -�� �%a and before the City Council
on: �{ j- �3'l
2 . Strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance [�rJ would ,
[ ] would not cause undue hardship to the owner of the property in
question because of the following facts which were presented at the
hearing held on this case:
3 . The hardship found to exist in Finding 1 , above I/�J is , [ ] is not
unique to the property in question , and [ ] is , [7Q is not shared by
properties in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same
use district because of the following
faets •
4 . The granting of the variance requested [ ] would , [x] would not alter
the essential eharaeter of the neighborhood because of the following
facts:
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Findings of Fact: '-'^
1. That the mansard roof on the butting property creates a hardship as it blocks the view of
the signage on the applicant's building.
2. That the applicant's multi-tenant building has internal tenants which creates a hardship
as they do not have their own area to post signage visible to the public.
3. That the applicant's building configuration is a unique circumstance in the dov��n��own as it
contains a public walk-through area.
Conditions :
1. That the proposed sign is 10 feet in height from the bottom of the sign.
2. That at such time the mansard roof on the adjacent property is removed, the applicant' s
sign will be brought into conformance with the ordinance.
3. Limit total signage to 12 square feet with each sign placard per tenant on buildin�
identification signage to not more than 3 square feet.
4. Sign will not protrude from building more than 4 feet 6 inches.
EXPIRATION.
Within one year after the approval of a variance or appeal the property
owner or applicant has not substantially started the construetion of any
building , structure , addition or alternation requested as part of the
approval , said variance shall become null and void unless an application
for extension of the approval has been submitted in accordance with this
subsection . A letter to extend the approval of a variance or appeal shall
be submitted to the Zoning Administrator not less than thirty (30) days
before the expiration of said approval . Such letter shall state the facts
of the request , showing a good faith attempt to utilize the variance , an
it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the propose
construction . The City Couneil may grant extensions not to exeeed one�—"
year .
• i
. � '
. ' \ T Y O
G �'
�1
�
June 22, 1992 yo P K \ � � Planning Report VN92-2
SIGN VARIANCE - 917 MAINSTREET
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution RZ92-15 recommending denial of a siqn variance at
917 Mainstreet.
overview.
The applicant, the owner of the property at 917 Mainstreet
is requesting a variance to erect a perpendicular sign that
is larger, lower and further into the right-of-way than
allowed. The applicant is proposing to erect this
perpendicular sign on the front of the building.
The building at 917 Mainstreet is a multi-tenant building
and the applicant has indicated that the proposed sign will
help customers find the businesses located in the building.
The proposed sign does not meet the size, height or
projection requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
--�
Primarv Issues to Consider.
o What does the Ordinance allow?
o What the specifics of the proposed sign?
o What are the standards for granting a variance?
o What hardship does the property have?
o Does the applicant have any other options?
o What is the staff recommendation?
Supportinq Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Sign Diagram
o Resolution RZ92-15
� (�
��il�,,�d ��� ,li'(1(`�Q�1��
Nancy, Anderson
Planri�.
��
VN92-2
Page 2
—� .
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What does the Ordinance allow?
permitted use maximum area
name plate or symbol in the area of such signs
the shape or form that shall not exceed three
denotes the nature of the square feet and shall
business being conducted extend no more than 24
within, at right angles inches from the wall or
to the building wall are side of the building to
permitted at intervals of which said sign is
not less than 15 feet attached and shall be
mounted no lower than ten
feet from the sidewalk
o What are the specifics of the proposed siqn?
The proposed sign will be used by a multiple tenant
building. Several tenants are proposed to be on the sign.
The proposed sign will be 5' x 3' , which is 15 square feet.
^ The sign is proposed to hang 4'6" from the wall and be 8'6"
from the sidewalk.
The proposed sign does not meet the size, height or distance
from the building requirements. -
o What are the standards for qrantinq a variance?
