The URL can be used to link to this page

VN 89-09 CITY OF HOPKINS ZONING APPLICATION � SUMMARY FORM Application Number V�,J <,>�,� _ �, J , ' � P .I .D .�: 1911721410006 Applicant ' s Name ( Last , First ) Owner (if other than applicant ) Kodet Architectur.al Group, Ltd, Bill Leaden� Mailing Address (Street , City , State , Zip Code) ]5 Gr.ovel.and Ter.race, Minneapc�lis, MN, 55403 Phone Number: (Day) ��-2�� (Evening) Property Address �202 East Excelsior Boulevard, Hopkins, MN 55343 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 [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ X] R-1 -C [ ] R-4 [X ] B-3 [X] Variance [ '-1 -D [ ] R-5 L ] I-1 [ ] Zoning District Change [ -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 - �J� c /� are true and correct to the best of my knowledge: �� ,� � ,�� App icarT"t,s Si natur ; Date ^ l�.:.�,,E'-�c-�c_�,�� _tr_�t-�« Owners Signat e Date ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SUMMARY [ ] Proper addendum to application Application received: _ / '�'- �j - ; .� [ ] Detailed plans submitted [ ] Written pro�ect description submitted Fee Paid : ,,:;'-!`. ^-� Referred to City PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Engineer: Approved : without modifications Referred to City [ ] with modifications Attorney Denied LX� Referred to Watershed District Date: / - �."=3/- ;`% Date of Publie Hearing Notice COUNCIL ACTION Date of Publie Ap�..�oved: x without modifications Hearing � � ' '' "'- '-y / •�. ' :� j� ; [ ] with modifications Denied: [ ] .�� _ -� Date: ��- 7- .�'�% � RESOLUTION N0: a � �-�� CITY OF HOPKINS SUPPLEMENTAL DATA � FOR VARIANCE Application Noo V/'✓ ��' -`�' P. I .D. No . 1911721410006 A. GENERAL DATA NAME OF APPLICANT: Kodet Architectural Group, Ltd 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 12/9/88 for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls . Kodet Edwar.d J. �77-2737 -- Contact Person Last Name , First Day Phone Evening Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 . Specify the section of the ordinance from which variance is sought: SPthar.k� " Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the o rd in ance : The sideyard setback to be 10'-0" in lieu of 35'-0" and the rearyard setback � to be 4'-0' in ieu � - , 3 . Explain why the strict enforecment of the Ordinanee would cause an ` undue hardship or deny reasonable use of the property. Hardship to the applicant is the crucial test . Based on the Hopkins Planning Depar.tment's r.ecommendations the revised property ine ocation an require se ac a ows or only a sq, t, a i-tion maximum , To in egr.a e e a i ion into e exi-s ing r.00 ine or compata i i y - wou re uce i y ano er. sq, . 4 . Check all additional supporting documents and data which are being submitted to help explain this project proposal: �XX] site plan , [ ] topographic map , [ ] other (specify)Variance site plan is Cl/Tl � Site imi a ions iagram I hereby certify With my signature that all data � on my application forms , plans and specifications� , , are true and correet to the best of my knowledge: '! �"� � � �� i�gnature f Applic t 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 �lication �for Variance . IF approved , said approval is subject to the � .eral an,� �pecial,` �onditions following the Findings section on page 2 . By: %�-�___ � � � �� •. i Authorized 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: / �'- �-� ?- � X and before the City Council on: =1 - 7- �" �' 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 [ ] 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 , [ ] would not alter the essential charaater of the neighborhood because of the following facts : --�, SPECIAL PROVISIONS 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 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 , and it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed construction . The City Council may grant extensions not to exceed one year. �\ � February 1 , 1989 Council Report : 89-38 `- VARIANCE - LEADENS INVESTIGATIONS Proposed Action: Staff recommends the following motion : �'Adopt Resolution No . 89-3 denying the 6 foot side vard and 25 foot rear vard setback variance The denial of these variances will not allow the applicant to construct the addition as proposed . The Commission on a �-2 vote recommended approval of Resolution No . 89-3 which denies the six foot side yard variance and a 25 foot rear yard setback . Overview. In addition to the rezoning and the waiver of plat , Mr . Leaden is also requesting setback variances for the proposed addition . The required setbacks are : 10 feet for the side yard and 35 feet for rear yard . These setbacks are required because Mr . Leadens property butts a residential distriet . Mr . Leadens is requesting a �l foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback . Staff is recommending denial of the varianee request because the property does not have a hardship to warrant a variance and the property has a reasonable use . � Mr. Kodet explained that the variance is needed for architectural reasons and the configuration of the land . Mr . Leadens also stated that because of safety the building should not be jogged on the east side . The Commission had considerable discussion on the definition of undue hardship . Many Commission members felt that the applicant had reasonable use of the property and hence a variance was not warranted . Issues to Consider. o Is the property put to a reasonable use without the variance? o Is there a hardship to allow the variance? Supporting Documents . o Staff Analysis o Site Plan o Resolution i � �� _��1 l'� �,,' l �i f!t �.'�� .� Nancy S . Anderson Community Development Analyst � VN: 88-9 Page 2 � Staff Analysis . - Is the property put to a reasonable use without the variance? The property without the addition has a reasonable use . It is used as an office building and will continue to be used as an office building with or without an addition . The applicant has submitted a site plan with an addition that complies with the setback requirements . - Is there a hardship to allow the varianee? The Ordinance requires that the property must have an undue hardship . 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 this property not created by the landowner , and the varianee if granted , will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economie considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance" . The subject property does not have a hardship . There is nothing unique about this property that would justify the granting of the variance . I ehecked several other cities zoning ordinances to see �— if they had a large setback when a business district abutts a residential district . All the cities had a large setback when a residential district abutts a business district . Alternatives . 1 . Approve the varianees as requested . By granting the variances , the applicant will be able to construct the addition as proposed . If the varianees are approved , the Commission will have to make Findings of Fact to support their decision . 2 . Deny the variances . By denying the variances the applicant will have to move the addition to comply with the setbacks . 3 . Continue for further information . If the Commission feels that additional information is needed , the item should be continued . � � HOV.2 3 1988 . � KODET ARCHITECTUfiAL GROUP,LTD. 15 GROVELAND TERRACE � �API.�'., MINN, 55403 377-2737 ��3.5�__�-- � � � �• �'� ,�� / / � � FXIaT�No \\ ExtSTING GOMCRt7E P�Y�No 1 , � , � CONCRETE __ / � f AVINa � � \ i i � / EXISTING ONE STORY � 2005F DECREASE To CONCREfE �LOCI(/ARICK __ MAICE ADDI710N ROOF / AUIIDING I625.6 sF ; COMf'ATIF�LE W� / ��.0 EKISTING . f�UILDING / I PROf�SEp BUILon+G ' �� •h EXISTiNG fSIiUMINOUS qppiTlON qgpsf �' �`_ PAVINO I � N . � i � � �� O � AIRAGE ON �C�REMOVE Exi57iNG � � i (ROpERTI' \ Wppp FENCE �_ s�d�_��..__'�. -i1-�.a _a.c�a�C ' �7 �—�X19TING '`�� PROr�EniY ��ne PROPOSED �P�lOPoSEf� WOOQ FENCE � �--�irunniNOus ��ViNG �' TO MA7CH EXIS7iNG �` -- -- -- -- N � PROPOSED FENCE•NOOn-to M�?CH EXIST�nG � ' � �-PROPOSEO � N � pd. Pzor�erzri' �iNE � � Q ° p` - m Q � U �G � —�t�+sT�NG � � _ PROf�ERfY L�rlE EX15rING Q � G,1R AG E g � � ' � O — , ' - � � � EXIST�� I Y2 STORY Q . WO00 FR�ME- 51NGLE v- FAMILY RESIpENCE . -' ��3.� . �- - _SITE LINIITATlONS DIA�RAM No TH _ c� SITE f�l AN T� ��: 2U'p,� � DEC.9 1888 KODET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP,LYO. 15 -LAND TERRACE Mi �J�:. 55403 377�.�a� O KODFT ARCHfTECTURAL GROUP,L7D.1988 , 11�.5"I___-- rI ' �� / � �, ,� , ; / ' � �: � \ � �' EXIST�NG E�ISTING GOhCf2�TE PAYWO J , �j CONCRETE / , P PAVING j. ' � __/ � , �� !�!`, 't , ,�; � / EXISrING ONE STORY � CONC2E�E f�LOCI(/ARICK � SUIL(�ING 1625.6 5F � / ��.0 � 4,o. exisr�rv� 3�ruM�r,ous N �_ PAVIr,G � �• PkC�POSED . � � �� BUILDING � ADDI710N EXISfING � �� i�G 20 5.F � GARAGE ON ? �C�REMOVE ExiSrING i ADJ�CENT ( \ WOOpfENCE _ i PROPERTY -�_�--�---—-'�c `' -- - - - � �EX15TING . PROf'E!�(Y UNE PROp05ED WOOD FENCE � �-1��UMiNOUS rqViNG � � '�TO MATCH EXISTiNG v cv h' -- '- '- � PROf'OSED FENCE-'NOO�-i0 MA7�N EXIST�r+G I � `PROPOSEO � N � �p� PROf�ERT�' LINE � Q ., p" � - m Q � � G " < ��CwSirNG -C � . f�ROl�ERTY I�ME � EXISTING Q � G�RAGE S w U � . � i � — 1 I_ C �' � EXIS7ING I'/2 STORY Q a - `t WO00 FRAME- SINGLE � FAMILY RES��£iYCE • -- ��3.0 -- � ci SITE f�l AN Na rN 7 I ��: 20'•O" CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County , Minnesota � RESOLUTION N0: 89-3 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN: 89-9 WHEREAS , an application for a Variance entitled VN88-9 made by William Leadens , 1202 East Excelsior Avenue , to allow a four foot side yard setback and a ten foot rear yard setbaek for an addition to the existing building is approved . WHEREAS , the procedural history of the application is as follows : 1 . That an application for Variance VN88-9 was filed with the City of Hopkins on December 9 , 1988 . 2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviwed such application on December 27 , 1988 . 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission , pursuant to mailed notices , held a public hearing on December 27 , 1988 and January 31 , 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 VN88-9 is hereby approved subject to the following Findings of Fact : 1 . Due to the unique shape of the lot . Adopted this 7th day of February , 1989 . Donald J . Milbert , Mayor � � � U G �� ti 9 O � P K � �- December 13 , 1988 Planning Report: VN88-9 VARIANCE - LEADENS INVESTIGATIONS Proposed Aetion: Staff recommends the following motion: "Move that the 6 foot side yard and 25 foot rear yard setback variance is denied . The denial of these variances will not allow the applicant to construct the addition as proposed . Overview. In addition to the rezoning and the waiver of plat , Mr . Leaden is also requesting setback variances for the proposed addition . The required setbacks are : 10 feet for the side yard and 35 feet for rear yard . These setbacks are required because Mr. Leadens property butts a residential district . Mr . Leadens is requesting a 4 foot side yard setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback . StafF is recommending denial of the variance request because the property does not have a hardship to warrant a variance and the property has a reasonable use . � Issues to Consider. o Is the property put to a reasonable use without the varianee? o Is there a hardship to allow the varianee? Supporting Documents . o Staff Analysis o Site Plan o Resolution v A �\,� ,•A `_. � '1 Nancy . Anderson Community Development Analyst �- y � vN: 88-9 Page 2 � Staff Analysis . - Is the property put to a reasonable use without the varianee? The property without the addition has a reasonable use . It is used as an office building and will continue to be used as an office building with or without an addition . The applicant has submitted a site plan with an addition that complies with the setback requirements . - Is there a hardship to allow the varianee? The Ordinance requires that the property must have an undue hardship . 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 cireumstances unique to this property not created by the landowner , and the variance if granted , will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance" . The subjeet property does not have a hardship . There is nothing unique about this property that would �ustify the granting of the varianee . I ehecked several other cities zoning ordinanees to see �- if they had a large setback when a business district abutts a residential district . Al1 the cities had a large setbaek when a residential district abutts a business distriet . Alternatives . 1 . Approve the variances as requested . By granting the variances , the applicant will be able to construct the addition as proposed . If the variances are approved , the Commission will have to make Findings of Fact to support their decision . 2 . Deny the variances . By denying the variances the applicant will have to move the addition to comply with the setbaeks . 3 . Continue for further information . If the Commission feels that additional information is needed , the item should be continued . ��