VN 88-05 CITY OF HOPKINS
�
APPLICATION FOR: AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE DATE: 3 3� ��
CONCEPT REVIEW
CONDITIONAL USE PERh1IT CASE N0: �1/ �'. �' - .:�
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
VARIANCE �_ FEE: .-��' �
WAIVER OF PLATTING REQUIREMENTS
DATE PAID: �7- ��
1. Street Location of Property: 3`l-� ��rn.� T�Y✓-a- ��-
2. Legal Description of Property: C���-r,Ph�l� �-��,��,'on � ��o�''K,"ns - Lot oo(� �/o�l� o�/
3. Owner: Name �O9� . E��w�.�� Address 3`tr ���,,,L,,, 'T�,.d..�e Phone �j3g-l7o'f
4. Appl icant's Name: 5�.,,, � Address Phone
5. Description of Request:
oning District Use �
�, Present Proposed 7. Pre�P nt Propo�dH `�
S�e, /l�s�'d o,,. ,a� /� � �
�$. Reason for Request: V�� a.,, c� �v �o� �.'nc o f� Se-rt ` I�ro,Pos�.d a��,'�►'cv+
�'Vc�u �� be 6��-�� frorn ��'h� ;n f'ron� a�n rl �0�� ��a� ���6�.GI�Q� �� e �ause, .
NOTE: If request is for variance, please also comp ete attached page.
9. What error, if any, in the existing Ordinance would be corrected by the proposed amendment?
(for Zoning Ordinance amendment only)
10, Exhibits submitted:
Map or plat showing the lands proposed to be changed � ����
Other
11. Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties
of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Hopkins to take the action herein requested,
that all statements herein are tr and that all work herein mentioned will be done. in ac-
cordance with the Ordinances e City of Hopk' s and the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Signature of Applicant:
�
Signature of Owner:
� w
��
RECORD OF ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Application for: Sideyard Variance Case No: VN88-5
On the 26 day of A ril 19 88 , the action requested in the foregoing
petition was approved disapproved X) subject to the following conditions :
FIPJDINGS OF FACT:
1. That there are no warrants presented in regard to hardship or unique circumstances
to justify the variance.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property with the exist�nq home.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approved Denied �_ by the Council this �_ day of May 19�.
Resolution No: R88-32
Special Conditions: =-.;
�_
J es D. Kerrigan
Planning R Economic Development Director.
If you have any further questions as relates to this matter, please call
Nancy Anderson, 935-8474, extensio� 146.
--�
�
, .
. o
I. � � �
, .�-
ti y
April 15 , 19$$ ° pK � `' Couneil Report: 88-87
``- VARIANCE REQUEST - ROGER JEWETT
3�1 Herman Terrace
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: That the request for a � ' 10"
sideyard variance is denied
Adoption of this motion will not allow the applicant to construct the
proposed addition .
The Zoning and Planning Commision voted 3-0 with one member abstaining
to deny the request for a 3 ' 10" sideyard variance .
Overview.
The applicant is proposing to extend his existing home with a 4 ' 6 "
addition along the entire west side of his existing home . This
addition will enlarge two bedrooms and den. The ordinance requires a
10 foot sideyard setback for homes in R-1-C districts . The sideyard
setback with the addition will be 6 '2" in the front and 10 ' �" in the
rear.
Roger 8� Marge Jewett appeared before the Commission. Mr. Jewett
stated the following reasons for his varianee:
- ordinance changed from 5 ' to 10 ' for sidyards
� - government outlook has changed for the elderly, now try to
keep people in their homes as long as possible '
� - new energy wall on the west side of home
- new egress windows wiil be added to the three rooms
The Commission noted that the applicant had no hardship to grant a
variance. The Commission diseussed the possibility of constructing
� only part of the addition . Mr. Jewett stated that it was not possible
because of the roof line.
Issues to Consider.
o Does the applicant posses a hardship or unique
circumstance to warrattt a variance?
, o Is the property put to a reasonable use without the
varianee?
SupportinR Documents
o Background o Location Map o Resolution
o Analysis o Site Plan
Nancy . Anderson
�" Commu ity Development
Analyst
.
