VN 89-05 CITY OF HOPKINS
ZONIIIG APPLICATION
�
SUMMARY FORM _
Application Number `���✓ �,���_ �
P .I .D .#•
Applicant 's Name (Last , First) Oxner (if other than applicant)
1�c�K�e�- ,m��. L W � _ �.�,�����,� 5��6� I D�s �f ��a
Mailing Address (Street , City, State , Zip Code)
������/���C.����.-LI�6 b �1 h S . -- /� I 1�1 �,_�� ��
Phone Number: (Day) / 3.3�C/o��7 (Evening) 9v2 y-/S �6
Property Address j6 Ob F'►'�u�n S�-�,.�� 1 �lo� �^S� mh �535�3
APPLICABLE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT(S) TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST
[ ] R-1-A L l R-2 L l B-1 [ ] Concept Reviex
[ ] R-1-B [ ] R-3 [ ] B-2 " . [ ] Conditional Use Permit
[ � R-1 -C [ ] R-4 [ ] B-3 [X] Variance
R-1-D [ R-5 � 7 I-1 [ ] Zoning District Change
�� R-1-E [� R-6 L l I-2 [ ] Subdivision Approval
[ ] Ordinance Amendment
[ ] Other _
I hereby certify srith my signature that all data
contained herein as well as all supporting data
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge: � Q�
� plicants Signature Date
OWners Signature Date
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SIIMMARY .
[ ] Proper addendum to application Application received: //- �- �11
[ ] Detailed plans submitted
[ ] Written pro�ect description submitted Fee Paid:
Referred to City
PLANNING "COMMISSION ACTION Engineer:
Approved: X without modifications Referred to City
[ ] With modifications Attorney
Denied [ ] Referred to Watershed
District
Date : 12/26/89 Date of P-ub�=�c-
Hearing Notfce /./ � ,/..3- �fi
COUNCIL ACTION Date of Publie
Approved: without modifieations Hearing // - n� - � `�
[ ] with modifications
Denied: [X ]
Date: 1/2/90 RESOLUTION N0: 90-5A
CITY OF HOPKINS
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
FOR VARIANCE
�
Application No . Y'� d�9- -�
P. I .D . No.
A. GENERAL DATA
NAME OF APPLICANT: � 010�(�1� `�CY1v�� ��,/� �0�7 U
The above named individual , firm or corporation hereby respectfully submits
the following supplemental data in support of the preliminary inform t " n
provided on the accompanying Zoning Application Summary Form dated � 9
for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use z ning
controls .
Uic,��ev�r►..�,� L_ Dwe � ( 93-�'9�� yo�9-/S� �
Contact Person Last Name , First Day Phone Evening Phone
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
1 . Specify the section of the ordinance from which variance is sought:
2 . Explain how you ish to vary from t e appli able provisions of he �
��rdinan�e • �(h�MG � , U cJ � p
� C�G �}�"i C�ln(• � Gl ' C�C i
�
3 . Explain Why the strict enforecment of the Ordinance �ould cause an
undue hardship or deny reasonab e use of the proper y. fHar ship to the
applicant is the crucial test . _ ��-�c.�S e S e� � �Ccc�h�e� ��1,e "'�'
4 . Check all additional supporting documents and data Which are being
submitted to help explain this pro3ect proposal: [ ] site plan , [✓r
topographic map , [ ] other (specify)
I hereby certify with my signature that all data
on my application forms , plans and specifications �
are true and correet to the best of my knowledge•
.
gnature 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 , [X ] denies the foregoing
A- i.ication for Variance . If approved , said approval is subject to the
ral and pecial Conditions following the Findings section on page 2 .
�— V � �� Planning & Economic
By= � � e�celotzent Director 1/9/90
uthor zed 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: D cember' 26, 1989 and before the City Council
on• ,lanuary�, 1A00
2 . Strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance [ ] would ,
[ X] 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 [ ] is , [ ] is not
unique to the property in question , and L 7 is , [ ] is not shared by
properties in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same
use district because of the following
facts•
� . The granting of the variance requested [ ] would , [ ] would not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood because of the following
facts:
1
--�,
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
E%PIRATION.
