The URL can be used to link to this page

VN 92-04 ' CITY OF HOPKINS �� ZONING APPLICATION �.,MMARY FORM �i�I�.� Application Number C�,� -� P .I .D .#: Applicant ' s Name ( Last , First) Owner (if other than applicant) /;'�JG/� �� "`��'r� , , Mailing Address (Street , Ci�y , State , Zip Code) J �� i 61 � l '� / ,�= _�� ,-� �l/l�[!/�" i~ `�/ �''tL - �`/r`��-'f /i/> ,�;i�'.' "i _5_j �� %= y .' Phone Number: (Day) %_.�� -:�i�5� (Evening) _5� -i/ e= .�� ' / Property Address �� .d� ,,�/�� !�, ' � s�D,�i�'�1tT ��rr�r =5 s;�5�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 � l Conditional Use Permit [ ] R-1 -C [ ] R-4 [ 7 B-3 F�] Variance [ -y R-1 -D [ ] R-5 L 7 I-1 [ ] Zoning District Change ' 3-1 -E [ ] R-6 [ ] I-2 [ ] Subdivision Approval L 7 Ordinanee Amendment . [ ] Other I hereby certify with my signature that all data �- contained herein as well as all supporting data �f `� � are true and correct to the best of my knowledge: � � ,�� ,��I ' �-�.� -� Applicants,�.Signature� Date � � ��t'�L�� i7 `�` Owners Signatur � Date � ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SUMMARY [ ] Proper addendum to application Application received : � '�� y � �ol [ ] Detailed plans submitted y�_ [ ] Written pro�ect description submitted Fee Paid : l��b Referred to City PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Engineer: Approved: without modifications Referred to City [ ] with modifications Attorney Denied [�j Referred to Watershed District Date : � �4� "��oZ Date of Publie Hearing Notice � COUNCIL ACTION Date of Public E ved: without modifications Hearing [ ] with modifications Denied: [ ] Date: q" � � �ol RESOLUTION N0: ��`( �p CITY OF HOPKINS �-. SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR VARIANCE Application No . P.I .D . No . A. GENERAL DATA NAME OF APPLICANT: ��.�� r�-� �� `'��'�r'-� The above named individual , �'irm on corporation hereby respectfully submits the following supplemental data in support of the preliminary information provided on the accompanying Zoning Application Summary Form dated for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls . / � � 7 . (� ' � �%�r� /��s� ��r�.�c> ��,'�, _,�9' '' 1 --�`��. Contact Person Last Name , � First Day Phone Evening Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 . Specify the section of the ordinance from which variance is sought: �� . � ^ Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the ordinance• �' � ' � - �'- �, 3 . Explain why the strict enforecment of the Ordinance would cause an undue hardship or deny reasonable use of the property. Hardship to the , - . . applicant is the crucial test .�'� �r�� i�. � C- - . � :�, ' �:��,�� ' � � �� ,i - , �,_1. �! .� i �,�. - />l� >f c� •�-�✓i;l ' � �r� '' 71 (��t'•�� i�� ,1.� �G"<"t � . Check all additional supporting documents and data which are being submitted to help explain this project proposal: [ ] site plan , [ ] topographic map , L � other (specify) 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: ` / � . ._.a Signature o Applica ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING VARIANCE In accordance with the findings stated on the reverse side of this c�ument , the City of Hopkins hereby [x] approved , [ ] denies the foregoing � '.ication for Variance . If approved , said approval is subject to the eral and Special Conditions following the Findings section on page 2 . By: � � ' ��n�C�� q�2�t�� 1... Auth ized Signature Title Date SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS PAGE 2 VARIANCE FINDINGS � .. 