The URL can be used to link to this page

VN 89-04 CITY OF HOPKINS ZONING APPLICATION � UMMARY FORM Application Number � . <<- { i✓ � �- -� P .I .D .�: pplicant ' s Name ( Last , First) Owner (if other than applicant ) ��o w..'�s c7 --�e -�. eE��+o�.n ��N;�.� 3o a- � q'� �E No ailing Address (Street , City, State , Zip Code) �3�_ �'?S -�03 S �U i �i s�'o N �p �►'�TK.�-, 11'�� Ss3�S hone Number: (Day)��9 -� c/CJ'.(p (Evening) ��R "�1GZ�o roperty Address 30 ( ��= �V t- ND{2"T}�1- PPLICABLE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT(S) TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST '�] R-1-A [ ] R-2 [ ] B-1 [ ] Concept Review ] R-1-B [ ] R-3 [ ] B-2 [ ] Conditional Use Permit ] R-1-C [ ] R-� [ ] B-3 ()C7 Variance � 1-D [ ] R-5 L 7 I-1 [ ] Zoning District Change .� I-E [ ] R-6 [ ) I-2 [ ] Subdivision Approval [ ] Ordinance Am ndment (� [�] Other �otCa�_<<; rrT S�tc�fi - hereby certify with my signature that all data ontained herein as well as all supporting data �--- 4 re true and correct to the best of my knowledge: � '��- ! �.� _,�i.� App icants Signature Date ' �"is`" � OKners gnat Date ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SIIMMARY ] Proper addendum to application Application received: G'-/�-/- �fG ] Detailed plans submitted � ] Written pro�ect description submitted Fee Paid: ��. 0� Referred to City PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Engineer: pproved: X without modifications Referred to City [ ] with modifications Attorney enied [ ] Referred to Watershed District ate: 12/26/89 Date of Public Hearing Notice //- /5- �� OUNCIL ACTION Date of Public pp3�rrved: X without modifications Hearing //- �'�-�y [ ] with modifications enied: [ ] ate: 1/2/90 RESOLUTION N0: 90-02 CITY OF HOPKINS SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR VARIANCE � Application No . �%i� �l � P. I .D. No . A. GENERAL DATA NAME OF APPLICANT: �� Q��C�� 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 for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls . _ ---�� :e�F ,�� .�(,� �'( 3� —�� .� � 3 �_�--� �� Contact Person Last Name , First Day Phone Evening Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 . rSpecify the section of the ordinance from which varif�nc,� Iis sought : 1,�.-�° rn1 G s-k- �4�, at�E- (t q s�f- �O � 0�n �w.rA v�� v evi �( 2 . Explain ho you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the �rdinanee:_��vcu��.✓ w�� o�L ci eros�S' corv�er- �-�- '�, �C3�t-h��, t U t t.tw: L � 3 . Explain why the strict enforecment of the Ordinanee would cause an undue hardship or deny reasonable use of the property. Hard hip to the applicant is the crucial test . � � ' �" �� a �n v r, << r ��,l�� h � �p:� : 1"('' 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) ,5vr I hereby certify with my signature that all data on my application forms , plans and specifications �� D are true and correet to the best of my knowledge: � .Gri� Signature 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 [X] approved , [ ] denies the foregoing A�--ticat ' o for Variance. If approved , said approval is subject to the ral d Special Conditions following the Findings seetion on page 2 . �-- ' Planning & Economic Development BY� ` � ' J l-��'�'� Director 1/9/90 Authorize 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• 12/26/89 and before the City Council on: l�?/90 2 . Strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance [ Xl would , [ ] 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 [Xl is , [ ] is not unique to the property in question , and [ ] is , [ ] 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 , [X ] would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because of the following facts : , —. 