Within one year after the approval of a variance or appeal the property
owner or applicant has not substantially started the construction 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 aceordance with this
subseetion . A letter to extend the approval of a variance or appeal shall
be submitted to the Zoning Administrator not less than thirty (30) days
bePore 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 proposec
construetion . The City Couneil may grant extensions not to exceed one
year.
1 Y
� O
G �
��� �
ti 5
� December 27, 1989 � p " � � Council Report: 90-07
FRONT YARD VARIANCE - SCHOOL DISTRICT
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No:
90-5A denvinq the request for a variance to locate a building less
than 50 feet from a lot line. "
Denial of this variance will not allow the School District to keep the
storage building located in its present location.
The Commission unanimously approved Resolution No. Z89-35 recommending
approval of the variance to allow the shed within the 50 foot setback
with review at the end of one year.
Overview.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 foot setback for all buildings on
school property. A 26' x 20' storage building at Katherine Curren
Elementary School was moved from the southeast side of the lot to the
north side of the lot abutting Mainstreet. The placement of the shed
was done without a building permit or zoning approval.
To meet the building code the Building Inspector is reguiring the shed
to be 15 feet from the school building. When the storage building is
� the proper distance from the school building to meet building code,
the storage building has a 35 foot setback not the required 50 foot
setback. The School District does not want to move the building and
wants a variance to keep the storage building along Mainstreet.
Larry Lutz, representing the School District, appeared before the
Commission and stated that the school needs additional storage. Mr.
Lutz also stated that when the storage shed was moved to its present
location he did not know that the shed was in violation of the
building and zoning codes. There was considerable discussion about
the need and location of the shed.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the subject property have an undue hardship to warrant
the variance?
o Do other alternatives exist for the School District?
Supportinq Information.
o Location Map
o Site Plan
o Resolution No: 90-5
�
Nanc S. An erson
Plan r
�-- FRONT YARD VARIANCE - SCHOOL DISTRICT
CR:90-07
Page 2
Detailed Background.
Section� 530.09 subdivision 1 d) states the following: The following
are conditional uses in R districts: Public or equivalent private
schools provided no buildings are located less than 50 feet from any
lot line and that a fence is erected along the boundary line which is
common with abutting private property.
The storage building was moved because additional playground equipment
was installed where the building was previously. Also, the storage
building before being moved was used to store articles such as
fertilizer.
The existing school building is legal non-conforming because it does
not have a 50 foot setback on every lot line. However, any additions,
alterations, or additional buildings are required to meet the
ordinance requirements.
The subject building is 26 feet by 20 feet, about the size of a two
stall garage. If the School District would have checked with the City
and found out the various requirements this situation would not have
�
of occurred.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the subject property have an undue hardship to warrant the
variance?
Undue hardship as defined in the State Statute states that without the
variance the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use
and the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner. I cannot think of a hardship
to the School District other than economic to allow the storage
building in this location. The School District has reasonable use of
the property without the storage building in this location. Also,
the problem in this case was created by the landowner. There is no
undue hardship to have the storage building in this location.
o Do other alternatives exist for the School District?
It appears other locations on the site that would work out for both
the City and the School District other than along Mainstreet.
��
21( (49)6 N� M� 2C1(81 (7016 iv � n, �`3(� (93)6 .n; � I � . , � � •
� � � ( �01 � 3l 39
20Q5 50) T N(� �v 19( (71) 7 � � ` 18(I (94)7 Q' � I � N� � � _ • (56)7
19 (51)8 m \ � 18(7' (Y?J 8 v ` '\� I7p (95�8 � � ( -� I. �' �
. , — - �. � .,'z�=?s_ c�ns
18�58 52) _ � _� CT3)9 � • � 16�10 �96)9 �� I I . . . ' �58�9
I7( 10 16 —__'1 L--- �
� . . � _ -` •,_ /_.�.
