VN 92-03 CITY OF HOPKINS
�
ZONING APPLICATION
SUMMARY FORM w � Qf
Application Number U�U la.r�
P .I .D .#:
Applicant ' s Nam� (Last , First) , Owner (if other than applicant )
i'% �.r . /�� /r�,�T? � /C ; /
Mailing Address (Street , City, State , Zip Code)
� /�` I �� / /, . //� �'� �/ I/�� l,/ /� �I'�C' b�'�C /' -
� �
��I !'
Phone Number: (Day) � � � �� � (Evening)
/ r . % ,
f
. ��� � � � '% �_�,� ��,' -� �
Property Address ,
1
�r� �' n � � r - � '
(
� G� � � �,
�" , �` _ ,;., � 4_ .
r.• � /�-�-"�:
APPLICABLE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT(S) TYPE OF ZONING REQIIEST
[�] R-1-A [ ] R-2 [ ] B-1 [ ] Concept Review
r � R-1-B [ ] R-3 [ ] B-2 �] Conditional Use Permit
[��R-1 -C [ ] R-4 [ ] B-3 ] Variance
[ t-1-D [ � R-5 � � I-1 �] Zoning District Change
[ d-1-E [ ] R-6 [ ) I-2 [ ] Subdivision Approval
[ ] Ordinance Amendment
( ] Other
I hereby certify with my signature that all data ; �
contained herein as well as all supporting data � � � ,� �� ` ���� /r
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge: � � ' ��/,� ' � ' � � �/ '���i � �'
Applicants Si,gnature Date
�" ( � � �,�. �
. - x -���, _� . ;
,� , _ ��
Owners Signature Date
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SUMMARY
[ ] Proper addendum to application Application received: ���(G JI Z
[ ] Detailed plans submitted r
[ ] Written project description submitted Fee Paid: �J��
Referred to City
PLANNING "COMMISSION ACTION Engineer:
Approved: � without modifications Referred to City
� ] with modifications Attorney
Denied [ ] Referred to Watershed
)/� District
Date• l�' �✓^ � ? Date of Publie �,
^� Hearing Notice
COUNCIL ACTION Date of Public 1,
Ap�.�•oved: without modifications Hearing �T'+
[ ] with modifications
Denied: [ ]
�! �
Date: � ""� � G�� RESOLIITION N0: 1- �
CITY OF HOPKINS
�--�
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
FOR VARIANCE
Application No .
P .I .D . No .
A. GENERAL DATA
�
NAME OF APPLICANT: _ ��./� ; ,�/f� ,���,.�" �/' , �'f� �
The above named individual , firm or corporation hereby respectfully submits
the following supplemental data in support of the preliminary information
provided on the accompanying Zoning Application Summary Form dated j�� ��' � � �`��=-
for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning
controls .
�;�
��`'i' �?/' ' n �v� � i� `; /�
Contact Person Last Name , First Day Phone Evening Phone
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
1 . Specify the s��i�n of the ordinance from which variance is sought:
.
.✓; :?,�� !���Ter-
� Explain how you ,wish to vary from the applicable provisions oF the
ordinan�e • ���°t� �<�,° ,��� ,��t�i� ,,,, ,; �� _� , _ . � ,
i; ,� �.�T/ -� ,� �, ,
`". /,��N'•� i i� e- �;
3 . Explain why the strict enforecment of the Ordinanee would cause an
undue hardship or deny reasona , e use o,f the property. Hardship p the
applicant is the crucial test . ' �-�� <�. � �� �-.��� < ,-;;�' � ���
� :�; ��
.�<e'� .�, ,�t�' i�.�>> .,,� ,�� ��tf'• '.'� _-FY' �ct��,' �` �2
. .�' ✓ _f". ��
r
�4 . Check all additional supporting documents and data which are being
submitted to help explain this projeet proposal : [�! ] site plan , [ ]
topographic map , [�`] other (specify)
� i<.•. � '
I hereby certify with my signature that all data r `"�J��`i' ��'����
U �
on my application forms , plans and specifications , :=-, ,� �
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge : �-� '� ��� �/,c!��
Signature of App cant
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
A��ication for Variance . If approved , said approval is subject to the
ral and Spec�ial Conditions following the Findings section n page 2 .
