Cond. Use Permit-Greenfield Apts.•
•
December 21, 1987 Planning Report: CUP87 -29
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: The request by
Stuart Corporation for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a sign with
a zero setback and larger than allowed is approved for the Greenfield
Apartments at 920 Feltl Court..
Adoption of this motion will allow Greenfield Apartments to erect a 29
square foot sign with a zero setback.,
Overview.
Stuart Corporation is requesting to erect a one sided 29 square foot
sign on Feltl Court. This sign will identify the new apartments that
have recently been completed. The applicant is also requesting a zero
setback.
Name of Applicant: Stuart Corporation
Address of Property: 920 Feltl Court
Present Zoning: R -6
Reason for Request: Ordinance allows a larger sign and a
lesser setback with a Conditional Use Permit
Nature of Request: Increased visibility for apartments
Issues to Consider.
Supporting Information.
o detailed background
o location map
o drawing of proposed sign
o proposed resolution
i ti _ ! .nmAIIAM
Nancy . .Anderson
• Commun ty Development
Analyst
0
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - GREENFIELD APARTMENTS
920 Feltl Court
o is a larger sign needed for identification?
o effect on other properties adjacent to the site
•
•
•
CUP87 -29
Page 2
Detailed Background.
The subject sign is proposed to be located just north of the driveway.
The sign will be constructed of laminated 2 "x6" construction grade
redwood. The exact colors have not been determined.
The sign will be externally lighted from a ground source.
The sign is surrounded by the applicants property to the north, south
and west. St. Therese is located to the east. The sign should have
no impact on the surrounding area.
The sign will be one - sided. Since the apartments are on a cul -de -sac
there will be little or no traffic coming from the north. The sign
will be positioned at an angle so the backside will not be seen from
the road.
Analysis.
Ordinance 570.48 states:
"Conditional Use Permit R- districts. Signs may be permitted
by Conditional Use Permit for public parks and playgrounds,
churches, synagogues, public libraries, public museums,
public and parochial schools, municipal buildings, golf
course, country clubs, apartment buildings, nursing homes,
community centers, colleges, universities and private
schools, hospitals and sanitariums, based on the following
design criteria and other conditions the City Council may
require:
a) size: The size shall be proportional to the size of the
facility, need for signage, frontage on street(s), location,
visibility, and development in the area. The maximum size
should not exceed 60 square feet per sign surface with a
maximum area of 120 square feet per single sign.
b) height: No free standing sign shall exceed fifteen feet
in height.
c) lighting
1) lighting shall be indirect or it shall be
backlighting
2) neon lighting, flashing lighting, and /or rotating
lighted sign shall be prohibited.
•
•
CUP87 -29
Page 3
d) design: signs attached to the building shall be
integrated with the building design and architecture in
terms of materials, colors lighting and placement; signs not
attached to the buildings shall be architecturally treated
and coordinated with the principal building by use of
compatible materials and design.
e) location: no free standing signs shall be located less
than 25 feet from any street right -of -way line.
f) sign purpose: the principal purpose of the sign permitted
under this section shall be to identify the public or
institutional use made of the property."
The applicant is allowed up to 60 square feet with a Conditional Use
Permit. The size proposed by the applicant is in proportion to the
size of the development. St. Therese was recently granted a 32 square
foot sign.
Ordinance 570.47 states:
"Applications for other proposed sign permits involving a
lesser setback than that required by the zoning code may be
granted only by and under a conditional use permit and under
the applicable provisions and regulations of conditional use
requirements set forth in the zoning code. The conditional
use permits may require periodic reviews and may be canceled
for cause."
The applicant is proposing to place the sign on the lot line. The
Director of Engineering has reviewed the placement of the sign and
found it acceptable.
The sign is in proportion to the site. In the past the Commission has
approved the requests for a larger sign in similar situations.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the sign for both size and setback. This will
allow the applicant to construct a 29 square foot sign
with a zero setback.
2. Approve the larger sign area, but not the setback. This
alternative will allow the applicant a 29 square foot
sign with a 25 foot setback.