18 �15 14I13 12 II 15 14 13 � 12�11 �10 • 15+1 '13 12- 11 190 I^�.1511 '�`� �3 \1
- (5f6� ��j i �4 5 (T7� 6 75� (7� I �10�� ����� ) .7� ti"c
• t� �• - �f; O t� � �� � I v- ov' :�j .`;�C
i° `5 t° � � h � � • . ] t�,–
� � � _ . �f Z
_ . . � • -
`E4f6",c :i� 1400 � 1300 �. �
IS10 . � N z
� EY . l�B'�' . � - .�_
'� ' f ' .a ,3 4.
• ._ � ' � cr9 cs csn
. a�� ,4.� - � � �= -:: ��. �.
� - ' `` . -� 25,:_i �(85�6 .
I � _
. - (3)�i' . . .(23 � (1) . � � .24..1 �? 9 -.
.� i^�. —
a42� �"- z T' � I .. 23... � t,,:'.10
iaza J` � � - —� �,�:�
l430, '� � - ,.�-' . '....22 ;.1 1:`P;�II^
• —.-- �--- —
• '_� _ . ��:�:..
' • ----2 t �j (e6y(2-
/ . • ��;. .: �;:_-
. � _20Q9.9� �� �'13;'
. . ` . w: -. ;:� (�:�.:. :
_ -. _'�g_:I ��'.-
, . 18-..':� C�r�:-JS�
- � '�`::1T� � ��g��16�
. . , . . �, _ ,�
. . � __ "_ - . � 5
� - - ' . ,���;,-+J
� :i.
- ,R ��-
� . - . . . . ' '19 9q_.�•_�.
.. . � ..;" . , ,,-�. -.t., .�� _ . . _18 p01) �(9U,z
� . : .. . ...` . : .. . ; �4) • . � IT(100) 'h;�3`�.�`;
: • • ' . . • :.r.�--
. E6: ' ;(s�J4� =
. . , - —r- - _ .
' • . . , 15(99) � 5 "
� • . . - � —-
. -
�, . • ..14 . g .
_ � :�� (5)� . . . e-_ �
� : : • . •. . � 13 (93)7 �
. . . l�� 8 �
. 1 _
' . . � Il� - 9
. . , _'O_
/60/ , '
� . � � COUNTY . � I : . .ti--l=
HENNEPIN _ .
. - .- . .� _ � . � � � ���
- � G.� �,�.,� � . � - �. , �.
� �� � r,�,� . � . � _ .- -�; `
� _ . . . � � - 33: _ _ _ . - . . , ,
_ . _ . . .. �.:
_ .- . . , . . _ _ . :�
' '.- -_ . . • ' . , � . � -. ... • h .. ' . � _ . ,'i - ;� ,��
.,. • . , . . . . . _ . , -rr:. '
.. - . . . . .� � . . g . . , f , -i�'
, .'_' ia: . � .. � � � � . � . " . � . . . . . � ���
. . . - .. e_ . •ti^,�-.
. , - - �
,
IJ �
r•
� •}o i�
. � V� .�i j
1
f
Y t i �
V
M i�
� i
' � �
�. '
(rwv�vuws/w..��w w! )a -
� � ` .
�
1 '
1 �wos �ww��� i.� •
� � ��:� � . �.
, .
� _..o g � ;: . �
.•:
. I, � o . �••• . '
� ,��
� •-
; ::_ ;
, , .
: -
� S i� t
I , • ' �
i
.
�
� i �
, � .
t i i � � .
I : t .
i r � . • -
� $ �
� ' %
; .
I i , : N _ � .
��' • � �
M
�_ ' s f = a
j e K = � C
i � � � : i 1 ' ;
: „
• � ! � .
' ` � ' � ; : . ..: .. :
e • i ,: +� ,L-
y� r i � { R�. ••�`
� . = S � � ♦ ••�1 =• •
3 � � • �r'Z' � � J
. � •���•<
� � •w r
� ' ► •f'
•'
= 7 Z� i � . ��J� ••
� '� • / 1 � : i ; �
� � � f i �.• • _
r � � s
r � � �
i �
ilty , ` �: ; . � .
� ' .
. ; � .
; y .