A variance is a modification of the terms of the zoning
ordinance in order to provide relief to a property owner in
those cases where the ordinance imposes undue hardship to
the property owner in the use of his land. The hardship
must not have been created the action of the landowner.
Some factors used in determining whether a landowner has
incurred undue hardship are the following:
1. Does the landowner have reasonable use of the property?
2 . Does the property have a unique circumstance? If the
hardship is common to several properties the variance
cannot be granted.
In this case the landowner has reasonable use of the
property and the circumstance is not unique to the property.
'� By granting a variance in this case could allow other uses
that need a conditional use permit for a sign to also be
granted a variance.
VN92-2
Page 3
�
o What hardship does the property have?
The applicant has indicated that the hardship is that they
are unable to lease the building and the sign is needed for
potential customers to quickly identify that there are
several businesses located in the building.
o Does the applicant have any other options?
The applicant does have an area on the building to use as
signage for the building. A sign can be placed on the brick
area in the front of the building showing all the tenants.
Also, the applicant can put up the smaller perpendicular
signs on the building.
o What is the staff recommendation?
The proposed sign will be large when compared to the
existing perpendicular signs. The proposed sign will be 5
times larger than allowed by the Ordinance. The proposed
sign will also be in the right-of-way over twice what is
allowed.
^ When the sign Ordinance was changed to allow perpendicular
signs, there was a great deal of discussion on the
requirements for the sign. It was decided that these signs
were not to be large and the signs would be limited to 3
square feet.
The height of the signs was also discussed at great lengths.
It was decided that 10 feet would be a good height because
at a lower height the signs still could be tampered with and
be a safety hazard.
The applicant has indicated that they are unable to lease
the building and that the proposed sign will help potential
customers to quickly identify that there are several
businesses located in the building.
The applicants reason for a variance is similar to many
other buildings in the downtown area. By granting a
variance would allow all the other multi-tenant property
owners to also receive a variance.
Alternatives.
1. By recommending approval of the variance, the City
Council will consider a recommendation of approval for
�
the variance.
VN92-2
Page 4
--�
2. By recommending denial of the variance, the City
Council will consider a recommendation of denial for
the variance.
3. Continue for further information. If the Commission
indicates that further information is needed the item
should be continued.
��
��
� I .� `�' 17(84) (TZa4 N � �y��� .N � �i 1,6(118) (I10)6 cJ � N 19(97) �85)6 � �
I I � `��' 16(83) (73)5 N \ � � (117) (III)7 `� � 18(96) (86)7 N
� � Z � �5�823 _ _ _ Locat�on Map ���6� ���2�8 �' ;,-- �87, 8 �
I W I �
"'� � , � 14(81) (74)7 � , � 14(98) (94)7 0 (113)9 vy �• - 16(95) (88) 9 �
(65)10 � Q o .13f80) (75)8 .� Q � 13 - - -=8:� ``. l0 I o " o
(5(94) (89)10 �
(66)I I � � 12 f 79) (76)9 � o ,12(977 (95) 9 � �O
c� 13(I34��, � 14(93) (90)I I• O
(67)12 a o I1(78) (77)10 0 0 l I (96) 10 � --- -1 �I I� � �
•09 • � 13�92 (91)�12 0
� �S TREET �
73-65 ---- �f 24(54 (41} I � 24 I I � 24(2 �� I 61) �
-� - - -�
� 23(53 (42)2 � _23 � � (8) �3� ��-- Z � � a.