By: � ��� I ���_ � �1�,�
� nr�.�_
Autho ' zed Signa ure Title ' Date
;,%
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
PAGE 2
VARIANCE FINDINGS
�_
1 . This matter was heard at a p blic hearing before the Zoning and Planning
Commission on: �'� � � , and before the City Council
on : � L
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 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 [ ] is , Fj�] is not shared by
properties in the immediate vicinity oF this property and in the same
use district because of the following
facts •
4 . The granting of the variance requested [ ] would , [�] would not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood because of the following
facts :
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
�_
Findings of Fact:
1. That the existing building setback is not in conformance with the current setbacks
which creates a hardship for the applicant with the existing sign ordinance.
2. The topography of the land makes the placement of the sign not feasible in other
locations.
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 , 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 accordanee 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
of the request , showing a good faith attempt to utilize the variance , an�
it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the propose
construction . The City Council may grant extensions not to exceed one�
year.
\ 1 Y p
G .c
'� June 22, 1992 y o P K ` � � Planning Report VN92-3
ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH - SETBACR VARIANCE
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution RZ92-19 recommendin denial of a setback
variance.
overview. �
Zion Lutheran Church is proposing to construct a new sign.
This sign is to be located where their existing sign is
located. However, because the new sign is larger than
allowed a conditional use permit is required. One of the
conditions for a conditional use permit is that there is a
25 foot setback. The proposed sign does not have a 25 foot
setback.
The existing base of the sign is 19' 10" from the property
line. With the proposed new sign the setback will be 16'1"
from 5th Avenue.
^ Primarv Issues to Consider.
o Has Zion Lutheran Church applied for a larger sign
previously?
o Why require a 25 foot setback?
o What are the standards for granting a variance?
o Does the property have a hardship?
Suoaortinq Documents
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plan
o Resolution RZ92-19
o Letter from Applicant
u� �
�n n '��� !
Nanc S. Anderson
Plann�r
��
�,�;�'
VN92-3
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider. `�
o Has Zion Lutheran Church applied for a larger siqn
previously.?
In 1985 Zion Lutheran Church applied for a conditional use
permit and a variance for a 4' x 8' sign. This sign was to
be placed approximately 39 feet north of the existing sign.
The setback was 12 feet. The City Council denied their
requests: The records do not indicate why the items were
denied.
Since 1985 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow larger
signs in residential districts with a conditional use permit
for uses like churches. One condition of the conditional
use permit was that there is a 25 foot setback.
o Why require a 25 foot setback?
A building in the R-1-C zoning district requires a 30 foot
front yard setback. A sign without a conditional use permit
would require a 30 foot setback. When the Zoning Ordinance
was amended to allow larger signs with a conditional use
permit, the setback maintained was similar to the setback
that was existing.
�_._-
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 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
cannot be granted.
In this case the landowner has reasonable use of the
property and the circumstance is not unique to the property.
By granting a variance in this case could allow other uses
that need a conditional use permit for a sign to also be
granted a variance.
�
VN92-3
Page 3
---�
o Does the property have a hardship?
The only reason for the location of the sign is that the
existing sign base is to be used. This sign base is
currently non-conforming. A new sign would require a 30
foot setback or a 25 foot setback with a conditional use
permit. The existing base has a 19' 10" setback.
Zion can place a sign in another location with the required
25 foot setback.
The church also has another sign incorporated with the
plantings on the corner of 5th Avenue and Minnetonka Mills.
Alternatives.
l. Recommend approval of the variance. By recommending
approval of the variance, the City Council will
consider a recommendation of approval of the variance.
Approval should also be contingent upon approval of the
conditional use permit.
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.
�--�
Q I -
0
Location Map p. 7
(37) � �m (I) �2� �3� �4� �5) �....
• W I
�40) 3 �38) 3 9 209 2.0/ j3� .