�
� �
r 1 ,
. � t , � �
� }
S �•
�
t 1 �
a.-.c.•ct� ��a � -
' r .
�`�l� ;(
( '
� � d
1G ��YN
� _ .
�- �� O
�W_X
D2`s
�� �
Katherine Curren Elementary School
�. 1600 Mainstreet �- _ -�
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
December 5, 1989
Hopkins City .Counci i
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, Mn. 55343
� Gentlemen:
I am writing this letter to appeal to you to give us a va��iance to keep our
storage shed where it is at 30 feet from tf�e sidewalk off of Mainstreet.
Our building has very littie storage space in it and, with our growing
enrollment, tlie problem is becoming more intense. We very much need to
have a place to store folding chairs, chorus risers, folding tables and large
athletic equipment which could pose a safety hazard when stored in the
� hails.
The shed is located in a corner of the building that does not lnterfere with
any function of the building.
We hope that you w 111 see f i t to a 1 I ow us to make use of th i s very prec ious
space in it's current locatior�.
Sincerely,
. , .
� d�-�-�-
� Marjorie Richardson
Princi�al
� �
�, CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 90-5A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING .
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN: 89-5
WHEREAS, an application by the Hopkins School District for
Variance VN:89-5 to allow a storage building within 50
feet of the front lot line at Katherine Curren School
is hereby denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the amendment is as follows:
1. That the application for VN:89-5 was filed with
the City of Hopkins on November 9, 1989.
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on November 28, 1989.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notices, held a hearing on November 28,
1989, continued to December 26, 1989; 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 Variance
VN:89-5 is hereby denied subject to the following
Findings of Fact:
l. That the School District has reasonable use of the
property without the storage shed in its present
location.
2. That there is no hardhip to warrant the granting
of the variance.
Adopted this 2 day of January, 1990.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
��
t Y
� U
L F
`JN"
ti • 5
November 14, 1989 � P K � � Planning Report: VN89-5
�
FRONT YARD VARIANCE - SCHOOL DISTRICT
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No:
Z89-35 denying the request for a variance to locate a buildina less
than 50 feet from a lot line. "
Denial of this variance will not allow the School District to keep the
storage building located in its present location.
overview.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50 foot setback for all buildings on
school property. A 26' x 20' storage building at Katherine Curren
Elementary School was moved from the southeast side of the lot to the
north side of the lot abutting Mainstreet. The placement of the shed
was done without a building permit or zoning approval.
To meet the building code the Building Inspector is requiring the shed
to be 15 feet from the school building. When the storage building is
the proper distance from the school building to meet building code,
the storage building has a 35 foot setback not the required 50 foot
setback. The School District does not want to move the building and
wants a variance to keep the storage building along Mainstreet.
'- Staff is recommending denial because there is no hardship to warrant
the approval of a variance.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the subject property have an undue hardship to warrant
the variance?
o Do other alternatives exist for the School District?
Supportinq Information.
o Location Map
o Site Plan
o Resolution No: Z89-35
�a�����
Nanc . Anderson
Plann r
��
FRONT YARD VARIANCE - SCHOOL DISTRICT
� VN:89-5
Page 2
Detailed Backqround.
Section 530. 09 subdivision 1 d) states the following: The following
are conditional uses in R districts: Public or equivalent private
schools provided no buildings are located less than 50 feet from any
lot line and that a fence is erected along the boundary line which is
common with abutting private property.
The storage building was moved because additional playground equipment
was installed where the building was previously. Also, the storage
building before being moved was used to store articles such as
fertilizer.
The existing school building is legal non-conforming because it does
not have a 50 foot setback on every lot line. However, any additions,
alterations, or additional buildings are required to meet the
ordinance requirements.
The subject building is 26 feet by 20 feet, about the size of a two
stall garage. If the School District would have checked with the City
and found out the various requirements this situation would not have
of occurred.
�
Primary Issues to Consider. �
o Does the subject property have an undue hardship to warrant the
variance?