3. Approve the zero lot line setback but not the size. This
alternative will allow the applicant to place the sign on
the lot line but only have 12 square foot per side.
4. Deny both Conditional Use Permits. If the Commission
chooses this alternative they will have to formulate
findings of fact to deny the Conditional Use Permit.
•
•
•
CUP87 -29
Page 4
Findings.
1. That the proposed sign is needed to identify the site.
2. That the proposed sign is in proportion to the site.
3. That the proposed sign presents no traffic visibility
problems.
•
160
•
•
r
L
a
13 5
•
VHE
N67'22'4 5 677. 58
2
(6)
275.77 25
25
( 5)
�G
j
5 51 587.44'''7 -E
«.0+ Il
4 0. 05 T ° 4'1 °.
SMETANA
473.61
677. 58 587'
� (3)
3
11
_1
(68 -69) (93 -94)
(6-65)
122 -1 .lez
7'.
537. 19
— 113 -110
95.88
587'23'07'E
(66)
Q A
•87'23'07•1
195.88
.o
TOMS
17
16
15
14
2
RD
(4)
0
22
13
24
25
(.
4
211
PAT)
14(
174
•
942 -87 N87'02'I8-r
N
Nff-
<)A°
•
/
-
1
•
)
tn
CC
0
•
i IF,,
klAct7.--,•
DRIVEWA)
ic I Ft
1A, r1,1
cow
•
•
%* (
•-•
•
Ala
li
IMM 'IMAM
NMI=
=MIN
MI= 11•1111•111P
=IN IM•11111
NM MEI IMP
INEMMEINIMMITS
• 41. ° 14
. I ll 1
i '''-■
IP
werr lasiams
■IINNI
■01.1Bm
mirwm
MEE
1:mmas
i■minum
mosi■am.
amirmin■
1 'Mil
--- LIIIMIINNIIMIIIIIIIMBI 11111•111■11111ff NM ■7.11•KIM
MN 1111110,1=11 miNIMMIMIIIIII.■ ■11111•111=1111=1=11111111115 NIIIIIIMIIIIMIIMMIMIIIIIIIIIIIII liMili■
Wrpi Og-Juri
cv.F 1 r -1 - 1 1• 11-1 ' 6
•
1 Li
2 1 4
� i leet
•
Doug,
December 3, 1987
Thanks, Doug.
Richard A. Ed
President
Elements Inc.
Doug Steinbaugh
Stuart Corporation
2177 Youngman Avenue
Suite 300
St. Paul, Minnesota 55116
As requested, we have visited the Greenfield site and have designed
an entrance monument for that development.
This monument is constructed of laminated 2" x 6" construction grade
redwood. The panel is one -sided with routered letters, borders and
logo. The exact color scheme can be determined at a future date.
III The cost of this panel is $2,872.00 plus tax, delivered. This does
not include any masonry or electrical work. Also, any necessary
permits are the responsibility of others.
Based on the development entrance, the cul -de -sac location and
development size, we feel as though this panel is an appropriate size
and scale. With this monument and proper landscaping, you will have
an excellent entrance to Greenfield.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please
phone me.
■
( 2 7`- 5
2
i-C P-Ap„--71_ 6"g"
cl
•
•
•
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO: 88 -6
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP87 -29
WHEREAS„ an application for a Conditional Use
Permit entitled CUP87 -29 has been made by Greenfield
Apartments, 920 Felt' Court, to place a sign with a larger
area and a lesser setback than allowed by ordinance.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application
is as follows:
1. That an application for Conditional Use Permit
CUP87 -29 was filed with the City of Hopkins on
December 3, 1987.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on December 29, 1987.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant
to published and mailed notices, held a public
hearing on December 29, 1987; 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 the Hopkins
City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect
to CUP87 -29:
That the proposed sign is needed to identify
the site.
(2. That the proposed sign is in proportion to the
site.
p That the proposed sign presents no traffic
visibility problems.
Adopted this 2nd day of February, 1988.
Donald Milbert, Mayor