1 . This matter was heard at a � hearing before the Zoning and Planning Commission on: � ��i-�- r�� and before the City Council on: �l - 1 - �1� 2 . Strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance [�] would , [ ] would not cause undue hardship to the owner of the property in question because of the following faets 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 ] is , [�] is not shared by properties in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use distriet because of the following facts• 4 . The granting of the variance requested [ ] would , ] would not alter the essential character oP the neighborhood becaus� of the following faets: SPECIAL PROVISIONS � 1. That the new addition would not increase the existing non-conforming setback. 2. That the new addition will improve the property. EXPIRATION. 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 , strueture , addition or alternation requested as part of the approval , said variance shall become null and void unless an application for extension oP 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. Sueh letter shall state the facts of the request , showing a good faith attempt to utilize the variance , ar. it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the propose construetion . The City Couneil may grant extensions not to exceed on�� year. � T Y O G �` � � August 17, 1992 y � p K � � y Planning Report VN92-4 SIDEYARD VARIANCE - 253 MApLE HILL ROAD Pro�osed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution RZ92-20 recommendin denial of a side ard variance. overview. The applicants are proposing to remove an existing small addition on the north side of their existing home and add a larger addition that would square off their home. The existing home is 4'8" from the side yard. The new addition would have the same setback as the existing addition. The site is zoned R-1-C, which requires a 10 foot setback. The applicants property is located in a single family residential area. The subject property is surrounded by single family homes. The addition that is proposed to be removed does not have a basement under it. The new addition will have a basement ^ constructed. The existing setback is legal non-conforming. A legal non- conforming setback allows an existing situation to exist, but not expanded. Also, in this situation the applicant is removing the non-conforming part of the home and then reconstructing an addition. Primarv Issues to Consider. o What are the standards for granting a variance? o Does the applicant's property have a hardship? o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property? o Does the applicant have an alternative? o What is the staffs recommendation? suuuortinq Documents. o Analysis of Issues � o Site Plan o Resolution RZ92-20 ;� . i n' Nanc S. Anderson Plan r � zoning Page 2 � Primary Issues to Consider. 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 by 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 should not be granted. o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property? In this case the zoning of the property is for single family ^ homes. The applicant has the use of a single family home on the site. o Does the applicant�s property have a unique circumstance? . � The applicant in this case does not have a unique circumstance to warrant the granting of a variance. The applicants situation would be no different from