59-63 - - - �- �- - �7� 9�3 � ��- - - 21�78) �
''� 22(5 {43)3 � �I S) � (168) ,
"' M �� (s) 907 AI��126)3 � 20(77 �
-- - - — �- -
�/-49 (55) _ ti 21(51) _ 4_ 21 I � 4� c�'v' (10) gll 4 9 N 19(76 (62)2 rr�
,c, — �— — — — — —
63) - - - N 20f50 (44)5 N c�_20� (l��) g(130 20 I 12)5 N 18(75l (63) 3 `O
ti
3/39 q, 19(49 6 , ���_ --• -)g J - -6_` 17 (64)4 c��, '
-� - - - -
(56)7 � T , ,,� lg. � I . 7 �' i8(22i (12717 e h 16(74) 5
--�� -� �- - - - ` (I��- --- - - -� -
'1-29 �5'1�8 � _ _ � 8 O �_17 8 o I7 • g- - -15 • (65) 6 �
58)9. � 16 � ��.'9 , •. 16 -I I- 9-- - -�g-J - -g I � 14�73 7
� � � ` � ' > : . ►� i
� ' � ' �: 13 I I 10 13 IZ II I 9 8
I 13 12 I1 �-10 15 14 13 12 � 11 10 15 14� 13 12 , • � ,
l �� .>::. (181 I (I 15 14 � l
' �136 �� ��1 ��) (4�1 I �46 - (34y ) \ \ : . . ` Cf2) 71) �70 � �C�7)�66
h
� I� N � � � � � �p I O ' ` c � Qi o� � � � N. � � � 'm. .
� �
—' - M, AINSTREET c,38� � .�. .'�69� cs8� : �c
— o uo -2 �i - - -�i-, � �oN m o I � N '� �� �°� o
a o � � 2 � o'o '` e o� m �'m .�� � m
2 3 4 6 1 � 2 �3 �4 � 5 `6 � 34 56 � � 4 5 6 I 2 � 3 � 4 5 6 •
� I � i (11$) I24 p5 (39(40 (41� (9) 0 � (13 (!4) U5) 95) (96(9�I(98�(99 UO �
'9 (8 �81) 84) _J_ � ���J -L � ' °� ^
� 7 2s- i�- - - 0 27 �L_ Z _ � �A (7� _ _'- _ _ _ l�i$1 7
25 � �85)I—"— -- - - `� B _8 r I � 2T(117 (IOA 8_ .
25 _J I(60)E a 2s. �(--8- _ ` (8 _ -
'q _, I_ 9_ 24(7771�(6t) 9 m 25 � r=9 � � 26('34 (n9)g 26(116� g • �'
�3 � � �0 '� g� ' �-- �4?��_)_I O _ 25(33) 10 M
i I N 25(115 (102a10;
� -� I- - , _ - - -
'2 I � II _ 2 76) 64 _ _a4 � 44 'M 43) 24(3?a 11 24(114 (103)II .
_ � .(62) 1 I ' I� )12 � -
� � I(86N2 -. = 23
t i
'� � -- - ^( 21(74) (65) 12 � Q2-� � � l _ U2� _12_ o� 23 (104)f2 A. �
0(89) �_ 13 'v 20(7 66 � ( 246� �45)!3 ,h r� _22 � _
�i � — — � _——— l )is � _ 2► � ; �a Q' . 2i �(�i2�% — — � �_ — � � � .
1�) 19(72) (6� 14 _ 20 � r - - - 21(113,1 �(106)14 � �
3 14 • -
- I �- - � .� � 15 � 20 ii ^ I• i
1 � � 15 " -- �- -- - - ii 15 2V �� 15 "�
- 18 (130-;143) 15 19 (�45) 16 - — 1 i � - --ii- - -
� co -i �-- --- _... _ � Ig �(120)16 �
II(B�Ig rr 17 if0�� 16 18. 4' - - _ 19(150) i6 �� _
/ 1127 • 1Q/ ( 9) 17 �g i (26)17 I 18 ^�~
ST ST�q�ET
� � SO.
_ / �90) i � 18 U 14) (102)I '0 , I 8 t � � ► 2 � / -
�---
101) (91) 2 � 17 UI�1 (103)2� � 17 1_f-' 2 - �- � � _ �_ _ � - �
°' _ _ _ _1 �- - - - � � �
�� 3 � 16 U 1 2) Q 0 4 j3 � � 16 `� I 3 3 � ' 19 I__� _ -
� � I 18(132)� �.51) 3
4 � � 15 (III� 4 15 � �(129) � _ �6)
�
� 4 '�
'9� _5 �' ia (no) — — — — - � �- —— — � — —� i _ i7 � �——�� ',
I �, ,
_ 6 N 13 Q09) 6 I 3 I I g - � 1 16 '� � �1 ,\ 3t?
