The URL can be used to link to this page

VN 92-02 (2) CITY OF HOPKINS � ZONING APPLICATION SUMMARY FORM Application Number VN , Ql�� _� P .I .D .#: Applicant 's Name (Last , First) Owner (if other than applicant ) ._-. / �-�.�//J�/ � " �7� ' N V /C�'�f� Mailing Address (Street , City, State , Zip Code) 1�G� L� rJ 1 v F%% , //�� ='��' S`7`� ��c-/, .lii�� J� �"O � Phone Number: jDay)_ �� 4� �-G� Y�� (Evening) � S � - S j '�� Property Address f/// �,(�i��r��c=� SJ` �G'/�h5 �.�- 5 S ��/ 3 APPLICABLE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT(S) TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST [ ] R-1-A [ ] R-2 [ ] B-1 [ ] Concept Review [ ] R-1-B [ ] R-3 [ ] B-2 [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ]�-1-C [ ] R-4 [ B-3 ] Variance [ ' 1-D [ ] R-5 [� I-1 �] Zoning District Change [ ., 1 -E [ ] R-6 [ 7 I-2 [ ] Subdivision Approval � 7 Ordinance Amendment [ ] Other L hereby certify with my signature that all data ',_//� .ontained herein as well as all supporting data ��' ��'�� ;��'`-' ' � 3re true and correct to the best. of my knowledge: � ' -� /O �'� App�1'i n s Signature Date / �i < ,�� /�/�/� i C::zers S�gnature Daze ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SUMMARY _ ] Proper addendum to application Application received: la - (O -4� . ] Detailed plans submitted . ] Written project description submitted Fee Paid : Referred to City PLANNING "COMMISSION ACTION Engineer: .pproved: � without modifications Referred to City [ with modifications Attorney �enied [ ] Referred to Watershed District ►ate:_�� `� - � � Date of Public ^ Hearing Notice OUNCIL ACTION Date of Publie .ppi _ . ad: ( without modifications Hearing [ ] with modifications �enied: [ ] ` �ate: t, r ��- �a RESOLUTION N0: � ,�- (.Q CITY OF HOPKINS ^ SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR VARIANCE Application No . (v � � ""a, P.I .D. No. A. GENERAL DATA N A M E O F A P P L I C A N T:�'�y/(7.L'/-'S ,/��'S,�s��y c�,5 The above named individual , firm or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following supplemental data in support of the preliminary information provided on the aceompanying Zoning Application Summary Form dated for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls. ��i�i�� /S I�'/5'!'�1J/- - 6yl"�u"/ 5 /��;,/`X1U,'G"� fs� G Sl S" C,Y7� l��c l� l�d l[�`�1��,'�- _�7/,,�r.�''�"S� SX�s�'`r5 1.l<3 f�'?�i Contact Person Last Name , First Day Phone Evening Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 . Specify the section of the ordinance from which variance is sought: � �C�. � 2 . Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the ��rdinance • �G' �� i„0/li�r��',�� 3 . Explain why the strict enforecment of the Ordinance would cause an undue hardship or deny reasonable use of the prop rty. Hardship to the applicant is the crucial test . .��- ,�i� , — ;: ,�, �.-, � r .� ��- � 'k-L-� , ' � -S (� �l 4 . Check all additional supporting documents and data which are being submitted to help explain �his p^ejsc� p^cp;,sal: [ ; s�te p2an , [ ] topographic map , [ ] other (speeify) I hereby certify with my signature that all data ��"` � �,��.��r�' on my application forms , plans and specifications , �� _.. /' are true and correct to the best of my knowledge:��/' ,(� '�� Jf'-��". Sign,a�re of Applicant � 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 AB�ication for Yariance . If approved , said approval is subject to the C •al and Special Conditions following the Findings section on page 2 . By� I�ann�. 3 - a5 -�ta , Aut rized Signature Title Date 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:_ 1a -3(�- �tl and before the City Council on: Januarv 7, 1992 2 . Strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance [ X] 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 [X ] is , [ ] is not unique to the property in question , and [ ] is , [X ] is not shared by properties in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because of the . fcllowing fae ts : The lack of visibilitv from Hiqhwav 7, due to its lack of frontaqe on Hi hway 7 and the proximity of adjacent structures which block visibility ofi the� subject property. 