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 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 (3�) 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. Y \ t O G '�' �� ' ti 5 O � � December 27, 1989 P K � Council Report:90-06 FRONTAGE-VARIANCE Proposed Action: Staff recommends approval of the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No: 90-02 approvinQ the variance to have less than 20 feet of frontacte on an improved street. " Approval of this resolution will allow construction of a home without improving the abutting streets. Overview. The subject property is two vacant lots located at the northeast corner of 3rd Street and 20th Avenue abutting Hilltop Park. Neither 3rd Street or 20th Avenue are improved. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on the site. The applicant has also applied to vacate 3rd Street and removal of the lots from the official map. Section 560.05 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that no residence shall hereafter be erected upon any lot unless such lots abut upon a street for at least 20 feet. The subject property has topography difficulties. The south part of the site is approximately 24 feet lower than the north part of the site. � Staff is recommending the variance because neither 20th Avenue or 3rd Street are planned for construction because of the topography difficulties in constructing the roads. Mr. Reinhold stated that a variance is needed because the ordinance requires all lots have 20 feet of frontage on an improved street. It was noted that 20th Avenue probably will never be improved because of the difficulties in constructing the road. There was little discussion on this item. The Planning commission on a 5-0 vote approved Resolution No: Z89-29 recommending approval of the variance. Primary Issues to Consider. o Does the subject property have a hardship? SuQporting_ Information. o location map o site plan o Resolution No: 90-2 �. Nancy . Anderson Plann r � FRONTAGE VARIANCE CR:90-06 Page 2 Detailed Backctround. The State Statute states "undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Primary Issues to Consider. - Does the subject property have a hardship? This property has a hardship because of the topography features. When the applicant discussed constructing a home on this site with the staff, we discussed access to the site by improving 20th Avenue or 3rd Street. However, because of the topography features of the area, the streets would have such an excessive grade that the streets would be �— very difficult to construct. This site is certainly unique. There are very few sites in Hopkins left for constructing a single family home. Most of the sites left are vacant because of the difficulties in constructing homes on the sites. The applicant is proposing to construct a home that will utilize the topographic features of the site. If the City does not want to improve the roads abutting the applicants property it seems the proper relief is to grant the variance to allow the applicant reasonable use. �� I � � � . . o. 7 - .,_ N I � ' • _ IT10 � . . . I P�l .. �`� � � ; �, �e� �� > - - � , ` I ' . — • 4t ST. �� Og 3p - _�20_ _�_ � (301,1_h �, 29�1 i�14� ( � ��6 29(57� _� - - - - -r - � - - - - - , `r . 28(Sn 3 28 (3Q � �b c� 27(28 I__2 h ��) '27C50� _ _4 _ _ _27 T - -4� �-- -- 1 26(4 (42� 5 26 �� 5 `�' `r�j' �5(2� �(I� 4 � P`�`(/ 25(4a 6 25(41) 6 � q 24 6 I-- - ' : " 24 _T � 24, -- - �` � \ 23( ��6� 6 ( �� (2) N 23(4 8 Z . 23 C34) 8 .►� � h 22 � I7 7 a � • • . ''� M - - - Z ''� 21(24, � 8 � 22 9 W 22 (3� 9 � W � - O - -. "� 20(23� (18�' 9 � 21(4 (43)10 � � _21(40 10 � � __ . 20 11 Q �36) Il � Q `� 19 � ' 0 � �9 _ _�2 _ � � 19(39 - -Q (8 � �(19) 11 � ' • (3) «� O �g( 13 18 . (37) 13 � "� IT(22 -- -'T - --14 ' ;'.;.�. ..,. �38� 14�• 16 � ��20,�13 � �" 16 (44)15 :�, 1� '� 15�21) ~ 14 �43� ° � . �.x: - . : , �'�- - "�1. . �4. c � 30 • �(54�1_ � � � � � 30.�1�- - 1 ' �1`S'� Mr -- - �T3) 2'� � �91) 2 29 2• ^ ' O1 � , 0 �. 2g' L -- a 2 89 � 28(I11) (92) 3 � (14) 1 n rn N 1 I (38) �28)1 H . , -N3 - -4 N Rr-- � � �41 �P 1°�- -- _ �`�i, N i/� �.� _ � _ �— -- � Q �`? 2 � `�' c� 26(88 5 ' N 10 (93 �5 w� w 10 (3T) (29)2 � ,I. � 2 0 6 6 25f8 (75) 6 c Y-2�(I 9� . (94) 6 (15) 2 U � e° - 5(T � - -- - - _ . .