another structure in the area wanting to construct an addition if that structure did not meet the proper setback. o Does the applicant have any alternatives? The applicants can build additions to their home as long as the setbacks are met, but a variance is the only way to have the addition constructed on the north side of their home. o What is the staffs recommendation? Because the applicant has reasonable use of the property and the property does not have a unique circumstance, there is no basis for granting a variance. If the Commission indicates a variance is warranted the following are some suggested findings of fact: --� o That the new addition would not increase the existing non-comforming setback. zoning Page 3 � o The the new addition will improve the property. Alternatives. 1. Recommend approval of the variance. By recommending approval of the variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval of the variance. 2. Recommend denial of the variance. By recommending denial of the variance the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial of the variance. 3 . Continue for further information. If the Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. � �� I � 2 ' 3 ' 4 5 6 7 ' (33) � (�) I {35) � (3� I (38) (39 . ` (27) , i i Location Map � ►� 2 /603 �/60T � /6// 16/5 /70 �7� N I PRESTON LANE ' � 3 (13) (22)12 0 ; � 8� N � iso4 23(5» (50) N M �5�49)(42)g 2 6 h 4 �14) I I �r h 4 (8) � I � �21) � � (29) l � 22�5�) (�1� IT �o Q � 14(�48) (43)9 co ` 5 (15) (20�0 � o� g O \ Q O (30) �9j m � ` 21(55) (52)18 O ` � 13f4� (44)10 O � �6 (16r (19)9 N [} ^ 6 IN N � � (31) ,� 20( (53) 19 \. h 12f46) (45)II `. h 7(17) (18)8 m � 7 (10) � N °� � �3� �. BOYCE ST I 30 � I 30 O ` I 30(42) o I 30 - ' . �- - -- - O 2 (I) (12)29 p � 2 (13) (2�29 � (26)2 29 — � � — — � - - - - � p (43) 2 29(54) p. _ _ '3 28 0� (27)3 28 3 28 o� 4 (2) (I I) 27 c� O 4 (14) (24)27 � � 4 27(41) 4 27 � - - - - � - - _ _ -.. (38) - - - -- - `r� � 5 26 � 26 5 2e'/O/). � � � (4-4)5 26(53) � � 6 (3) (10)25 p 6 (15) (23; 25 � � (28)6 P,5(39) 6 25 (52)N � 7 24 � J � 7 (� 24 N � � 7 24 c� 7 24 � r� 8 (4) f9) 23 p � 8 23 � p� 8 23 (37)� � (45) 8 23(51) O � 9 ` 22 � ` ►� 9 (16) ��T � CL9)9 � Q 9 22 � ' . �� _ (8)21 � � 10 (2q 21 co � (3CQ10 21 (36) �o � � (46)10 21 (50) p . � ii cs) 20M — ii - -20 � W M ai)n 20 — � — ii zo— � � 12 19 ` h 12 (20) 19 e!. � ` (32)12 19 (35) �►' � 12 19 p ir - - - - 13 18 � 13 (17) 18 � Q f3 18 � Q (4�13 18(49) � h 14 (6) (7) 17 b M 14 (�8) (19} 17 �t � h (33)f4 17(34) N ` � � 14 17(48) ep 15 16 � 15 16 � 15 16 ,� 15 16 � . GOODR/CH ST. � � � � I 3A � I (7� 30 � I' 30 I 30 . � N 2 �86) (98) 29� N 2 (85Y29 p . N. 2(65I (74)29 � O 2 (56) (64�9 p � J � 3(87) 28 � 3 28 — — —28 �r 3� —— 28 N N 4 27 � �4(7� _2? N � 4 (66) 27 4 56 27 ►� 5 (9� 26 � 5 (8�26 5 (73)26 a. N 5 (63)26 N � �— - -- - N — — — — — — — 6(88) 25 6 (83)25 p � 6(6A 25 � 25 � h 7 (89) (96�4 � � � 7 (77) 24 N N 7 24 7(57) 24 � � - - - _ _ N 8 23 N 8 (8?a 23 .� � 8(68) 23 � — — — — 9 (90) ' — — N c� _ �N 8 _ (62)23 � � 'O _ T g � � N N g (7�22 � g c� �94�� O a' 10(78) 21 . 10 ' 21 :I 0 21 I _ � - - - - - -_ _ _ II (93)20 N II 20 I I ' 20 �M II(100) (61) 20 a' `�- — — — — N 12 I h i2 (sl) I9 12 (7q I9 � 12 +r- � - - - - I � 13 (91) !9?�18 v� �+ .13(79) _ 18 _ 13(69) — — o� 13 _ 18 - N 14 .•.� � 17 14 � — -�. — — — — — �70�� N 14t� _ 17 � . 15 � .'.�I.S':•:•� 16 . 