CR2002-067 Front Yard Setback Variance - 233 10th Ave N
C\IY OF
. -
. HOPK\NS
May 1, 2002 Council Report 02-67
VARIANCE-FRONT YARD SETBACK
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 02-36A, denying a
two- foot, front yard variance at 233 10th A venue North.
At the Zoning and P1mming meeting Mr. Bartz moved and Ms. Allen seconded a motion
to adopt Resolution RZ02-5, recommending approval of a two-foot, front yard variance
at 233 10th Avenue North. The motion carried on a 5-0 vote. Mr. Thompson voting nay
and Mr. Rudolf abstaining. Resolution 02-36B would approve the two-foot, front yard
vanance.
Overview.
The applicant is requesting a front yard variance of two feet to allow the constmction of
an addition. The applicant is proposing an addition to the front of the home at 233 10th
A venue. The applicant is proposing to add a kitchen expansion and a front porch. The
variance is needed for the kitchen addition.
. If the variance is granted, the home will have a 23-foot setback. A 25-foot setback is
required in a R-I-A zoning district.
Primary Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property?
. What does the ordinance require?
. What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supportin2 Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Site Plans
. Resolution 02-36A
. Resolution 02-368
-;f r J.' 11: vi ~ (\:irk I' [)tl'l
Nancy:$. Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
. Related Documents (eIP, ERP, etc.): -
Notes:
CR-02-67
Page 2
. Primary Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned R-l-A, One and Two-family High Density.
. What does the ordinance require?
The ordinance requires a 25-foot front yard setback.
. What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant has requested a variance of two-feet. This would give the home a 23-foot
front yard setback.
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance is a modification or variation
from the provisions of this code granted by the board and applied to a specific parcel of
property because of undue hardship due to circumstances peculiar and unique to such
parcel. The Zoning Ordinance also states the following: that the Commission must find
. that the literal enforcement of the provision of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an
undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration and that the granting of a variance to the extent necessary to compensate
for said hardship is in keeping with the intent of this code.
In this case the applicant does not have an undue hardship that is unique to the property.
The other homes in the neighborhood would be in the same situation if an addition were
added to them. The homes directly adjacent to the subject property are closer to the
property line than the subject property, but they have porches, which are allowed to have
a 20- foot setback.
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting'?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the applicant's request. Carey and Shealan Brendalen appeared
before the Commission. Shealan Brendalen stated that they sent letters to 11 of their
neighbors regarding the addition and variance and received all 11 back. All were in
favor of the variance. They would like to start the addition this summer. The
Commission discussed in detail the hardship.
Altern atives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to
. construct the addition as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative,
Resolution 02-36B should be adopted.
CR-02-67
Page 3
. 2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to
construct the addition as proposed. If this alternative is considered Resolution 02-
36A should be adopted.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further
information is needed, the item should be continued.
.
.
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 02-36A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT
DENYING A TWO- FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN02-1 has been made by Carey Brendalen;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
I 1. That an application for a variance was made by Carey Brendalen on March 22,
2002;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on April 30,
2002: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
. 4. The legal description of the property is as follows:
Block 88, Lot 21, West Minneapolis 2nd Division
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN02-1 is hereby denied
based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the lot does not have a hardship for the granting of a variance.
2. That the applicant has reasonable llse of the property without the granting of a
vanance.
Adopted this 7th day of May 2002.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
TelTY Obennaier, City Clerk
.
-- --- - -
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 02-36B
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT
APPROVING A TWO- FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN02-1 has been made by Carey Brendalen;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance was made by Carey Brendalen on March 22,
2002;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on April 30,
2002: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
. 4. The legal description of the property is as follows:
Block 88, Lot 21, West Minneapolis 2nd Division
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN02-1 is hereby approved I
based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the applicant's home with the addition will have a greater front yard setback
than the homes abutting the applicants' home.
Adopted this 7th day of May 2002.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
. Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
..--- .- --- ---
1 \
.
.
property Line d
--------------..---
~ \
.
I
.
- ~ \
.
.
\
[ ] .
\
__...---1r.
~ .\
\
.
".\ \
.'\
....1 .
:z: ::0 ! .
Sl cD
:;: .g ':1 Property Line ----\
1 \~ - ~ - - . . - . . ---- . . - . . - . . - - .
.1
~ .
.
e' \
....
- I
::i-::-:::.:':~6:~//.:.-:.l'.' .
iJI~ .!
,.",,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,.' Property line d
;bi;~~?rt'. - -- -" -.' - -- - --..
(X/\!;X ,;. i
,..;.,'. :;rfi I
.';::.,
I ..:..::,:::: I
~
~
~
0
I
'"
i.....:::.;.:: .
~':;:..':':.:.:
Property line I
...-....-...-...-.. -------""""'I
~ .!
~.::/:.: ,.' , ~
w
f:/./'/i.. 0
i I
i:::''::':;:'"
~::"'::':::::'" ..' i"
I;)::!?i. '\ I
.1
,.:;::::,"""" I .
.'".
Z i.::::;".'''.:'::,''';:' I .
~ ~ II' _ _. _'" _" _ .~ro~in:;. _."\
r l-I~li
,..,
~ .
~ I
'"
. ,','
.' "J
' ....
. . , .
..' ......
.".,',.':'.g
,'. '.r:: ~
.~
.:~. ~
- . 'I~
.', " 0
, , .n
" .="
. ..... .1 .
.'
r ·
I -
l g. 3.
::l 0
::l
n
z '"
S. -::o~
or '" '
~ .
i_ ~ · ·
~
::r
g;
lH
1"'1
)(
~
5'
10
!a
Cil
~
1"'1
Cb
~
0'
::J
'i
J::.
"'0
<3
"0
0
<II
..
0.. ^
~~ ~~ !a ~-'
.(.0.1 n ..., .., ~ +>--
II _ :T ~ .. I
~~ ~,... ~ ~q
q> 0 C!J 1"'1
O~ & ~ Cb ~r
~g "'C3= ~
f'.,,)z: 0 :::J o'
~s. 9- I ::J
N::r ~
><
o..C ~
0..'"
;:+ 2r ~
-'::J
on
::J ..
::0
z ..
3- ..c
<:
::r ..
i ~
",
)(
::r
0'
""
U1
-- --
m [ --,
ffi. ~ 0 ~ I
_ _.n I I
=rg:~o
\C) :::l:::l = I N
,"
(J) I 0,
0
c: I <co",
:;: ~. ~-@
f"T'I ~ D 0
n n "
CD cn=[
~
o'
::l
"I
DO
-0
~ f
0 ~2S-..j
'" 0>
CD Cl... -0 -.....j Q. ~ .
Q. D . g:~6
~;:;.:...... I
_. n
-N=="(/) (J)o=r ~ ~
cit~ ~ g o::::l ;
II - :r...... s..
~~ g =r :::r 'V_
b::r !::J f"T'I
.> 0 CD CD
o~ ~a ~
c..N~ ""'0 o. o'
~.o::J' ::l
~:Z: -.
~g, g. I
N::r >~
~::J.
;:;:0
o"~
::l CD
;:0
:z: CD
n
~ <::
:;: CD
l' ~ DO
,."
><
::r
C'
-
en