• h -- �. i � _ - - �,'�, ��� �� 615
(93) 7 . � N 12(108) (105)7 ►` �5) � •1 � � � g 8\
-R o � . __. - - - --- - �_ I !.�,���2��`�, � .�NO�
...�..._,.�._ . . -... ..
t '�
. .f .
� �
. ' ' l-lvuL� � :
.
f
-• • • � r� ` .,i
� } �
• � � .
s - �
f `'
.M`•
� i �`- . .►
. i�., �
. �
. r�T �
j ��
� �
/ w � ,
• L:. .�
� �� �
• t�,- . �
' i ,�y
i
f
. ��.
� ,_ "�r^� .
-_` - � � � _ Y ' `
� _
. . _ . __ . o
_ . � � -
. � � � f
. � ���-�
� ' `± ' �� -
� t o ; � ---
- _ -�.�
�
; - _ i � � �j.
. • 'T: d-
• ..,L� � . • r � � �
.�' � .' � ,��
� -
� .. �
� '
t �
� � -.� � � _.
- �- � � r�` �--..
�► _ � .� � �
.�, � � .� .
� z � � �..�
rr+ � � .1 .
. (� , � ,� � (�} �
.� � �„ ..._ � � =� �.
. � .� r ' � ' �
�..`{f � ' �
..� � � � . .
- � � . �
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ92-15
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-2 made by Jean
Mason is recommended for denial.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
l. That an application for VN 92-2 was filed with the City
of Hopkins on May 29, 1992.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on June 30, 1992.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a hearing on June 30, 1992 : 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 application for VN 92-2 is hereby
recommended for denial based on the following Findings of
Fact:
1. That the subject property does not have the hardship needed
for a variance.
2 . That the subject property does not have a unique
circumstance required for a variance.
Adopted this 30th day of June, 1992.
Richard Pavelka, Chairman
��
\ 1 Y O
G �
�
-� ti 5
August 17, 1992 � P K � `' Council Report 92-180
SIGN VARIANCE - 917 MAINSTREET
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution 92-74A denying a sign variance at 917 Mainstreet
Mr. Johnson moved and Mr. Gullickson seconded a motion to
approve a sign variance (Resolution 92-74B) for a
perpendicular sign at 917 Mainstreet. The vote was 6-lo Ms.
Reuter voting nay.
overview.
The applicant, the owner of the property at 917 Mainstreet
is requesting a variance to erect a perpendicular sign that
is larger, lower and further into the right-of-way than
allowed. The applicant is proposing to erect this
perpendicular sign on the front of the building.
The building at 917 Mainstreet is a multi-tenant building
and the applicant has indicated that the proposed sign will
help customers find the businesses located in the building.
The proposed sign does not meet the size, height or
^ projection requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The staff reviewed the proposed sign and the recommendations
of the Business Council. The Business Council was in favor
of the sign variance. Jean Mason, the applicant, appeared
before the Commission. There was a great deal of discussion
on the building, the mansard roof to the east of the sign,
the size of the sign, the number of tenants, and various
alternatives. There was no one in the audience to speak
regarding this sign.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What does the Ordinance allow?
o What the specifics of the proposed sign?
o What are the standards for granting a variance?
o What hardship does the property have?
o Does the applicant have any other options?
o What is the staff recommendation?
o What was the Business Council's recommendation?
suoportinq Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Sign Diagram
o Resolution R92-74A
o Resolution R92-74B
�
Nancy S. Anderson, Planner
CR92-180
Page 2
�
Primary Issues to Consider. �
o What does the Ordinance allow?