15 , 16 � 15 16 . . . . . . '� � - 7io�l - - Tio3 —T (II) I f10) N N (8) (T) (5) (4� . � (2) (I) (I) N • 22 r � 33 - ' N (/2 SEC 99_'i i � , - . I r J � � � 1 I� - ' _ - �{ --- - _� - � � �� . � � � _ � .�_Z � � � �.� � � ` ��I . ; T �. . �I L � � a 3 ( S � - -�i,B,� �� 1 � -" � �. � i ° �-�- O -L � 1 �� : 1 � j1—"�' . 1 � I � �Q I .� M � 1 - �- - - - - - - • I � 1 I -- — � - ---z-Q.-�- ��-.,�- - - �,-7 ---- -- - -- � ��, �i � ` I .,; � O �' —[� � I ��,s: �J•• �� (�+ ::,r" � n �' : � ' ` �� i ' .. � ; ' ( � ; ; ; � _.�;; ''' I� ; . : , , � ; ; � �-: , f �; 1 i � � � , i � r � � � ' � i i � � � ,t: � ; ' ' ' i � � � • ! � I i { ' ' : � 1 ' 'a�, i i I . i I I � ; i ' i I � � ' i I � I ' I I ' . ' ! � � i i ! ' l � O ; , ; , . , ' ' I , � , I ' � ► � � ' , � I ' � � ► ; .� I � ; ► : � , �o� ( i , ; ; � � , , , � � l ' , � , ' ' j , � r. i , i � ! . . :. , � , , � 0 � ' ` , � � ' � � - �f � , ; ; ; � i � ; � , . i i � ; ! � � ; � i � "�J `}[� 'r. � i �. N I ��y . I Nf " ,---. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ92-20 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-4 made by Michael J. Hoye is recommended for denial. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: l. That an application for VN 92-4 was filed with the City of Hopkins on July 24, 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 92-4 is hereby recommended for denial based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. That the subject property cloes not have an undue hardship to warrant the granting of a variance. Adopted this 25th day of August, 1992. John Hutchison, Chairman �"� ti \ 1 Y p G .c � � ^ August 17, 1992 y � p K � � � Council Report 92-182 SIDEYARD VARIANCE - 253 MAPLE HILL ROAD Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution R92-76 denving a side yard variance Mr. Winship moved and Mr. Racek seconded a motion to approve Resolution RZ92-20 recommending denial of a side yard variance. The motion passed 6 - 1, Mr. Gullickson voting nay. overview. The applicants are proposing to remove an existing small addition on the north side of their existing home and add a larger addition that would square off their home. The existing home is 4'8" from the side yard. The new addition would have the same setback as the existing addition. The site is zoned R-1-C, which requires a 10 foot setback. The applicant's property is located in a single family residential area. The subject property is surrounded by single family homes. The addition that is proposed to be removed does not have a basement under it. The new addition will have a basement constructed. � Phe existing setback is legal non-conforming. A legal non-conforming setback allows an existing situation to exist, but not expanded. Also, in this situation the applicant is removing the non-conforming part of the home and then reconstructing an additidn. Staff reviewed the applicants request with the Commission. Mr. and Mrs. Hoye appeared before the Commission and reviewed their request. There was considerable discussion on any alternatives, the hardship for granting a variance, and other homes in the neighborhood that could have a similar situation. Mr. Hoye had a letter from the neighbor to the north stating he did not object to the addition. A neighbor also appeared and stated he had no objection to the variance. Primarv Issues to Consider. o What are the standards for granting a variance? o Does the applicant's property have a hardship? o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property? o Does the applicant have an alternative? o What is the staffs