Y : �
� Planning Report : VN88-5
Page 2
Detailed Background
Name of Applicant : Roger Jewett
Address of Property: 341 Herman Terrace
Present Zoning : R- 1 -C
Reason for Request: Need more room because of age .
Nature of Request: A 3 ' 10TM westerly sideyard variance
The existing home was built when the zoning ordinance had different
setbacks. The existing home does not have the required sideyard
setback on the east and front yard setback . The east sideyard setback
is approximately 5 feet and the front yard is approximately 26 feet .
The current ordinance requires 10 feet for a sideyard setback and 30
feet for a front yard setback. The existing home is legal non-
conforming.
The existing home with the addition Will have a building coverage of
18� . The ordinance allows a building coverage of 35� .
The applicants property is surrounded by single family homes. The
abutting home on the west is gtg^ from the applicants property line .
�
The applicant has contacted some of the surrounding neighbors .
Analysis.
The applicant has stated that they need more room in the bedrooms and
den because of their age. The ordinance states the Commission must
find that the literal enforcement of the provisions 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 Por said
hardship is in keeping With the intent of the code.
The lot is slightly pie shaped Which causes the setback problem but
the applicant does have reasonable use of the property because a home
exists on the property. Needing more room in an existing home is not
a hardship for the granting of a variance.
Alternatives.
1 . Grant the 3 ' 19" kesterly sideyard variance. By granting
the variance the Commission Will have to identify
Findings oP Fact to support the granting of the variance .
�
Planning Report: VN88-5
�" Page 3
2 . Deny the 3 ' 10" westerly sideyard setback variance . By
denying the variance , the applicant will not be able to
construct the addition as proposed .
3 • Continue for further information . If the Commission
feels that additional information is needed , the item
should be continued .
�
��
.
CITY OF HOPKINS
� Hennepin County , Minnesota
RESOLUTION N0: 88-32
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN88-5
WHEREAS, an application for a Varianee entitled
VN88-5 has been made by Roger Jewett , 341 Herman Terrace , to
construct an addition at less than the minimum sideyard
setback .
WHEREAS , the procedural history of the application
is as follows:
1 . That an application for Varianee VN88-5 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on April 7 ,
1988 .
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on April 26 , 1988 .
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission , pursuant
to mailed notices , held a public hearing on
April 26 , 1988 ; all persons present at the
hearing were given an opportunity to be heard .
� 4 . That th� written comments and analysis of the
City Staff and the Planning Commission were
considered .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Aopkins
City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect
to VN88-5 :
1 . That there are no warrants presented by the
applicant in regard to hardship or unique
circumstance to justify the - requested variance .
2 . The applicant has reasonable use of the
property with the existing home .
Adopted this 3rd day of May, 1g88 ,
Donald J . Milbert , Mayor
�
' , .
� o
G
���
�L y
O P K 1 c�
� April 15 , 1988 Planning Report: VN88-5
VARIANCE REQUEST - ROGER JEWETT
3u1 Herman Terrace
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: That the request for a � ' 10"
sideyard variance is denied .
Adoption of this motion will not allow the applicant to construct the
proposed addition.
Overview.
The applicant is proposing to extend his existing home with a 4 '6"
addition along the entire west side of his existing home . This
addition will enlarge two bedrooms and den . The ordinance requires a
10 foot sideyard setback for homes in R-1-C districts . The sideyard
setbaek with the addition will be 6 '2" in the front and 10 ' �" in the
rear.
Issues to Consider.
o Does the applicant posses a hardship or unique
� eircumstance to warrant a variance?
o Is the property put to a reasonable use without the '
variance?
Supporting Documents.
o Background o Location Map o Resolution
� o Analysis o Site Plan
J ,�
Nancyi S. Anderson
Community Development
.Analyst
��
Planning Report: VN88-5
Page 2
� Detailed BaekAround .
Name of Applicant: Roger Jewett
Address of Property: 341 Herman Terrace
Present Zoning: R-1-C
Reason for Request: Need more room because oP age.
Nature of Request: A 3 ' 10" westerly sideyard variance
The existing home Was built when the zoning ordinance had different
setbacks. The existing home does not have the required sideyard
setback on the east and front yard setback . The east sideyard setback
is approximately 5 feet and the front yard is approximately 26 feet.
The current ordinanee requires 10 feet for a sideyard setbaek and 30
feet for a Pront yard setbaek . The existing home is legal non-
conPorming.
The existing home With the addition Will have a building coverage of
18� . The ordinance allows a building coverage oP 35� .
The applieants property is surrounded by single family homes . The
abutting home on the west is 9 ' 8" from the applicants property line .
The applicant has contacted some of the surrounding neighbors .
Analysis.
�
The applicant has stated that they need more room in the bedrooms and
den because of their age. The ordinance states the Commission must
find that the literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance Would cause an undue hardship because of cireumstances
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 the code .
The lot is slightly pie shaped which causes the setback problem but
the applicant does have reasonable use of the property because a home
exists on the property. Needing more room in an existing home is not
a hardship for the granting of a variance .
Alternatives.
1 . Grant the 3 ' 19" westerly sideyard variance . By granting
the variance the Commission will have to identify
Findings of Faet to support the granting of the variance .
�
Planning Report: VN88-5
Page 3
�
2 . Deny the 3 ' 10" westerly sideyard setback variance . By
denying the variance , the applicant will not be able to
construct the addition as proposed .
3 • Continue for further inPormation. If the Commission
feels that additional information is needed , the item
should be continued .
�
��
I `'' _ 0 2 .
� I�^�' (2s) � �� �� fr4) r=: .
= I 2�) `�'�
: • • . A� . .
p I .
2� �Qo (i5)
3(24) , �. �� -- ---
' • i
� �,, p ... . �.. .
�� 4(25) ' (26) '� � p. 4. .
I / � /05 0� . \�7/ (3 4) I
. ' 2 c3O� . �A RM0,4 L E � RD
' r��o /04 /OB //2 425 . I
� ��� //6 204 20B
i � R. S, o. 95 i � � (sa) cs:
o'` c n ces� t89> cso� �o „ �- a �csu
�12� TUR G
. I �.. � a s c ��3� �� • i . � �' � ��
,�� � ' � (72) � � �. .2(62) "AD .
3.r�1 �� (6) (n E8) (9) (I I) (IS)
3 Q 4 6 6 9 13 O (74) fT "� 3(63) 4GV
s.�*� 3�5' ,3 7 ' � - = 3 MONF
. 5 I 3�9 4/ '''3j 8� � 225 229 . � 4(64) 40P 4G
s so 3�z 336 `��',� �p,� - . �.C/RCLE N.� �S l �i��� • Mp ��
•I �� - J 226 30 34 Q � 6 ,
. 7I (8� ' (34) C35) � ' ��1..� ' Q 3 2 � � � .
� (36) .`1b � (77) (76) (75) � T(677 � (72
9 1� � M
9 �a � "' 2�sn c��4 '� . csn csol t�s� c7a� _ � 8cse� ; c�o
( O �h (38 7 6 5 4 '� .
� � �O Q 24�6) . 5 �0 � ^ . 2/9 23 227 ,3� � o� 9�9) �p_ f IOf
_ -_ '/, ,.[�'� �/ 23�s� �9�s `'�Q,V -:;;: � C/RCLE S. O � �o��y �� �
�V'
.::•- � 7
(40L � � t.,,: 2/6 220 224 228 232 Q M
�� 2 I 22 � �O � .�..• 5 4 3 2 � � 11�71) �.
, i3 �G521 �� � � '`. (86) � (85) (84) (83) (82) • , , v` �80)
O :•'•. N
(42)9 'h �_i . �
Qia � . 2z4 oti ..J''• N cau-
�� (431 • "�
15 10 �0 � � (85)
� �s � V (44�� ti \ ti
/`� ��50) (43) • qr�� � , ti (86)
IT v I 17�9) �2 'h0 � . . (93) • �i (bT
Q (46) ti[i,� . .
18 13 6 v �' '
.ti,,.
\/ I�(48) (47 ry `r :�., � � ry (91)
15I 14 • �V —
?�e (��
' �
� . - - ---
I . 3.�3 -
,
� � — — — — -- -
. . , .
�- . 23 - � . .
. ,
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
t
NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when
the strict enforecment of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an undue hard-
ship to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property.
�Hardship to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted
only�n -unusual situations which were not foreseen when the Zoning Ordin-
ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely
considered a valid hardship.
Hardship A.
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue
hardship: -
�S W� cZ q� W u �✓�'�I /1�-�C1 �'h 0 Ye- Y'O O y+t ��n D u ►� ��:�cb�r o o m S c�n d
U-an • 7r1� /7 a-/� S/l,'� O'f' S�Y,'�� Zv n�'h q �D u �d "�oYc 2- CIS� �o �Ji10✓2�
fY�►'n ��Y /jpm� SOonc:�f' �ftdm �eS�Y�L, �h � O-f�sG� from !0� �. Ylc�
ha.s G�ia�►yzd SihG c w� bu,'��� Th� �ro/��s�d a-�,�L�,'on Wa u l� � �
�. Condi tions B. (y,.�h , h ��,.�,, S as �ti� w L,r�
` � '- a{p u 5 e� W�u.�d, b� S a f�� W,' �1
3d���'�Un a.s b�dru� m W�huiyw; wv�l d� ����.t �9YeSS Code ,^�qu.',�em��s
W ha t are t he specia l con ditions (s hape o f lot, exceptiona l topograp hic
conditions, etc.) of this request that. are unique to this property and
do not apply generally to other properties in the district?
1�E� l�� �� 5 d P r�G ,S Yj d.�C-d j 0� (? ,��e(� �1/,�d�i=- � YI �Y�/n� u�'YI cL
/DO ���� �'V';�� ��n d a�l� � T11 . S /'Yi a./�eS t�t e f7 on- C o f
�1 e �ou5c C�O S e•� �0 ��e �o� 1:n c� �h a�n ��t c. b��/� ,
List of Homeowners •
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted.
B a ��,'n� s - �-0 6 �►�m a,n C.o u.r�
C d s Z��o m s - 3 a-8 f+�-r rn a.-�+ -Te.r r a.�- �-
�}u�cLm So r� S - 3 3 � I-E�m a�t Te r r d-c �
C3c�r� n�ann s - 3 �f'S ��rn� Terra� �
�
�. a� us� �� � n
. � .�- . . .
. ., . . .
_
�=�• � k���� � �
�n � �
13r_ � .
�.`--- ���
�
' \�`\� Fj c.�r oa n�
..-- �' ��
\, �
G� i � . �'�
� �{ � ��,�'..
f� � F ;�--,--,
___- - � `,••�
�-�
_- - � �, \
' .;,``. (�e�Y�i �^^
. )�. ,.�
��•��•�� •
.
,. -� ,
y ����
�, � �
�, G a" �� ' i � .
�\��
\ p e h o-,r"
�. \ B�-fOO'm.
� M � \
--�1' ��_4 � M � M - - - �
6.z_�y�c � �!
3 �.�� � 3 �fl
•(eir�`` . Ne�►»�-+�► �'mr'ra-��
N�f ht,� ,
�
�
� �.Ot ��"y
,�
s ��a��a� 'a.r e a � $ �rp�°o S��. .
� dClr�' GYI .
�� •
S�Y��-�
. •
CITY OF HOPKINS
� Hennepin County , Minnesota
RESOLUTION N0: 88-32
RESOLUTION MARING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN88-5
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled
VN88-5 has been made by Roger Jewett , 341 Herman Terrace , to
construct an addition at less than the minimum sideyard
setback. ,
WHEREAS , the procedural history of the application
is as follows:
1 . That an application for Variance VN88-5 Kas
filed with the City of Hopkins on April 7 ,
1988 .
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on April 26 , 1988 .
3 • That the Hopkins Planning Commission , pursuant
to mailed notices , held a public hearing on
April 26 , 1988; all persons present at the
hearing Were given an opportunity to be heard .
� � . That the written comments and analysis of the
City Staff and the Planning Commission were
considered .
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Hopkins
City Council makes the folloxing Findings of Fact in respect
to VN88-5 :
1 . That there are no Warrants presented by the
applicant in regard to hardship or unique
circumstanee to 3ustify the requested variance.
2 . The applicant has reasonable use of the
property with the existing home .
Adopted this 3rd day of May, � 9$$ .
Donald J . Milbert , Mayor
��