Undue hardship as defined in the State Statute states that without the
variance the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use
and the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property not created by the landowner. I cannot think of a hardship
to the School District other than economic to allow the storage
building in this location. The School District has reasonable use of
the property without the storage building in this location. Also,
the problem in this case was created by the landowner. There is no
undue hardship to have the storage building in this location.
o Do other alternatives exist for the School District?
It appears other locations on the site that would work out for both
the City and the School District other than along Mainstreet.
��
, o �.,��, ��.,�� �� y •� ..,..., ..,.,, "' \ �ol 3/-39
21(6(� (49) N� `�
� � m t ^ 18(�0 m � � `�� � (56)7
N 20(5 50) 7 N`,� �v 19(8 (71) 7 � ^I^ �. (94)7 � � ' � — —
\ °j 18(7 (72)S � \ � 17(I (95� 8 �* � � i ''J I • (5718
19 (51) 8 � �- - � I 2I-29
' I � 18(58 52) _ ,s� _� (73)9 � m 16(10 (9619 � _, _ .1 l_— — _ • � �58)9
17(5 10 � 16 —— —— ———— �. . .i
� 1511 � � � � �� �
� �15 14 '13 12 I I 15 14 13 � 12 �11 �10 • 15 'I I 13 12 11 10 I .'. `� (� 3
ie ` � � I (io�) (i�o) �9) 98 9.7� ��
�516)_ � i ��'* 5 �7� 6 75� � � +��� .
�
� � • � h h h� � � I � cr � _ � ��cG-`"Z
�
. - . �� - -
isro ���re�- ,-- �400 - raoo . i . N
��E�Y . r�°2 . i - .�
• 1 2:� ,3 ;4�
�� . _ . , •� , � �8 �81)
._ � L -
(ii> � ' - ' [= �.;, ,-_ .
,�;,-�- . i . .7 .
� . �� . � 25 :� r85,g .
; r� - ; . :---�
� � �
. cs�'Z� . �t2f � c�� . � - r z4.� i �_
i42a � y� . ; 2a �� ,_."jo�
: - �.22' I E.�Yj�.
• 1�30.. '�
��,-- �._.�.- —
� ' _ 2I �� �6�12-.:.
� . «..,: � :
. . _20�89� � fi 13.;-
� ,
. . , x
l9: ��4 .
- � - : —--� —1 �—�--
, � . � ` I$ � � r ��;�15 ,
. — r'=r
• ''�7:...� ����f�;..
'� Y
. '� . •
I . . . " .. '_' -�
. . . .:,�. _._.. ... ' ' _" ' ^ Y�
' " . .. ' ' " • �.� •�
. v '. �V
. . . � ' . - �f��'��
r . . � " ��g gp�14
,. -- =-
� , . . ' 18 p01j, �(91).� .
. _ ..,f . : „' �.� t (4) � - � ITU00) ��"r3�'>
r----..._.
.. �6 ;(g�?q,'
. - -,- — —
- ' ' t5(99) ~' 5 '
� � ` . , . • . , : - ��,14' ,� g - -
� , (5)� . � � (3 (93)7. .
, � 12N� g.
- . � . . � . 1�.�1G '
. • � Ilc - g
• � . _ �10 .
/60l , ' _
t .. 1 �
_ .. , . . , � . I . �
HENNEPIN . � COUNTY . . _ _
- .. �: : � ,
. � CT 1 c'�'�' , � . _ , _ �:
� � �,� r, . .� -�
, ; 3� _ - . :
. . r , _ _ . � ,
_ � . ,. . ,.�
� � � : . - . .
. , , . . . . _ . . . . .. .�.���.�_
.. . , , .. . . . ' . .' .. � ..' ' . ' . . - ,. � =f`,/
, . . , . , _ . '•.�..
. . . ... . ,. �Y�'.
.
:� :
, :o ;;
� 'y :
� V�1 ,1
O J �
y j l _
M -
N •�
f �
i �
Y
�� .
�rIW lplaMl))N�InYW IV7 7L �
�� � r
, � .
J=
, .�, .�.o�.. t.o .
I � — — _ �.
, �ii: ; � . .
, . � �: o
. � .. .