Permitted use Maximum area
Name plate or symbol in The area of such signs
the shape or form that shall not exceed three
denotes the nature of the square feet and shall
business being conducted extend no more than 24
within, at right angles inches from the wall or
to the building wall are side of the building to
permitted at intervals of which said sign is
not less than 15 feet attached and shall be
mounted no lower than ten
' feet from the sidewalk
o What are the specifics of the proposed siqn?
The proposed sign will be used by a multiple tenant
building. Several tenants are proposed to be on the sign.
The proposed sign will be 5' x 3 ' , which is 15 square feet.
The sign is proposed to hang 4'6" from the wall and be 8'6"
from the sidewalk.
�
The proposed sign does not meet the size, height or distance
from the building requirements.
o What are the standards for qrantinq a variance?
A variance is a modification of the terms of the zoning
ordinance in order to provide relief to a property owner in
those cases where the ordinance imposes undue hardship to
the property owner in the use of his land. The hardship
must not have been created the action of the landowner.
Some factors used in determining whether a landowner has
incurred undue hardship are the� following:
1. Does the landowner have reasonable use of the property?
2. Does the property have a unique circumstance? If the
hardship is common to several properties the variance
cannot be granted.
In this case the landowner has reasonable use of the
property and the circumstance is not unique to the property.
For example, there are other properties along Mainstreet
which are located adjacent to businesses with mansard roofs
or awnings.
�
. CR92-180
� Page 3 � �
.-�
By granting a variance in this case could allow other uses
that need a conditional use permit for a sign to also be
granted a variance.
o What hardship does the property have?
The applicant has indicated that the hardship is that they
are unable to lease the building and the sign is needed for
potential customers to quickly identify that there are
several businesses located in the building.
o Does the applicant have any other options?
The applicant does have an area on the building to use as
signage for the building. A sign can be placed on the brick
area in the front of the building showing all the tenants.
Also, the applicant can put up the smaller perpendicular
signs on the building.
o What is the staff recommendation?
The proposed sign will be large when compared to the
existing perpendicular signs. The proposed sign will be 5
times larger than allowed by the Ordinance. The proposed
-� sign will also be in the righ't-of-way over twic.e what is
allowed.
When the sign Ordinance was changed to allow perpendicular
signs, there was a great deal of discussion on the
requirements for the sign. It was decided that these signs
were not to be large and the signs would be limited to 3
square feete
The height of the signs was also discussed at great lengths.
It was decided that 10 feet would be a good height because
at a lower height the signs still could be tampered with and
be a safety hazard.
The applicant has indicated that they are unable to lease
the building and that the proposed sign will help potential
customers to quickly identify that there are several
businesses located in the building.
The applicants reason for a variance is similar to many
other buildings in the downtown area. By granting a
variance would allow all the other multi-tenant property
owners to also receive a varian�e.
o Business Council recommendation
^ The Business Council was generally in favor of the sign
variance. The mansard roof on the building to the east was
felt to be a hardship. It was also suggested that if the
. CR92-180 � '
Page 4
�
mansard roof is removed, the sign should be brought into
conformance with the Ordinance.
Alternatives.
1. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able
to erect a sign which does not conform to current code.
2. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able
to erect a non-conforming $ign.
3 . Continue for further information. If the City Council
indicates that further information is needed the item
should be continued.
