VN 87-09 CITY OF HOPKINS
� APPLICATION FOR: AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE DATE: �-//- �7
CONCEPT REVIEW
CONDITIONAL USE PERhiIT CASE N0: V%� � 7-- �
SUBDIVISION APPROVAL -� FEE: �..5� �
VARIANCE �
WAIVER OF PLATTING REQUIREMENTS
DATE PAID: q-//- �7
�l
1. Street Location of Property: �� �v " � � o✓� • �' '
2. Legal Descri ption of Property: ��� �`?�7 L1���- /�� GU�Q'`�' •
.X�- � , ,
3. Owner: Name �-- Address �o�� `c�C�
�`�. ��W Phone � � �� ;
4. Applicant's me: Address Phone
,
5. Description of Request: 'UG�t�tiE�-c�a� —
oning District Use
6. Present Proposed 7. Present Proposed
�
8. Reason for Request: �
NOTE: If request is for variance, please also complete attached page.
9. What error, if any, in the existing Ordinance would be corrected by the proposed amendm�nt?
(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 requestec'
that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in ac-
cordance with the Ordinances f the City of N i s and the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Signature of Applicant: � ' - �
Signature of Owner: � -.,.�.
� �
' e
'�
RECORD OF ACTION TAKEN BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Application for: Variance Case No: Vfd87-9
On the �_ day of Se tember 1S 87 , the uction requested in the foregoing
petition was approved X disapprove�) subject to the following conditions :
That an acceptable drainage plan be submitted to the City prior to a
permit being issued.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Approved X Denied by the Council this 6 day of October ig 87
Resolution No: 87�92
Special Conditions: Subject to an acceptable drainage plan being submitted to
---,
the City prior to a permit being issued.
/�1
;" �� �
James D. Ker �gan
Plannin R Economic Development Director
If you have any further questions as relates to this matter, please call
Nancy Anderson , 935-8474, extension 146.
'�
�
�
' Citv Counci [ Report
.
� ,
September 29 , 1987
VARIANCE - 126 - 20TH AVENUE NORTH
PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on a request
for a sideyard variance to construct a garage at 126
� 20th Avenue North
BACKGROUND: The applicant , Jeffery Palm, appeared
before the Commission . He stated that his old garage
was ruined by the water run-off due to the topography
of his lot .
The Commission was concerned with the change in
drainage with the new garage . Concern was that the
water would now go to the neighbors property and create
a problem for them.
The applicant will prepare a drainage plan to assure
the run-off will not create any problems , i
� The neighbors have reviewed the location of the garage
and have no objections .
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission unanimously approved
the variance with the foliowit�g Findings of Fact :
1 . A unique circumstance exists due to the pond
in the rear of the lot . This prohibits
access from that side of the lot .
2 . A hardship exists due to the topography of
the lot . Putting the garage at a lower
elevation than proposed could potentially
result in foundation damage from storm run-
off .
and with the Condition :
1 . Acceptable drainage plan to be submitted to
the City prior to a permit being issued .
Respectfu�ly submitted ,
`'� �'t � , �, I �� 1
�, Nancy S . Anderson
Community Development -
Analyst NO� 37-207
CDCR39
RESOLUTION N0: 87-92
CITY OF HOPKINS
� HENNEPIN COUNTY , MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
APPLICATIOPI FOR VARIANCE VN87-9
WHEREAS , an application for a Variance entitled
VN87-9 has been made by Jeffrey Palm , 126 - 20th Avenue
North , to construct a garage at less than the minimum
sideyard setback .
WHEREAS , the procedural history of the application
is as follows :
1 . That an application for Varianee VN87-9 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on September
11 , 1987 •
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on September 29 , 1987 -
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission , pursuant
to mailed notices , held a public hearing on
September 29 , 1987 ; 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 THEREFCRE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Hopkins
City Couneil makes the following Findings of Fact in respect
to vN87-9 :
1 . A unique eircumstance exists due to the pond in
the rear of the lot . This prohibits access
from that side of the lot .
2 . A hardship exists due to the topography of the
lot . Putting the garage at a lower elevation
than proposed could potentially result in
foundation damage from storm run-off.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that application for
Variance VN87-9 is hereby approved subject to the following
Conditions :
1 . An acceptable drainage plan to be submitted to
the City prior to a perrnit being issued .
� Adopted this 6th day of Oetober , 1987 •
- Jc>r.;=d J . �"i1r�.� - - - ---r,
` _
• Plannin� Commission Report
VARIANCE REQUEST - 126 20TH AVENUE NORTH
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT N0: VN87-9 SEPTEMBER 21 , 1987
PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on an application
for a � 1/2 foot side yard variance .
BACKGROUND :
Name of applicant: JeFfery Palm
Address of Property: 126 20th Avenue North
Present Zoning: R-1 -A
Nature of Request : A 4 1 /2 foot side yard variance
Reason for Request : to construct a 20 ' x22 ' garage .
The applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage
to the south side of his home . The new garage will be 3 1 /2
feet from the south lot line . The ordinance requires an 8
foot side yard setbaek .
�
The applicant is requesting this varianee because of the
topography of his lot . The rear of the lot ab��t�s the pond
on Snady Oak Road . His house is at an elevation of'
approximately 940 , and the pond elevation is approximately
920 . The applicants rear yard has approximately a 20 foot
grade incline .
The applicant did have a garage on the rear of the lot .
This garage was removed because the foundation deteriorated
due to run-off created by the slope of the lot .
There is no access to the lot from the rear because of the
pond . If there was such access , a garage might be able to
be placed in other locations .
Most garages in the neighborhood are at the house elevation
and at a setback comparable to the subject garage . The
neighbor to the south has a detached garage 9 feet from the
lot line and his home is 19 feet from the lot line . The
neighbor has no objection to the proposed garage .
�
No.
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and has no objection
� to the placement of the garage .
ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting the variance because
of the topography of the lot . Putting a garage in the rear
would require diverting alot of water from its natural path .
I talked with the Inspection Department about the
possibility of constructing a garage in the rear of the lot .
They stated that it could be possible but that location
would not be desirable because of the drainage situation .
Another alternative would be to build up the garage in the
rear to the level of the home . The Building Inspector
stated that this alternative would also not be desirable .
The concrete block needed to build up the garage would
essentially be a retaining wall . It seems the applicants
best spot for a garage is attached to his home .
ALTERNATIVES:
1 . Approve the variance . By granting the variance
the applicant will be able to construct the garage
as proposed .
2 . Deny the variance. If you choose this alternative
the applicant will have to try to construct a
garage at the rear of the property .
3 . Continue for additional information .
�
RECOMMENDATION: I rs�ommend Alterr�ative �1 . The following
are suggested Findings of Faet should the Gomm�ssion
recom�end approval .
1 . A unique circumstance exists due to the pond in
the rear of the lot . This prohibits access from
that side of the lot .
2 . A hardship exists due to the topography of the
lot . Putting the garage at a lower elevation than
proposed could potentially result in foundation
damage from storm run-off.
Respectfully submitted ,
- V ! U'� �
Nancy�. Anderson
Community Development
Analyst
��
,
41
�— .---�-�D � =--s�E� �
/ �� 5 ) I a' Q' 30(54) I � 30(33 � c��
30 I �r 30(76) � � Q � —
—29 — (�`�r —� \ 29(7 — — — � v 29(53) (34) 2 � v 29(3 (I I) 2 �
- -28 — Cl8) 3 � � 28(7 �56) 3 � M 28C52) 06� 3 q� M 28(31) (12) 3 � I
27 q � 27 (5T) 4 h — — — — — 4 � \ 27(3 �3 _ -�
--26 (7'9) 5 ►� � 26 Cl3 �58) 5 ` �j N 26(51) (37) 5 N N 28(2 _ � I
25 {80) 6 h5 Zx��1 �+ 25 (38� _ N �J � `25(2 (14) 6�`
-- �)-- Q
24(88 7 � � — — — �—� ` 24{50 _ � � _ � (15) 7 �
2 3 1 6 7) 8 � 23t71) (60) 8 M 23 (39) 8 � � _s I
� - - - —
— 22 --9 � ' c� 22CT0) 9 � N 22E49) (40) 9 � � 22(2 (16) 9 N
_ � — —— — — ��. �. 2i(�s) (aq io � � 2i(2s) (i7) io °
2 i !sa) i o ti � � 2 i s (si) i o -- -
�— — — �s?� �� m �— — — �42) �� � � 20 I
20 I I er �
�g (84) 12 � Q � 19�68T — — , � 19�7) (43) 12 � (24�9 (18) 12 �
— O(23)I 8 2� (19) 13 � I`
�a se) ia o � is(s� u?q t3 o is. _ �_ _ �
_ — — —— � �— 6) �^ 17 (20) 14
17— - - - h 17 — �-- - - �
-- �� � 15 0 8 �g�66j � 15 � � 16�45) ���"�� 15 0 0(2�6 15
��o�
lST � STREET NO. I
1 `�-- (89) � � � 31 � et � 3104 I— � v� 3v�i(�64) �I4��_ I
1 � � A(I) _ _ � '� 30� 10312 � 30(14 �� — � — — —
� h B (2) �� � ^ 29121) 3 � 29 Q24) 3 � e2 29(163) (146) 3 �
1� � � (31�q � ^ �4 � 28(142) 12� 4 M � 28(16 (14�4_�, I .
� p C �� (92) 5 � 2 (105) 5 � 27(141) — — — � � 27 5 '^
! � M. D f4) (93) �. � � _2�I9) (106)6 ry � °� 26(I (126y 6 � l " I (148)6 '� I
^ - - - -
�� ?�''– � � 25(160) (149) 7 �
1 � °j E(5) I 7 ---�-J _ (107) T � � ,.���y) _ _7 f .
' � F 8 `� � "� 24(II� (108)8 � � �_ _ _ 12'» 8 N � _24 _ (150) 8 c�
I �6) (94)_ c� �
t �� G�) 9 � � _23 (109) 9 � c� 23(138 28) 9 � N 23(159) _
1�1 I� (95) 10 O - - 2201� 10 `� 22(13 (129)10 22 (151) 10 c�
�1 �h H�8) (96) I I ti � h 21416) I I �C o� 21 _ �I3a I I � � _21058� (15��� � _
i , i (s? s7 i2 2o0i5) ��i2 2a(i (i3q i2 0 2o i2 I
�� � ( )
1 r(I 2)� '�� �7�� � 114) �II�II (�III)� �35� 13 �O ��I 7) 1550 il5 .� � -�
19 18 I � I&�5 14�13 19 18117, 16 15�14 13 19 18 IT 16 15 14 3 17 16 15 14 13 I f 7
� �w i f ± � , � � I � � � Uak� o�s) i I �_.�,,_��.
�e .I �'*. /9 /90 B2 B/ / O/ � /7$/-5/7/ 7/ �70 '
— — - — — — — - - � 7
�,.;, r:�
� /�a,l t�l�T � '
o zoii' 8�. .4! �21 i��a i�4 � �� .�,'.,�J,
� I ;���,; „
� 5 �
� • II2 ' 3 4I5i 7 1 � 2 3 �4� L6I7
i(20 tZl) � (36�o L o�1c:_�v
� � � I � I
13 �.�r... �l-
� I7(33) �24) 8 � � 17(4T (38) 8 r Q� ar�
c�) P I
N � h 16(32) (25) 9 p � 16 E46) (39) O I Z C71 J �.�
� c� . N
� � N I 5(31) �26� 10 b � �i I 5(45) (40)10 � I
� , � 1
v
� � 1 4�n' f27)I I � � N 1 4�44) (4�) �� N
—— M M
(l.ril (86) F 0 A ,.�� e� �f i Z,-,�,�_' . � (431,
---�
I
� ,
�
�
f
, \
j � �� I
, I ���
� � �
o �---
� �
�C �3��-� —- l 't y �
� �
i r
1 \ �' � $ i
; � s� �
i � �
�- , �� f
; �
�� i�, � S �d!� ���d°?la
� �� �Q�t'
W p � '° '
I � � � � o
� ? �1� �
� I �
� I .
I �-`1-�� �
; � ��,:, � �,
� � � -- -- __ ;
___ ----- ---- .
� � � --- , .
� i � �
� i � � '
, � I
�� ��Q 7
{ , � 1� Sh�
, �
� ; i
. �
�
_ ___----
---------- -_ ------_-._--------
__ -- - c��'\
� ; - ��/ -�
� � ,
�
. ,
_
.
. • '
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
�. .
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.
�Hardshi� to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted
only in 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: ' ' �
�.p��w�. -- - — � - --�.°�rcecc".,�r�v�.Q- =Qu.c.-�--�-
�iw�,cu-� ,�.L.�.�.-�� �,l.�;, ���—rA,,_e.�� ' �l���e�a,c� �taa.��-
��, ��a.��- ,�o n��
�� ��►�---�. ' ac�,�- , S �.. �1�..�
. ----
i -- _ ..�:v � , .
, __ a�
. , , , u�a-cc�-
Condi tions B. '� °`'�`'� -__ ��'.�. ----- - -- __
,_ ---- - -_Ig_ _
`-- P2��� .�'d.e.,�,crt�,
What are the special conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic
conditions, etc.) of this request that are unique to this property and
do not apply generally to other properties in the district?
`l/��-�..�t�r�ca.�-� -C,.�� Uu��w�rc.�a� -��-o-�c...�,c�Q�e�9����8-ua�L.
��'i,d� .�c-v� /l�a�- �crL
G'u�c- a�� �It� _���u�c�l � '
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted.
��O�- �� yWl�
1� � ���'` ,q� r�p. �133 �o t� � �j��
��K.�,S , 1`<� �. s-53�-3 �%� ; Y� � SS��
-��-��s � ��ti'-Up � �1'��1�,��
�C/-�� � /�,l�' ��r���� a
� � z�� ��- y �
/.3/o`- � , .s'S�� ,��'�
��� /�i�S, ��ir//" � ��-�-Qe�r�
� � �� �.� 7 .�Z O �- �v-�. �J .
•���_' `11 , �o-G� , 7n.�. S�:3�-�3
� � � - �� %c�f. -e -� • T�f �