� ::.:
., . I i •� . `;``
�� ,
,_��
j �•�Y �•
� _ � •
� ; 'f •�
r r
I ' • '
:
.
� i � .
. � .
. •
. ( . t '� i •
� , � . .
� � � : .
;
I . '
: � , _
�
� �
' a '
o , ;
� F < ' :
� � � i i
i � : , � �
� � � C
• y � • • y r
• y
� • 7 • � � •�
: � / L ;. . • � /•
Y t � � M . �r M
2 9 ♦1• • :�i� �
i .d � ;«
�M w��••
'J �' • •r.• � M(
f �• •���•t �~
. � % �� � •F
f � =w t � . ��J O�h •�
' ' �: �' � 1 • t � . • 1
,(� i � • i 5
Ll < < i
� a � �
. = F J ` '
if;_ � � 7�3 , ;
. � � �l ,
; . � ��
:
. ;,;
+ a � � '
• 5 �'
•
* ' w
a.�.c.•z t J. ��a ° .
C„� .
C�1 an ( .
• f '
. ,
� .
1G MIYW
� LL� -
J� O
_ � �W x
D2�
�� �
CITY OF HOPKINS
� Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: Z89-35
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL
OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN:89-5
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN89-5
made by Hopkins School District 270 is recommended
for denial.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as
follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN:89-5 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on November 9,
1989.
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on November 28, 1989.
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission,
pursuant to mailed notices, held a public
hearing on November 28, 1989 and continued on
December 26, 1989; 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 Variance
VN89-5 is hereby recommended for denial subject to
the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the School District has reasonable use
of the property without the storage shed in
its present location.
2 . That there is no hardship to warrant the
granting of the variance.
Adopted this 26 day of December, 1989.
Toni Richardson, Chair
��
CITY OF HOPKINS
-- Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 90-5
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN: 89-5
WHEREAS, an application by the Hopkins School District for
Variance VN:89-5 to allow a storage building
within 50 feet of the front lot line at Katherine
Curren School is hereby denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the amendment is as
follows:
l. That the application for VN:89-5 was filed
with the City of Hopkins on November 9, 1989.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on November 28, 1989.
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission,
pursuant to mailed notices, held a hearing on
November 28, 1989, continued to December 26,
1989 ; 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 Variance
VN:89-5 is hereby denied subject to the following
Findings of Fact:
1. That the School District has reasonable use
of the property without the storage shed in
its present location.
2 . That there is no hardship to warrant the
granting of the variance.
Adopted this 2 day of January, 1990.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
�
Katherine Curren Elementary School
1600 Mainstreet
�-- Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
December S, 1989
Hopkins City Council
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, Mn. 55343
� Gentlemen:
I am writing this letter to appeal to you to give us a var-iance to keep our
storage shed where it is at 30 feet from the sidewalk off of rlainstreet.
Our buiiding has very little storage space in it and, with our growing
enrollment, tf�e problem is becoming more intense. We very much need to
have a place to store folding chairs, chorus risers, folding tables and large
athletic equipment which could pose a safety hazard when stored in the
halls.
� The shed is located in a corner of the building that does not lnterfere with
any function of the building.
We hope that you wiil see fit to allow us to make use of this very precious
space in it's curr-ent location.
Sincerely,
, , .
� �-�-c_
Marjorie Richardson
Principal
�
CITY OF HOPKINS
�-- Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: Z89-35
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN:89-5
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN89-5
made by Hopkins School District 270 is hereby
recommended for approval.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as
follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN:89-5 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on November 9,
1989.
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on November 28, 1989 .
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission,
pursuant to mailed notices, held a public
hearing on November 28, 1989 and continued on
December 26, 1989 ; 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 Variance
VN89-5 is hereby recommended for approval subject
to the following Findings of Fact:
l. That the School District placed the building
without knowledge of the setback
requirements.
2 . That the building is necessary to serve the
needs of the school.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for Variance VN89-5
is hereby recommended for approval subject to the
following conditions:
l. Review by the Zoning and Planning Commission
in one year to have the School District
either remove or alter the building to
conform to code.
Adopted this 26 day of December, 1989.
�
Toni Richardson, Chair