� (30)3 a _ � 24�6 -- 24U0�) (95) 7 � �-9 9 �36� - �.:. � � � 23(69 (5T) 8 H � '" (76) 8 st- " 2300'» (96) 8 � b (16) 3 � � �31) 4 N N 22(68 (58) _ � c� _�(8- - - - � �- 22_ (97) 9 `� . )(24)� , �`' �34) I � 21(6T) �9LI0 N �T7) 10 � N 21 QOq (98)10 � � (32)5 � � 20. � � 20(84 tl p � 20(105 � (17)4 --- N �- -{i34� -' - - -- -cv H 99 12 N •. � 9(23) `=�� I�5 6 � � 19 . (SO) 12 N � 19(83 (78) 12 N 19 _ (Y _► �Q� �_18(64) (61) 1 0 0 __� (79) 13 N � 180� (10� 13 S - tis) s ___ — — � - - - a � ,�-� 14 N cV � ,I7(8 (IOU 14 �`� 8 �� (20'6 N f33) N 16(63I (62I 15 � 16(81) (80 15 N N ��IO� i102)15 � T�21) � . I , �r,� 3�� - U/ --��I .. � . . - � ' 1 . . - _ �T � • - . . . , � �� . M,�,� � `G� 1� � � 5' Sc-1- Zja� '< � �. o� � � � � ' �Q "��„�,w.� . ��' 3� � S�.� b�'`� �p 1 ro(�s 1 $�vvc�.. — — — — — �o}�6 aZQ�y �ve , ` :Jh�� OVt� ) , . . 1 i �- - � - P��h �~� f I :`t`h:w1V�^1 e Pi('OPo.�e� Ur`VG�w� IS� �'ro`^� �YvOo.SCd _ — — — � � lofi 1 ��L ' — � r� � e��- N. 3 -- s r�°��"``� � �� i Ps� i � ! k� � - �- �-- � L,� 30 :�. 4 � h _: �� 950 . 8 � � ._ _ - � � � � � - � �� 9 4 9 . 1 X d �3 x s5Q ' . _ � _ . , 96p .� � _ Q . _ �-- a " .• -� tfl � ------- - - .� - - . � O . ' � � • y _ 1 � � � � 979 • 2 � �3 _ Q ; � � �. Q . _ - . � f3 0 :' �. Z X . � �; � �� . - � � t E3 r �. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 90-2 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN89-4 WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN:89-4 made by Daniel Reinhold, for a variance to allow construction of a single family residence is approved. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN:89-4 was filed with the City of Hopkins on September 14, 1989. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on November 28, 1989. 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a public 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:89-4 is hereby approved subject to the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the subject lots have an undue hardship because of the topography. 2 . That the abutting streets are not planned for improvements because of the topography of the area. Adopted this 2 day of January, 1990. Nelson W. Berg, Mayor � \ t v � � F J�� N ti 5 O N K November 13, 1989 Planning Report:VN 89-4 � FRONTAGE-VARIANCE Proposed Action: Staff recommends approval of the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No• Z89-29 approvinq the variance to have less than 20 feet of frontage on an improved street. " Approval of this resolution will allow construction of a home without improving the abutting streets. Overview. The subject property is two vacant lots located at the northeast corner of 3rd Street and 20th Avenue abutting Hilltop Park. Neither 3rd Street or 20th Avenue are improved. The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on the site. The applicant has also applied to vacate 3rd Street and removal of the lots from the official map. Section 560. 05 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that no residence shall hereafter be erected upon any lot unless such lots abut upon a street for at least 20 feet. The subject property has topography difficulties. The south part of the site is approximately 24 feet lower than the north part of the site. �— Staff is recommending the variance because neither 20th Avenue or 3rd Street are planned for construction because of the topography difficulties in constructing the roads. Primary Issues to Consider. o Does the subject property have a hardship? supportinQ Information. o location map o site plan o Resolution No: RZ89-29 , � � r1 �--_� �� '�, ` ;YM1��' � � 1 Nanc� S. Anderson Plann r �. FRONTAGE VARIANCE -- VN:89-4 Page 2 Detailed Backqround. The State Statute states "undue hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic consideration alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Primary Issues to Consider. - Does the subject property have a hardship? This property has a hardship because of the topography features. When the applicant discussed constructing a home on this site with the staff, we discussed access to the site by improving 20th Avenue or 3rd Street. However, because of the topography features of the area, the streets would have such an excessive grade that the streets would be very difficult to construct. �- This site is certainly unique. There are very few sites in Hopkins left for constructing a single family home. Most of the sites left are vacant because of the difficulties in constructing homes on the sites. The applicant is proposing to construct a home that will utilize the topographic features of the site. If the City does not want to improve the roads abutting the applicants property it seems the proper relief is to grant the variance to allow the applicant reasonable use. � . I � No� � I . _ ►110 � � I P�l . �� e, � - �� 7� �� - ' , � I � � ,� � • 4t � ST. • -- , 30 �20 30 �30�I_h , °� 29(291 ( a 9 -� - - �(14) 1 , 11g� 29(5'2� _ 2_ _ - - - -r - � - - - - - - �r . 28(5n 3 29 (31) 3 �b N 27(28 �__2 �T �� '27l~�0) _ _4 _ - -27 - -4 i_ �I - 26�4 (423 5 26 _ C3� 5 a ►�j' .25(27� �(15) 4 � / --- - °� �(�(/ . �5�4i 6 25�41� __ 6 � � 24 6 �_- - l G ` .: � 24 T w 24. (,� � 23� �(16) 6 �� 2 0 . 23(4 - -8 - Z - 23 C34) 8 r, � 22 ; IT 7 A, i 7. I ) c� — — — i.� 22 9 �1.� 22 (3� 9 � W � 21(24) � �8 � L - °� - -. 20(23 (18�' 9 21(4 (43)�� _ Q r� _21(40 10 � � � __ ,.� ,.._- � 20 I I .- -- (36) �� Q '�. 19 (-- -a- 19(39 l8 (19) 1I � . ' � 19 _ _.12 _ fl--- - -a � I--- ''9 • . (3) i o �8( �3 � 18 . (3T) 13 � "� 17(22 _- - -�T - --�4 ' ,� (38) 14 • � 16 � ��(20�13 � a 16 (44)15 1� "� 15!21) �4 C43> ° � - � ^� � e - � M rJ � : • • �4� t ��G54) I � � 30(90 _ � �` 30�12� --� • �'g`S') +�r -- - h �- (91) 2 - - 29 2 ^ �T3) 2 _ - K- - - - a 28(IIQ (92) 3 � o, • 0 2 � �- a� 2�8� �- -- � (14� I N rn N �)I �38� �28�I N - «` �; �5) 4 �+ �� i7`}L �-�' N-6 10 a ..;I a- _- tl� .��. 2 .� N N 26(88 5 _ �93 �5 W� w 10 (37) (29I 2 � � 25(TO 6) 6 2S(8 (75) 6 cMv.�--�(I 9� , (94) 6 (15� 2 U (30)3 N • �- - - -- � 24�6 _ � � 24U��) �95) 7 \.' . � 9 (36I �' � 23(69 (57) 8 N � " (76) 8 r... 23p0� (96) 8 n� 5, ��'A� (3 1) 4 N N 2 2(6 8 (5 8) O c� _2 2(8- - - - � N 22_ (97) 9 N 10(24)' (16) � �'. �34) I � 21(67) �9L10 � (77) 10 �{ 21 QOW (98)10 � a'. (32)5 � � 20. � � 20�84 _II p � 20(105 _ _ \ 1� (17)4 � ' --- N �- --�134� J - � � _�9(83 (7'8) 12 N �V �9 99 12 N� a N 9(23) `�'- � �� 6 � 19 . �60) 12 N �N.--- ---F �o b 18 O� (100) 13 � _, Q h 18(64) (61) 13 0 (T9) 13 �i _ _ _ �18) 5 N -- - � �"- _ 14 N N ^.17(8 N _ (IOU 14 � N 8 �22I N - -G - - - 16��0� ��02�15 � -c- -- (20)6 �33� N 16(63) (6?a 15 N 16(81) (80 15 N N �cz n � . —��=— �--F- _ � �, � . . _ � � . � i� / . �� k • ' -.:. � M�..,-r � I LG� �� ,` 15` 5��- �jc�C� � r`` O� ,��'��e �.,;�;�J� ,\. �---3Q --7 ` s�k bA�� ;(� \Yo(�s j�Y vG� — — — — �O� // � �O �Q�� V� ` , ` 'Jh�1lti �yt� ) , i /,. � — — / — ��bl;� o_ �`�11'f �:../ ;�:�n:v.�V►^1 l ,(� r�VG�'`y ` 1J / (S '�ro� �7Yo Po.S[ P,�oPoSec� lofi 1 ;�� " — — — — — � — — — � ra �, ��-� N. 3 -- s �.�°`` ; -__�"� j � , k� PSu ! � - �- �,=, 30 -- -.--=-,z _ ____.___, • � � � �• � � • at s � * l � � � � � • • / . . . � � � � � � . � , � '`�i at . � . � � � . . �_� � � w • � � • . ,R _� � � � J � , � `� •� ` � � ' ` � ` ' s � � ' � j %,�� / . � �� ,. . � � � /._ . ' ` s � � � � i.�� / � � • � � � � � i ,� .� CITY OF HOPKINS — Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: Z89-29 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN:89-4 WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN:89-4 made by the Daniel Reinhold to allow construction of a single family residence is recommended for approval. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN:89-4 was filed with the City of Hopkins on September 14 , 1989: 2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on November 28, 1989. 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to published and 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 VN89-4 is hereby recommended for approval subject to the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the subject lots have an undue hardship because of the topography. 2 . That the abutting streets are not planned for improvements because of the topography of the area. Adopted this 26 day of December, 1989. Toni Richardson, Chair �