Memo/Action Form RequestMs. Nancy Anderson
CITY OF HOPKINS
1010 South First Street
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Ms. Anderson:
C I T Y O F H O P K I N S
December 15, 1988
I have reviewed your Action Form Request of November 30, 1988
pertaining to 1202 East Excelsior Avenue. I have also
studied the Survey of the premises and Section 520 of the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to non - conforming use changes.
You have indicated the owner desires to construct an addition
to the office building he occupies.
He also wishes to tear down the little frame house now
existing on Tract A south of his building and construct a
dwelling compatible to those existing in Interlachen Park in
compliance with the zoning district.
It is interesting to note the zoning line between. the B -3
District and the R -1 -C District runs right through the middle
of the office building.
The structure and its use in the B -3 zone conforms to the
designated uses allowable in that district but is a
non - conformance in the R -1 -C District. The improvement
contemplated by the owner to that part of the building in the
R -1 -C District is not permissible but I do not observe any
language prohibiting the construction of the residential
dwelling.
You have also inquired whether the premises located in the
B -3 District could revert to its previous use as a service
station and I can see no reason why it could not occur. Gas
stations are allowed by conditional use in the B -3 area and
although the addition could not be constructed, the building
could be converted to any use allowed in the B -3 District
including a gas station.
1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935 -8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
•
The non - conformance ordinance allows a change from one
non - conforming use to another non - conforming use provided the
use to which the non - conformance changes is permissible in
the zoning district.
I think the ordinance means to refer to the structure rather
than a use. In this instance, the structure is a legal
non - conformance. The use conducted within the structure is
permissible in B -3 but not in R -1 -C. The same may be said if
the owners changed the use to a service station.
The language of the ordinance is confusing in that the use
would not be a non - conformance if the use is permitted in the
zoning district. The ordinance must mean that the structure
is non - conforming or it simply did not contemplate a
situation where a building would be cut in half by a zoning
line placing it in two different districts.
I expect a Court might grant equitable relief to the owner in
seeking adjustment of the boundary line to get the building
into the appropriate zoning district.
JAM /jw
Yours very t uly,
J.4t & A. M ler („(
Hopkins City Attorney
/400 Norwest Bank Building
Hopkins, MN 55343
;(612) 938 -7635