recommendation? suuvortinq Documents. • o Analysis of Issues o Site Plan o Resolution R92-76 �--.. � ��ancy . Anderson, Planner . Zoning Page 2 � Primary Issues to Consider. o What are the standards for grantinq a variance? A variance is a modif ication 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 by 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 should not be granted. o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property? In this case the zoning of the property is for single family homes. The applicant has the use of a single family home on the site. ,--, o Does the applicant's property have a unique circumstance? The applicant in this case does not have a unique circumstance to warrant the granting of a variance. The applicant� situation would be no different from another structure in the area wanting to construct an addition if that structure did not meet the proper setback. o Does the applicant have any alternatives? The applicants can build additions to their home as long as the setbacks are met, but a variance is the only way to have the addition constructed on the north side of their home. o What is the staffs recommendation? Because the applicant has reasonable use of the property and the property does not have a unique circumstance, there is no basis for granting a variance. If the Council indicates a variance is warranted the following are some suggested findings of fact: o That the new addition would not increase the existing non- comforming setback. —� o The the new addition will improve the property. . . Zoning Page 3 �--� Alternatives. 1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to construct an addition to the side of his home. 2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance the applicant will not be able to construct an addition to the side of his home. 3 . Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. � �� I � 2 ' 3 4 5 6 7 " (33) � I (35) I F36) � (37� � (38) (39 (27) , i i Location Map � ^ 2 l603 �/607 �!6// l6/5 /70 � � (7) N I PRESTON LANE: ' � 3 c�3� i22�12 0 ; �2� N � /604 23(5� I 0) N M 15(49)(42)826 h 4(14) �21) � � (9) (8) � I r� 22�56) (5Q � 5 (15) I7 �o � 14(A8) (43)9 �c � (20�0 � °j 5 IO " Q ^ O (30) �9� m `i � � 21(S5) (52)18 0 0� 13(4� (44)�0 0 � �6 (16r (19)g N (�- ^ 6 ,� N N t � (31) ,� 20( (53) �9 � h 12(46) (45)I� v� b 7�177 (18)8 m � 7 (ID) � � � � N o> °� (32� � BOYCE ST. I 30 � I 30 O � I 30(42) o I 30 - ' - O 2 (I) (12)29 �— — -- — — — — — — — 1 — — — —O � 2 (13) (2�29 � � (26)2 29 � � (43) 2 29(54) p. •3 28 0, (27)3 28 3 28 o� 4 (2) (I I) 27 c� O 4 (14) (24)27 � � 4 27(41) 4 27 e-- - - - — � - - — — '• (38) - - - --- � � 5 26 � 26 5 2Q►jp�� \ ` � (44)5 26(53) � � 6 (3) (10)25 p� � 6 (15) (23i 25 � � (28)6 �(39) 6 25 (52)N � 7 24 � J 7 (22J 24 � � � 7 24 cV 7 24 � � 8 (4) (9) 23 p � 8 23 � � 8 23 (37)� � (45) 8 23(51) O � 9 ` 22 � � t� 9 (16) — ,R � CL9)9 22 � 9 22 � ' • 10 (8)21 � 10 (2n 21 co � (3Cp10 21 (36) �o � � (46)10 21 �50) p ►� �� 5� -- 20 M ' — �� - -2� � W M a�� 2� — � — �� 20 — � ^ 12 19 ` h 12 (20) 19 e} � ` (32}I2 19 (35) tl' � 12 19 p �t- — — — — 13 18 � 13 (17) IS � O 13 18 � Q (4n 13 18(49) � '� 14 (6) (7) 17 b M 14 (18) (19) 17 �r .� h (33)f4 17(34) c� `�l � 14 17(48) d. 15 16 � 15 16 � 15 16 �� 15 16 � . GOODRICH S T. . � � � I 3Q � I (75) 30 � I, 30 I 30 � N 2 �86) (98) 29 H 2 (85YZ9 , � — — — — — — — o � O N . 2(65) (74)29 0 � � J � 3(87) 28 � — — — — — — — � �. 3(55) �64 28 0 N 3 28 2g N 9 27 � �4(76� _27 N � 4(66) 27 4 56) 27 �. 