4 . The granting of the variance requested [ ] would , [ X ] would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because of the following facts : --� SPECIAL PROVISIONS EXPIRATION. Within one year after the approval of a varianee or appeal the property owner or applicant has not substantially started the construction of any building , strueture , addition or alternation requested as part of the approval , said varianee 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 c�the request , showing a good faith attempt to utilize the variance , and �hall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed c; _ _struetion . The City Couneil may grant extensions not to exceed one year. , �---� December 31, 1991 Council Report 92-15 SIGN VARIANCE - EMBERS Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 92-,�b abt�roving the variance to allow a larger sian for the Embers Restaurant at 1111 Cambridge The Commission on a 5-2 vote approved Resolution RZ91-25 recommending approval of a sign variance for the Embers restaurant at 1111 Cambridge Street. overview. Embers Restaurant located at 1111 Cambridge Street is presently remodeling. As part of this remodeling project a new sign is proposed. The proposed sign is 120 square feet per side. The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum size of 80 square feet per side for a business in the B-3 district. The applicants property is zoned B-3, general business. The existing sign is approximately 300 square feet per side. This sign was constructed before the existing sign ordinance and is allowed to remain. However, if a new sign is proposed, the new sign must meet the existing sign ordinance —� requirements. The Embers Restaurant on Highway 100 near the Radison South, has a sign identical to the proposed sign. The staff reviewed the request with the Commission. Charlie Lehn representing the applicant appeared before the Commission. There was little discussion on this item. Primary Issues to Consider. o What is the size of the proposed sign? o Is the site allowed to have a 120 square foot sign? o What type of sign is proposed? o Where will the sign be located? o Does the property have a hardship to justify the variance? Supportinq Documents. o Analysis of Issues o Sign Diagram o Location Map o Resolution 92-Z6 � Nancy S. Anderson Planner Council Report 92-15 Page 2 � � Primary Issues to Consider. o What is the size of the proposed siqn? The proposed sign is 15' x 8' , which is 120 square feet. The ordinance allows a maximum size of 80 square feet for any single sign in a B-3 district. o is the site allowed to have a 120 square foot siqn? The Zoning Ordinance allows 3 square feet of signage per front foot of lot. The subject property has over 350 feet of frontage, which will allow the site to have 1050 square feet of total signage for the site. The only other sign on the site is on the front of the building, facing Highway 7. The site is well under the maximum signage allowed for the site. o What type of siqn is proposed? The proposed sign will be both interior lit and neon. The lower part will be interior lit while the Embers writing will be in neon. -� The sign will have three colors. The background will be teal, with white and red letters. The sign will be mounted on a single pole approximately 28 feet in height. There is a maximum height of 35 feet for signs. o Where will the siqn be located? The sign will be located in approximately the same location as the existing sign. o Does the property have a hardship to justify the variance? Variances are granted because of an undue hardship due to circumstances peculiar and unique to a piece of property. The applicant's property does have an undue hardship in this case which is unique to the property. The applicants property does not abut Highway 7, which does not provide the visibility for the applicant's property. The White Castle property extends to the west and abuts Highway 7 . The Embers property does not. Visibility of the applicants property is also blocked by White Castle and Lindees buildings. �� This visibility problem is unique to the applicant's property because the other businesses near the applicant's � Council Report 92-15 Page 3 r-,. property have property abutting Highway 7 and can be seen from Highway 7. Alternatives. 1. Approval of the variance. By approving, the applicant can construct the sign as proposed. 2 . Deny the variance. By denying the variance the applicant will have to modify the sign to conform with the sign ordinance. 3 . Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. ,� i'� � -