(39) N ROA D
42/ 4r1 40 I � 0 308 2/O �
AYS 3' � �5�
3 4 0
(7) � 4� ¢? f18) (20) (21) �
d' � I (24) (3) S,�l 3�58) =
W
� h (3) �\�/ 6 5 Z �
� � � 2 (25) - � (59) {22) N U
_ 6 �,Q
- - --- (29) �
ce� � �c2s�3 P�� hh �, �L E
. � 5 - � v � �32•) (33) 2/O �
— — — — — — (9) � �l � ��4 (28) � I 2 I 2
(34) (35'
� -
(2)�, rn I(66) (74) � p� (54) I � �+ I (32)
�h I(8� � �
d-
� 2(67) M
(3� ►o� \ �75) 2 � 2(83) " (55) 2 ��o �
(4) (151 � � 3(68) N � � 'h �-
(76)3 M Q M 3(84) ",, 3�33�
B N � 4(69) \ � (56) I p �, �r�
(152) � N �77)4 � �� ��
� �
\\,,��4� �5) a'
� 5(70) � � � 4(85) (57) 2 � (45) �Ap/��ir
4�� (6_Q I So �7)i O � 6(71) �78) 5 ^� M 5(86) � � � i 2(46) ��
�' v
9 U4� 2 (134� 9 (8)�p . �p 7(72) (79)6 � 1� � 6(87) (58)3 N � � � (62 3�47j c
n� �ry ►o � �
41) o ��
(136�3 � O 5Q48 M 8(73) (80)7 � � ,; .� 7(88) (59)4 � O '� 2 �63) 4(46)
� 7(140 t13714 � � 4(14� � • '�� ' �,
s(139) (138)5 0 3046) Nq.52– o /�O� (81) 8 � � 0 8(89) ^i 5(49)
� '• )
Q "J '� (60)5� /, 6(50
�! � �.�'��':�� O 9�90) ��/ A
...;''.;'•.";;�:::�::�`••• M ���
24�52) (��) � �' � `�' 24 C30) (9) � d' ::,'�,�: ;:;3:;;�:;:��;:;::::: (61)6 N� r� 7(51)
23(5!) �2)2 �►' � a' 23(29) ���) 2 �f � ::'�++::+?::';`•���:'r�:�':+:•'.ti?'.' � CO M V "� �65) �
�33 3 '::�'':':':;�;�:;::�;:�::;: 4 8(52)
22cso t ti , M 22 c2e n�, a N � }�
�•� ""S,C�,';';:;:;:w';' �64) n�0(
21(49) �34)4 M Q M 21�2 7� (12) 4 N � �...•Y4� ��;r•:'•;:�:• �`�� 9 (53) � C
W N ��:�_:��:: �
20(48 �5) 5 M N 20�2 �13) 5 ►� , '::++:;� /� ry�o
'� r` 9 "';;:::' Q ti r�
19(47 6 �o c� 19(25) (14) 6 N Q N 5 � ) '�:�:'#�:;;:::; ��
� '•:�:�:•::;:;:�::;�' �
N "V'r?'^r'::�:}::
18�46) �+� — N _�g(24) U5) 7 N N 6 ��0) }'#;�:{ �..,
I 7(45 l� 17 �16) 8 � '•::�;:�••;%i:v�:�: (8' .
;6(44 ��9 N ^ N �2�� (�.7� 9 � � N 7 �II) :;2,�'i,:': ��� � ��`
IS(43) �9� 10 � � N 15�2� (18) 10 N � p 8 (12) •�•• (2)
ialn� .._. cn N (5) I I
.. r^^ � l ( � �
_ I � I
I lii ,
_. ; _ _�
�r
� c'7 ''� ��
� - n
, '�' �
^ I ." � �
i - �-- � — -- — - �_
, C�_ �_
� i 0
i _0.. � '
� � ---_
� , � L.
I �
I �
I � ��� .
i I�a ��
I
I
!
i /�
( .
' I
,. '
� � i
�n , ,- . ;-���.
� �
r- _.. . < L ;
L_ ;� _ _-__- -_---; , _ .
�i _ i - �.\
i� � � �,�\
� �t- , . '',
� � �
i , ��,
� � � �---
�
,
� -
�
� i
� � ;
I � ' �-\
, � ;U_ _
; %°�-� I � -v
� I �
o �C.T � � U
*: j , - z -C
i T c� � "
�. _ r t,
( C n
i.
�... � �
_� 4--
;C
;' �- � � �,) v�
� �' _� �' J l` s
r C � S
'� i Ui � 7.