5 (97� � i 5 (8�26 5 (73)26 a. N 5 (63)26 N � �- - -- - cv - - — - - - — - - - 6(88) 25 6 (83)25 p � 6(6'� 25 � 25 � h 7(89) (96�4 � � � 7 (77) 24 N N 7 24 7(57) 24 t`- -- — — — _ N S 23 N 8 (8�23 ,� � S(68) 23 � — —— — 9 I90) ' — — N N — � 8 _ (62)23 � �- — — — -r 9 -- � N N 9 (7�22 � 9 IN �� 2� o � 10(78) _21 ' . 10 ' 21 ;10 21 �� (93)20 N II 20 _ I I 20 � II(100) (61) 20 d' 12 I h i2 (81) 19 t2 � � - - - - N (71) 19 N 12 io- =A-- — — — — I � 13 (91) (9?a 18 er N 13(79) _ 18 _ 13(69) _ o> 13 _ IS - N 14 I ._. _, ,•� . � ._. _ �7 _ 14 _ (70I�7 N 141� . _ 17� . 15 � �.�.�LS�.�.� 16 . 15 � 16 � 15 16 ^ - 7io�l - - Tio3� -Ti (��) I (10) N N (8) (7) (5) (4) . � (2) (I) (I) N • 22 T ; 33 • N I/2 SFC 94_T i � J - � � I � � � � �, - , _ _ �{ --- - - _, - � ; �� - � � � to�L - I � , �.V ! ) .�I \ � -;� '�. . �) L � I Q � S �/,8, �-� � � ,, a � � � �. � � � �� —� � � �� . � � I `---' � � ,� I ' -a i ., � � � � - .- - - - - - - . � � 1 __ _ I - -- - ------ -- . —TQ`�- 1� ,/� J� 7 . � , � -.:. �f� ' � o x � � I _ ` . IIC�� . :.�, `�' ' � � . �; � ,. � - � � I ' i I > � ' ! t ' � � , � � � .Y'.'1'. I �` i i ; . , f .� _ ` � , , ; � � � � � . � � � ' �_ � • • � , i ( � � . � i � � � ! � - '• + j ; I � ; ' I � ' i � _ � � I � � � i i { : � i i � I , � I i � , i j I � � I � ' j � I � , � � � , � � I i I � � � , ; � ' � , ; ; , �Z! � � � ; ' ; ; ; i , . � , i ; � � ; ; � - f � � � • � r " i � ` I . � � � . ' . . '� � ' ! � I � I I ; ! � ( ' • �L f � � � I j i I ! ! � : ! ! ' , , , , ; � ► � � . .,. . � . . . . . : . . � , �� . I n� f , �� CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING The Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission will hold a hearing on Tuesday, August 25, 1992 , at 7: 30 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 1010 First Street South, to consider an application by Michael Hoye for a 5 foot 3 1/2 inch side yard variance to construct an addition at 253 Maple Hill Road. If you have any interest in this hearing, please attend this meeting. For further information, contact Nancy Anderson at 935- 8474 . �I l � �1C�I?JI.OtS?� NanOc:�. Anderson ^ Planner HEARING/7 � �;� c� /'Yt. �� ln�'c' �^-L C' �, f/� ( ?C'7 � S /�/��'!C� / �i / / � c� c� � G� � �� 7�� c� �.�-� � � c c�.o,�1e� � ��c��,� � �l/�. � � �� C�� !/�S / U �/�� l / �� G� C��' S�S ��c-. M c �� (,i` �r� ��2 c � , �- c� cti• ��-� i✓, C `G S� s � /�r'i � l-•`�o�-- � (^ C ��'� r e ��' � w�c� � / �' �l� e C �F' c �� , � ��_ J CC � ` S �c r s �o�.. �� v�� t ,�, S-�� v1 C� r ��s� � � � ' � I,t. �1 L. � l�� c� Y�l c� 6� C � 5`��'�'' / C� ��G � � -�'��c-�G't-- �� , J � ,�� ////,''�� / t�,� �,/ S�I � .�L h i//�L�J/'!� /�� . �1 � i //%J./"�- ` / � / ' � � � �� / � � ��- C��S�� / �Z � �� -- � � „-. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: R92-76 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-4 made by Michael J. Hoye is denied. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for VN 92-4 was filed with the City of Hopkins on July 24, 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 �nd analysis of the City Staff and the Planning Commission were considered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN 92-4 is hereby denied based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2 . That the subject property does not have an undue hardship to warrant the granting of a variance. Adopted this lst day of September, 1992 . Nelson W. Berg, Mayor ATTEST: James A. Genellie, City Clerk ..--