.'�
�1
. � N 17(84) (T2)4 ti N lyJ/� � � �i 16(118) (I10)6. c N "� -
� ,� -��, � � � � 19 f97) (85) 6 � �
• I�� � `��' 16(83) (73)5 N \ � \ � (I17) (III)T N M 18(96) (86� 7 �
► � � � ,5�82, -- Locat�on �Ma � �' - -- �
p c��6� c��2�e �7 c87� 8 ,
^ I � � � 14(81) (74)7 � , � 14(98) (94)7 0 (113)9 v� �• - 16(9 5) (88) 9 �
(65}_I� Q � .13(80) (75)8 ..Q Q � 13 _8 � ``1 . 10 I O 15(94) (89)10 �
(66)I I o � 12(79) (76)9 � � 12(9� (95) 9 N 13(134�T ��4(93) (90)I I• o
(6T)12 0 o I1(78) (77)10 � . 0 I I (96) 10 � ——— —I �I I� � �
• OC�O • � 13�92 (91)�12 0
� �s rREFr �
73-65 ---- � 24( (4i} I v� 24 I � � 24(2 I� I 61) �
—� - - -�
� 23(53 (42)2 v� � (8) (3) �f� � a'
59-63 - - - 23 I�_ _2— �7) 9�3 � I Z 21�78) �
''� 22(5 (43)3 �o (I B) I�-— — — I (168) ,
—— — — � ^� (9� (6} 907 AI��126)3 M 20(77
— I— —
�/-49 _ (55) _ c°ti' 21(51) 4 . 21 I � 4� cn'�; (10) gl� q 9 N I 9(76 (62)2 �
�
63) - - - ti 20(50 (44)5_ cy N_20 �1��) _g�I30 2p � 12)5-- N 18�75� (63) 3 c��°
.ti 19(49 6 ��I ' I — — — —
3/-39 � - - - -- - -19 J - -6_ I 17 (64)4 N
(56)T � 7' ' ,K, (8. � I . T � �8(22i (12�7 � h 16(74) 5
(57)8 � 17 I � g o 17 ���� g o —17 �1 - - - - - — -- � ,
?/-29 _ _ � � 8 15 • (65) 6 I
58)9. � 16 � ��.� , .. r�g —1 I— 9—— — —�g-� — —g I � 14�73 7 �
1 � 13 � 12 II �iO 15I14 13I12 � II 10 15 � 14� 13 12 , . �` �: 13 I � I 10 I 13 12 II I 9 8
' •136 �� '�) ��) �4� (46 - �(34y � �� :z::_(IS) I (I 15 14 1 (72) 71) (70 � (C�7)(66
� I � � � h � �0 I � � � � � ,;4 � � � p � � h � O :Q
N � � � � � � �� O • � �A�o� � � . 0 � m m ,
—� � M, AINS TREET � c,38� � :�; . c69� c68� : �
� O //0 -2 I - -v.l-, ' N ��N R� p I ' c� � �'�° �i�' O
� O I � 2 � � ` �o o� 4� �4� ��m �. �
2 3 4 6 1 � 2 �3 �4 � 5i6 I 34 56 � � 4 5 6 I 2 3 � 4 5 6 .
� I � (II�) I24 t�5 (39(40 (41� (9) 0 1� (13)(!4) (15) 9� (96(9'»I(98�(99 (10 �
'9 (8 �81) 84) _J— � ��)J —L � co r.
--rt�- - - - � � • �II$1
I 7 26 il � 27 �L� Z _ � �A �� - - - - - - - 7
25 � I(85��o --25 —)1f60)8 a' 2g. �f - 8 _ � B (8 _8 � 2T(If7 �Ot�8_ "
�
r_ _ _ �
�q , i 9_ -_24(77��(61) 9 m 25 ��$� 10 � � 26r34 (��91g __ 26(II� 9 , r
3 I �_ !0_ _ - --- -'i 64 � � �4 � - - -: ' 25�33) _10_ N 23U15 �102a10:
'2 I � II 2 76) - - - -1 t---. 43) 24�3� ll I
- _ � .(62) II 24(114 (103�11 .
t ~' t(44)12 M � �)
I � �(86N2 ^ 21(74) (65) 12 � ', r � � l 23 (12�- _�?_ _ . °j 23 (104?f2 A �
0�89j I 13 `V 20(T � ( 46� �(45)13 M ^ 22 � ':�
-i �� --- — � ---- (ss)ia � 21 � ; ►a 0� 21 - 1��i2r - - � �._ _ � � �.:
3- i �- 14- ��) I9CT2) (6� 14 �20 � r- - - - • - - - _ _ _ � � 21(113,1 �(106)14 � �
�1 � 15 20 i i 15 I• ,
; 11 15 " - - - ` -- - - � i �0 i� 15 "�
- I 18 (130-;143) 15 I 9 (�4 5) I 6 - __ � .-.__ _ - - - -1�- - -
c� -, �-- --- -�- - � 19� �('120)16 �
19��50)
i i(a�l is � �� »o���r2� �s i e 1Q/ (49) I T -' -� _ _ ,,_ _ �s � -
/ST - �8 � c26��� I �8 , _
� S���ET SO.