I � i ^_ � `>
'n� �- ��-- � � �
_, r: �0 � () "C
n , - ;� (� I �C
o -- — — (:
�' �T ._�
t ' -- ,,.
r1D � /�
�; � � �:
�_� �_ � r -
-z ._ ���- �Y i
: ;� , ----
�-
� = �
i ''--
I - _- -
� —� �_
, -----�-- .�
� �
� �
' � � �
� f � �r � F �': E
b1 � �
L , � � � � d � � � T � �
�{ �jr � I � i � a � � � I 1
ni Z r� � rn � i
i
m �, ' � � n n� ° � � I �
U , � � b �� M � � .
� z i
0 I � " n G U L' � �,1 �
-I < z [�i � I 1
� � n� f11 V I �
� : y � � � '� I � � I
�� � ---—----- __ _ —
D� � f\�
1 O u� V
� i �
VY (
\ � �t�l 1� r( �' � � O
' � � � I � � C--�
c� m � ��. , i ; � ��
� ' ' `:� .
� - , �
: � � � C�
� I � ���
,
,, i ,.,
�� D � ' �-� � �
� ` ---�
p � I ��� �, t---�
( �—,� ,----� r�--L�
' � ��
� � r-��, �� (��—�
� _ �� � �-� ' �� ll.J1 J1
� �' � �;�� � -0
� _. , c r � �-� ► �� �
r f- �---J � ;
� �1 < t,� �—) �,"...�.1 �
r � 1
z 1 � 1 --� `� c-� ��'J�' `�� --� 1
,J � t—�
� � � � ; � r-�� ���] ��� �---a
� - � r r� i
V'l . - ' ) _ i.S i � �--�� �7� i � ' , � .�1
+ �1'-'—� � C'-=:'�
� rr� f � '' ' �� 1 j �-� r- j-�
� I �
z ='I ' — .t, � �; C�
�F' f ,` I �__.
�� � ( � — � � �� I
t � i I
� - -._. � i
f+ �', .n � _ �.`� �7
--- � + t==---a =
:... l � , � � `.�
c� � - - - _ , �
�• , � , � ,. — —
�
� 1 ; _ ._ c, � , � — ��� � � �j, ��
_ _ , , . �, ,. �
_.... _
,, � (, � -� � � _ --- — '--- _ _ a` ���
, �. � � y, � , . :., , _. _ , ., �a
w �' = � � ,
, ,
, -- � � - — , _ J ,
� .� J , I
� , �� 1
�;' � �� �.� ; � - -- � 1. � - � - _ ( �a
.� - ,• , ._ _ - = � � - - -- , 1�
--.�-v • ' .- �
r� -,.x�,.- �- ,. _.,-,,_ - �W.. a�,`�;
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ92-19
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-3 made by Zion
Lutheran Church is recommended for denial.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for VN 92-3 was filed with the City
of Hopkins on June 16, 1992.
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on June 30, 1992 .
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a hearing on June 30, 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 92-3 is hereby
recommended for denial based on the following Findings of
Fact:
1. That the subject property does not have the hardship needed
for a variance. •
2. That the subject property does not have a unique
circumstance required for a variance.
Adopted this 30th day of June, 1992.
Richard Pavelka, Chairman
��
� 7.[UN LUTHE:RAN CHURCt I
�� 2�i1 Fifth Avenuc N��rth
...w..�., ��.
�� I�c��kins, Minncs<>ta �5343
THE LUTHERAN CHURCH MISSOL�RI SY;�OI) � ((��12) )3�3-7661
Rc>y Kamcr, I'astor
H<>wic Kri�nke, Pastc�r
H. E. Sievin�, Emeritus
T<nn Nclson, Yc>uth & Family
,7une 16 , 1992
Members of the Hopkins Zoning Commission .
We are asking for a variance to accomadate a new sign
for Zion Lutheran Church. The sign will have four lines of six
inch changable copy. This will provide the necessary visibility
for reading by the public in passing vehicles . A timed clock
will be in use to monitor the sign .
Photos of th� present sign are included to illustrate
the inability for reading the message due to the sma]_1 size .
The submitted plan provides detail of the location . Our request
is to increase the present sign size length by 43 inches . We
-� feel this small enlargement should be acceptable to all neighbors
and community.
Thank you for this consideration
� , ���
� /// / .
p, c .;r � ,������;,,���.-� �-y�Q
�.��;r�������� � � ,
��� __., , , �-
,e,� �'/1�.��� �6���i�l� "�.'.'`�.-� ,
�� ��- �
��
"TI1e Word of the Lord endures farever."
\ � Y p
G ,c
j. �
� July 1, 1992 ti o P K , N � Council Report 92-145
ZION LUTHERAN CHORCH - SETBACR VARIANCE
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move that Council approve
Resolution 92-58A den in a setback variance.
Mr. Reuter moved and Mr. Winship seconded a motion to recommend
approval of Resolution 92-58B approving the variance. The motion
passed 4-2 . Mr. Hutchison and Mr. Racek voting nay.
Overview.
Zion Lutheran Church is proposing to construct a new sign. This
sign is to be located where their existing sign is located.
However, because the new sign is larger than allowed, a
conditional use permit is required. One of the conditions for a
conditional use permit is that there is a 25 foot setback. The
proposed sign does not have a 25 foot setback.
The existing base of the sign is 19' 10'� from the property line.
With the proposed new sign the setback will be 16'1" from 5th
Avenue.
^ � Staff reviewed the variance request with the Commission. Russell
Koppelman representing Zion Lutheran Church appeared before the
Commission. Mr. Koppelman presented a petition with nine
neighbors signing, not objecting to the proposed sign. The
Commission discussed the various options and locations a sign
could be placed without a variance.
Mr. Hutchison was opposed to the variance because other options
have not been explored. Mr. Racek was concerned with the size of
the sign.
Primarv Issues to Consider.
o Has Zion Lutheran Church applied for a larger sign
previously?
o Why require a 25 foot setback?
o What are the standards for granting a variance?
o Does the property have a hardship?
Suuuortinq Documents
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plan
o Resolution 92-58
o Letter from Applicant
�-. �
� Nanc S. Anderson
Plan
CR92-145
Page 2
�
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Has Zion Lutheran Church applied for a larger siqn
previously?
In 1985 Zion Lutheran Church applied for a conditional use permit
and a variance for a 4' x 8' sign. This sign was to be placed
approximately 39 feet north of the existing sign. The setback
was 12 feet. The City Council denied their requests. The
records do not indicate why the items were denied.
Since 1985 the Zoning Ordinance was amended to allow larger signs
in residential districts with a conditional use permit for uses
like churches. One condition of the conditional use permit was
that there is a 25 foot setback.
o Why require a 25 foot setback?
A building in the R-1-C zoning district requires a 30 foot front
yard setback. A sign without a conditional use permit would
require a 30 foot setback. When the Zoning Ordinance was amended
to allow larger signs with a conditional use permit, the setback
maintained was similar to the setback that was existing.
�
� 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 cannot
be granted.
In this case the landowner has reasonable use of the property and
the circumstance is not unique to the property.
Granting a variance in this case could allow other uses that need
a conditional use permit for a sign to also be granted a
variance.
''1
�
CR92-145
Page 3
�
o Does the property have a hardship?
The reason for the location of the sign is that the existing sign
base is to be used. This sign base is currently non-conforming.
A new sign would require a 30 foot setback or a 25 foot setback
with a conditional use permit. The existing base has a 19' 10"
setback.
Zion can place a sign in another location with the required 25
foot setback.
The church also has another sign incorporated with the plantings
on the corner of 5th Avenue and Minnetonka Mills.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the
applicant will be able to construct the sign as proposed.
2 . Deny the variance. By denying the variance the applicant
will not be able to construct the sign as proposed.
_ 3 . Continue for further information. If the City Council
�� indicates that further information is needed, the item
should be continued.
.-.
�
Q � ' —
� �
Location Map p, 7
_
(37) � �m (I) �2 �3� �4� �5) �6)
- � I
4 W
(40) 3 2 3 9 209 2.0/ 13�
(39) �38� N ROAD
42/ 411 40 � O 30B 2/O �
AYS� 3' � c5�
3 4 0
(7) � (y� 4p ¢2 (18) (20) (21) �v
V
a' `\ I (24) (30) F�� 3�58) �=
7 i
� ,� (31) �\� 6 5 � �
� v�' 2 �25) � (59) (22) �Q U
) .
-- - --- 6 J
(29)
(8, � ��26)3 R�� � � �20
Q. ,�h �, �E
� g • � v (32) (33) 2/O
- — — — — — Q � ��4 (28) a � 2 I 2
(9) ' � � (34) (3�
� -
_, �2)� , M I(66) (74) J a� (54) I 4� c,� I ��)
^� I(82) a' �
�
~ 2(67) � �
f3� ►�' (75) 2 � 2(8� ' (55) 2 � 2(34)
�4) (151 � � 3�68) N � � n�� �- /
(76)3 '� Q � 3(33
B N � 4�69) M � M 3(84) (56) I �ap �'�_ _���
� N �77)4 � �
(152) � � M 4(85) \"� �
\\�4j (5) a � 5(70) 'o 157) 2 p. (45) �o�
4� _ 6,0 �7)� O � 6(71) �76) 5 � � 5(86) � � � ' 2(46) ��
�� (l3.7) I S ` ` M
- d. �� (8)�p . v �p 7�72) (79)s � 1� � 6(87) (58)3 � � M � (62 3�4� A �
9(14� 2 (134� �� ��
�n �
�"41� (136�3 � O 5Q48 M 8(73) (80)7 M �'� ,� 7(88) I59)4 � Q "� 2 �63) 4(48)
� 7U40 t13�4 � � 4(14'» . �ll
1139) N �I� - � �81) 8 N � � h 5(49)
s (138)5 0 3p46) 2 p �j� � p 8(89) r,� �j
� I . . � � � � 60 � vJ ( )
� .Y� � ( )5�h � 6 50
`V � ::#'�:�:�'' � 9�90) A
..'..;:',`••`•:: � (95)
24�52) �I I •.,;::;�:°�:;:::;�..
) a' � `�' 24 C30) �9) I e} .:;:;3::::�:#�;:�::: (61)6 �N r� 7(51)
'::�:':::�:
23f5I) C3�2 0' �, o' 23(29) p0) 2 �r � �':}}:�''jn::�:��::�;:;�?%+;7�:;.'':' �' "� ►� 5 � n
... � ►•, (s5) �
22(50 �33 3 N , "� 22(28 (I I) 3 N � . u;�:: ::��'�::�:;���'���:'�: 4 8(52)
:�:•::;�
v, M � '�� �....::#{�::,'j:::?{;' �64) n�0(
2 I(4 9) �34)`� '� Q ►� 2 I�27� (12) 4 N � ��'' ._. :•:�•:::;:;� �'c�i ti �
2 pG� (35) 5 M N 20�26 (13) o v N 4 :''t�:;::�:;:, 9 (53) C
- 5 ro , ;';,5::::i-::`;� �O iY�y�O �
�L 6 �o cv 19(25) (14) 6 N Q N 5 �9) :�::�#i�;:�':'::' �
� - � �:�:�:::�:::7�'
I 8(•. �r 18(24� fl5) 7 N rj¢;:ti,;;»;, �,
f3�y - N � - - - N N 6 (�0) : ;:�;�'�'''?'�';' (8)
!7(45 (16) 8 � ::�:?�'�vi:;;:;� .
l 17
;6(44 ��9 N ^ N Z23� (17) g � � N 7�I I) ;''2,��,:'';�:::: ��� • ���
N
15(43) �g� 10 � � N 15�2� (�8) 10 � •,.
- � N � O 8 (12) (�5).'�.�. (2)
I4(4� �� .. .�,,, .. �o N
i .:
� � l . �
, ,., , - -� r--� �
E � f i l .
i __._i._ ._y
� ��
I \ C� ��
7 , _T _
� , n
r � N �
� � ,� �
, � j '� � r
, - , - -- - - �
; w E,, -
, ��
� �o j -a
i I
� '� � ��'
I
I �
� �
I � ��'
!�� ;.
; . ,
, ,;.
� ,;/ .
; , /;- ,
'1 T . _"..-._._____L�_ // . ' i
. ,�- �_ - -- __ _ �\_
i , G i .�\ �
� ��_ ��� : ,,
� � ,
i , ��
i �
,
;
�
� .
�
�
I
i �
I i
j i t v. � �
; �'�� I i � -ci
O� �/,•T I � O
.T� j r " �. z -�'
� �� �
�t C-� n
_1. � f 11
i. C n
�_.. J i _} 4--
�_ .� � i "� G')
� h' ' - � , 1') r
I - - ____. _._ iJ ��c.
;� —� �1 C� �
I � ?'
• j a" �,
I i ,� � � �
� —�- .
c
_�
r+ -0 � () 'C
n , - :t (", � �t:
r� -- — — (�
t' c? i i
1 � — .,
m � �
(.,.� �
, I: h! I I.
U_ � J�
��
Z . � . _ �
j �Y
_� = '� I '�
I � i.
I -.
i � �=
, --�- -,
�
, �
, , � �
� f � � f F �'= E
t , i � � �d < � �` z � �
� � �
� U � � n = � � a I � � � � —
r � � Z D�l � � 0
m � � � � � nD v � � I �
� � � � b4►,� L � X . �
ti � o� - � i
O I � f� o G �. � �
–I < L !�j G I 1
� �' ,� n' t� � z.
��'' y � I � .1� � I 1
.. �� � I
« d ---—_--- — – - -
� � �
�� � �
W
., ;` � �,�,` �trr. ,, i O
. I O
I j
G� � � ���'. � I i c--��
� � - � i ' i I c.-��
: � ' '
�, � � � �� �
_ � � � �
� �_�
�� � � _ � �
0 �r� ��� c� �
! �---- t---�
� �-i� �� �,L �
;
r� � �
� - — T� I r� `� F��
4 r' i i�. ,�� � -4
� _ _. , r [._--� r� `-/►J �
D � ` ,,� �, c�-i �—,J J-� � :
G 1 � � 1
1 = 1 -� `l C-7 c_'J� c--� _--� I
z �" , r-/�
� � � � : l �-_ ��c r c=, `_=a
� - l r �-`7 [.� r,� ;
� ' 1 i �—�� L7 U �
�1 • � � _ _ -�� r � �}� � I � � 1��
� m � i ��} � ( � . �_,� ' r---a
L � � ' ,t; � ti I `-=-a
-,4. G�1
r '.. i
� — _ �J
it o ` � � � ' /%��
� , . ; 11� 1J :
�v ` '- ' i
�; (, n � _ -�a .J '
� -- � + t�--� '
, � " J , �►
� { � � ; - � '__ ,� t, i ; : - ��• � � _, � �, - i
— - � i � .� �� y `
i — ` J --- -- ----- �r ��
' � � �• � � � _ _
I � 1 _�.. 1 '� f `� f � — ._I -- , ' � � J �a �.�.
J ` � i
, J � --- � � - — - 1 �l
l �'' � �.J ' - -- -- - -- - ' , �, ��9
I � �' �� ' �' ,. ► � .. - _ `' : � ; _ � _ , ( 1�
� r,, _----�- . ' � ._ , ,
--.��..-- �- -.,,.,- .�,:,.. �,,'�,
''�
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 92-58A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING AN AppLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAs, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-3 made by Zion
Lutheran Church is recommended for denial.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
l. That an application for VN 92-3 was filed with the City
of Hopkins on June 16, 1992.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on June 30, 1992.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a hearing on June 30, 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 92-3 is hereby
denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the subject property does not have the hardship needed
for a variance.
2 . That the subject property does not have a unique
circumstance required for a variance.
Adopted this 7th day of July, 1992 . ,
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
.�ames A. Genellie, City Clerk
''��.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 92-58
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-3 made by Zion
Lutheran Church is approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for VN 92-3 was filed with the City
of Hopkins on June 16, 1992 .
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on June 30, 1992 .
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a hearing on June 30, 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.
5. A legal description of the property is as follows:
Lots 1 to 4 incl and com at NW corner of Lot 17, then
South to Southwest corner of Lot 12, then East 133 . 58
feet, then Northerly to Southeast corner of Lot 15,
then Northeasterly to a point in Southwesterly line of
road dis 12 . 5 feet Southeasterly from Northeast corner
of Lot 17, then Northwesterly to beginning.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN 92-3 is hereby
approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the existing building setback is not in conformance
with the current setbacks which creates a hardship for the
applicant with the existing sign ordinance.
2 . The topography of the land makes the placement of the sign
not feasible in other locations.
Adopted this 7th day of July, 1992 .
✓�
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk