CR 92-145 Zion Lutheran Church - Setback
,"" ( 1 Y 1
."
I ~ \ 0 ~ r
~,
'. July 1, 1992 :." " I Council Report 92-145
lOp I ~ I
! . K !
ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH - SETBACK VARIANCE
Proposed Action.
staff recommends the following motion: Move that Council approve
ResolUtion 92-58A denying a setback variance.
Mr. Reuter moved and Mr. Winship seconded a motion to recommend
approval of. Resolution 92-58Bapproving 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. ,
primary Issues to Consider.
0 Has Zion Lutheran Church applied for a larger sign
previously?
0 Why require a 25 foot setback?
0 What are the standards for granting a variance?
0 Does the property have a hardship?
Supporting Documents
0 Analysis of Issues
0 site Plan
0 Resolution 92-58 ,
0 Letter from Applicant
'.
.
j;;;.. .~.
CR92-145
Page 2
1It' primary Issues to Consider. .
o Has Zion Lutheran Church app~ied for a larger sign
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 ci ty Council denied their ~equests. 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-l-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 conGitionaluse permit, the setback
maintained was similar to the setback that was existing.
o What are the standards for granting 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 ~ould allow other uses ,that need
a conditional use permit for a sign to also be granted a
variance.
"~
-- -----------
~'.
1'" . 0<_)
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 ci ty Council
indicates that further information is needed, the item
. should be continued.
,
'.
.
I /~ "'-' /I ' -
{:.. '.>
r Location Map Jo. T
-
"
"<'<
. . (4) (5) (6)
(37) J (3) 6
(2) <4 5
2 :3
3 131
(39)
308
(57) 3 4 <:)
<:)' ~ (20) (21) ~
(7) ~'"
~~ 5
~ 2 (25) (22)
,)
~
(8) "it-
(3Z)
.... I
---...---- ~(27)4
~ 1(66) (74) I (54) I
II)
~ 2(67) ~ ~ ' (55) 2
. (75) 2
(4) ~ 3(68) ~ct....
~ (76) 3 tf)~M (56) I
4 (69) ~1Ii
I'rj ~ ~ ~ 4(85)
~ (77) 4
..... 5(70) (57) 2
~ 6 (71) (78) 5 ~ ~ 5 (8S)
"> I'rj ~
7 (72) (79) 6 "" 6 (87) (58) 3
if) " 0)
I;)
(80) 7 ~ W'~ 7(88)
"> .
~ ~.... 8(89)
,..,V)~
9 (90)
24 (30)
, 23(29)
22 (28
2/ (27) 4
20 (26
....
N /9 (25) ~
(/ )
(2)
8 (12) (IS) "
'A 11_\' "
i::"' ..- - .... . ....- .
.. . ~-. ....-,-.. --.--.---..-
- ... .
. J! .]
~ (j) ,
4. .. . ~ ."'2--:-
i ~
:1.: ...c' C") (
~ -,
\1 ~ C
,,/
\.'
;,) i
;;f. I~ --- .',
.0
}.. U ::..c --
.() -;3 - '
V- . ~ C'.
"/ .- .~' C"
'-- ,J
.,.( . ~ ..;
$. '.!J ,"
:!:"-J r~ 0
~ (I, .I
(I) (>1 --..
-~ I
:r: i I . c' r;
-(J +-' .(..
v :J I I c::
t) ,.1 .,,1
0
lJ- Z -c'1
0 <)
',p ~ I ' I I
p- . .1'71 I
- -QI
I
--, j !
....... 'I
I
. ' ~
h \ l
\ " ,
\ .' '.'" "" I
. ...' '.',
'. ", "" ....... -
"", ,"" '" J i
,~ ....
'. -
. . .,;"", - )
I ~.,7'-=--'. - <.1);
.. ,/ ..__..--,-~. 1-0,
~. . 'r
.< :," / / ,/ I ....._-, y;.J;
I
,", ' - ~.-' . I
/ I
/
/ i
, "
/ ~ !
"')
-- .
I \,9
-<f I
I / I
-
.. I
~O" - I
O- f
I j \ I
('1 . I
- ~ I
OJ
- - -- I
II -
1-" ,
,/'
J " /
(, r I
. If) .,-
tJ tf '
~ ' ' '
a,r'.~ "-
. <:Jl1
~.. - ,...,!_.--
,. HI 1- 1'1 -(.J
i, --J .. - ~
, .
.,
,
'~~ I
,,' . . . ~"" II. ,~- . -""""- .... - ..J' ---",=~ -, {
-f.- "'" ..('v \'. ~. (,.""""
, f ' .. 1-' ..', 'l r , CJ"
/I t ' ' ..-" J. ,-, ,= '/ <.
..... {" , . .' , . '
(. ,/ ,_ " " i ==-= 1_ IJ \ (,.) 11... r- c:.i
~\ I, n" , .. =' L -
! "' ,.. ., .. 1 - r /"
J t .' 1 '
, j ~ . -. (' =- . I ' '" C")
\ I ~ . = C '
:-" , P ',I , 600 r-' t.= ., I, ,..' \, {<, t _ f ,..,r \ I
, J. - .. J 1 ,,,,
." 'f ( ---. ....-. - = = '.. ) - "~ (..;
~)' r \ ',-
, \ "'1 r' "" , , I r \ 1-- "'"'"
~ <: , \. ( L I.... ~
rJ JI I... _ t, .' '= ~ r I J) ... ) I 1-.- \')
, ,..~- , . ., 1 :::::: , \ -' rll
11~Wl"_ .. f_~'" ) _ c:a
i-""" I I " ,4 t . j \. '
...._ ", . I- ' ... ,~
" ~,r t=:::;][,-1 I _ J (. '"
t::- r;-~ ( v" J, 0
rrt! j -.. - ~
~j! .r'..
~ :! ._. , (t .~1J
t~ I ' -...., J -
~ ~ h J .. ,",,', 1= ' ~
~ : . ',. ,J ) r . y.. '2
~4 ~'-~ 11. t ,'I J \..., .h
"Jr -i - , r: ( C;J \J
[:::_ _...j J -
U .' ,~~ !..'-J'd,",: I; I V)
I ,......--..J t:::\ ( ~
r.- l::Jr~ L--dL I=:::::J) 1= '~ {J
, ~~ C..::"=.J -..J .,.... ' \..,
l' """'- (.J t::\ (c:J~3 (c_:~) (~ I'" I ' ( :2
~O:'.:> .... \ 1', <t ";)
< . I~' ..:;J CdS) ... .) )..t 0
... ~ (_1 L-=.J ' _,.f"., -=) tJ
, - c:=:...1 J J I ,- r.
~ -~ ~ E] ; , \..,) T ~
Jr v 11 n n r 1 ~'r-~ r=-:-.:.J I ,""""'='- - ~
l~ ~..:J Cll:..",:,) r:-:-:Jt:..J ' j ,
t-n=1 1-,- :J f:J t::\ I ~
.~- t=::!!::::1 C ~'I ,~...:2J i l.t.l 0
G' , (_=.I ~J I \J
t: 1 J1 ~ ) I
~ c.:=') I ~ ~
td., I, ~"
d ~J; : ! I '\ ~
I I 1 ~ '-'-
I' I ~ .. W .....
r.,-- ::;....1 i i '.s. tr "-
e~ Ii II I l1~ JIf}
~ 1:1 I.,.. \ : M
~ ' I;: '?! '(\~'\: ~ '\,,\ i I;' ~
N . ~ ~
r t'l
..----.---
- - - ~
I I . J )
""I... ,
, I to ..
I I l.l q'" t:!. '.... ~ )
,7 I n III I t:' eJ /
'I ~ .!J :z>J-
~ r ':( ?S!lJ II!.
'b - nO 'Z 0-
, . x I ~ r!~ 0 - I I ~
~ f\.4.'\'!(j~
I'~\Q/ OOcJJ~ ': wUI
(), I \ll 1'14: 7.J
I f v ~ ~ ~ fJ i \1/ t I ~ ~
. I ,WO:Z~ I ~~l1",1J
I f-= -AJ-r'1 I '"
, " ' I i I '> 4' - ~ 0 I::r-
3 :rt l~i-.J p! I
~ ~ ''It'-JJP:) II
'" ~ I I
+-"'- ~'
~, ',__~_____, I
~ t<I ' \.0.- I
.,j,.\o . ' :.....
.
,-..-'.... 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:
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 forVN 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:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
-.
-pr .- I.:
..-"...... CITY OF HOPKINS
.~~ Hennepin County, Minneso~a
RESOLUTION NO: 92-58B
,
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.
" '
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN 92-3 is hereby
approved based ,on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the existirig building setback is not in conformance
with the current setbacks which creates a hardship for the
applicant with the existing sigh 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