,
_� �(� i � le p��) (io2)i �o i 8 i � � r 2 I � -
ioi) is►) 2 , i7 (ir� Uoa)2� o - - _.� r _ .- - � -L-' - I - -! - �
�7 2 -- = ( h
�� 3 � 16 UI� �104�3= o �6 � � _3 , 3 � ^19 �_._� ._ -
_ f � � �5 (III? 4 �g � �(t29) ( �6) � 18(132)� �51? 3- - �
�9) i . 5 � 14 �IIO) - - - - � I_ _4 �-- ._ J 1 17 � � �� ', �
- - - - 14
� �
6 N 13U09) 6 13 I i-5 ._ I � 16 ����� �� 3�?
- 6 1 �" '� ��'�l• �
�93) 7 � N 12(108) �105)7 M � (5? � •1��� ' � 1918�� \5
-8 -� - - - - - - --- - -.— � �,a�a�3��2����, ` ��N�;-
,., ° °' �� r�.," ,.
---�----- . -.... __ -:
. � , -,
� ;
t , j�1�"� % .
f
< j
_.____. . � ,., � - .,
4 � +
�( ��,' `
� 1 • . •
I r.
��� � .
. �� .
• �•t �
r . � �
/ w �
,
. �,%� '�
� � E
. L�,- . �
. : �,,
. ,
�
. r _
- r.-�
� ..r � •. . .
� � -
, . � I
. . � . V
i � � -
. ' � � j ��
. �
: , ,� ,��
� t o - ; � __
�
.- . ..�
_ : = i � x
- . '� �
- . • ,.� � . '} � �
� . r �
� ;� � ��
• � . ',� .
�
� ' - - I
� ,
[ {
� _ -� � � -
- � � � �
� .� � .— � c � '
�, � � .� - .
� � z.' � � .. �
�' � .; �
. . � ! �-t# -r ; � - � �
� � �
. . . � . � � . . �
� � � .� � . . �
- f'� � t'` . �� �
��
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NQ: R92-74A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-2 made by Jean
Mason is denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for VN 92-2 was filed with the City
of Hopkins on May 29, 1992 .
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on August 25, 1992 .
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a hearing on August 25, 1992 : 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 application for VN 92-2 is hereby
denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the subject property does not have the hardship needed
for a variance.
2 . That the subject property does not have a unique '
circumstance required for a variance.
Adopted this lst day of September, 1992 .
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
^7ames A. Genellie, City Clerk
��
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: R92-74B
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-2 made by Jean Mason is
approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for VN 92-2 was filed with the City of
Hopkins on May 29, 1992 .
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on August 25, 1992 .
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a hearing on August 25, 1992 : 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.
�
� THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN 92-2 is hereby
approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the mansard roof on the abutting prope'rty creates a hardship
as it blocks the view of the signage on the applicants building.
2 . That the applicant's multi tenant building has internal tenants
which creates a hardship as they do not have their own area to
post signage visible to the public.
3 . That the applicant's building configuration is a unique
circumstance in the downtown as it contains a public walk-through
area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for VN92-2 is hereby approved
subject to the following Conditions:
1. That the proposed sign is 10 feet in height.
2 . That at such time the mansard roof on the adjacent property is
removed, the applicant's sign will be brought into conformance
with the Ordinance.
Adopted this 1st day of September, 1992.
�--�.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
��1'EST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk