Loading...
VN 90-01 CITY OF HOPKINS ZONING APPLICATION �--� S RY FORM Application Number V1� 9D^ / p ,I ,D ,�. 19-117-21 -44-0003 Applicant ' s Name (Last , First) Owner (if other than applicant) Kellev, Stephen P. Mailing Address (Street , City, State , Zip Code) 121 Blake Road South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Phone Number: (Day) ( 612 ) 375-6202 (Evening) ( 612 ) 933-4107 Property Address 121 Blake Road South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 APPLICABLE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT(S) TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST [ ] R-1-A [ ] R-2 [ ] B-1 [ ] Concept Review [ ] R-1-B [ J R-3 [ ] B-2 L ] Conditional Use Permit [X] R-1 -C [ � R-4 [ ] B-3 [ X] Variance [ ] R-1 -D [ ] R-5 [ ] I-1 [ ] Zoning District Change [ 1.-.$-1 -E [ ] R-6 L 7 I-2 [ ] Subdivision Approval [ ] Ordinance Amendment � L ] Other I hereby certify with my signature that all data contained herein as well as all supporting data � _ � %� are true and correct to the best of my knowledge: � B-� -� Ap ,li ants Sign�t e Date j/ / � . ��l"`�-o Owne s Signature Date ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SUMMARY [ ] Proper addendum to application Application received: !O- 3/- 90 [ ] Detailed plans submitted [ ] Written pro�eet description submitted Fee Paid: Referred to City PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Engineer: Approved: without modifications Referred to City [ ] .with modifications Attorney Denied L!� Referred to Watershed District Date: J/- ,��- 9l Date of Publie Hearing Notice //- /�- 90 COUNCIL ACTION Date of Publie Ap�'�ed : without modifications Hearing �/_,t�� Qv [ ] with modifications '-- Den�..d : [ ] Date: /�-//-9Q RESOLUTION N0: 9�'� /O CITY OF HOPKINS � SUPPLEMENTAL DATA FOR VARIANCE Application No .y/1/ 90�/ P. I .D. No. 19-117-21 -440003 A. GENERAL DATA NAME OF APPLICANT: Stephen P. Kelley The above named individual , firm or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following supplemental data in support of the preliminary information provided on the aceompanying Zoning Application Summary Form dated 10-31 -90 for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls. Kelley Stephen ( 612 ) 375-6202 ( 612 ) 933-4107 Contact Person Last Name , First Day Phone Evening Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1 . Specify the section of the ordinance from which variance is sought: Section 530. 05 2 . Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the ^�rdinanee : The required side yard is 14 feet; the proposal for +-he 3ition would create a: 7 . 5 foot side yard. 3 . Explain why the strict enforecment of the Ordinance would cause an undue hardship or deny reasonable use of the property. �i�rdshi� to the applieant is the erueial test . Ordinance enforcement woul prev nt attaching the garage, prevent moving i away rom e lines, and re uce e overa va ue o e proper y. dated October , . 4 . Check all additional supporting documents and data which are being submitted to help explain this project proposal: [ ] site plan , [ ] topographic map , [X� other (specify) design drawings I hereby certify with my signature that all data �' � on my application forms , plans and specifications � are true and correct to the best of my knowledge: gn ure of Ap licant ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING VARIANCE In accordanee with the findings stated on the reverse side of this document , the City of Hopkins hereby [X] approved , [ ] denies the foregoing Application for Variance . If approved , said approval is subject to the G �al and Special Conditions following the Findings section on page 2 . BY� Ci t_y P1 anner 2/12/91 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: 11/27/90 & 1/29/91 and before the City Council on: February 5, 1991 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 facts which were presented at the hearing held on this case : 3 . The hardship found to exist in Finding 1 , above LX7 is , [ ] is not unique to the property in question , and [ ] is , [k] is not shared by properties in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because of the foll.owing 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 . � 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 ahall become null and void unless an application for extension of the approval has been submitted in accordance 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 propose� construction . The City Council may grant extensions not to exceed one year. � „ �C \ j Y � I:P G '� � ti y ^ January 30, 1991 � P K � � Council Report: 91-30 KELLEY - SIDE YARD VARIANCE Proposed Action. Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Move to approve Resolution No: 91-10 denyina the 6. 5 side yard variance at 121 Blake Road South. Approval of this motion will not allow Mr. Kelley to construct the proposed addition. overview. The applicant, Mr. Kelley applied for a 6.5 foot side yard variance to construct an addition to his home. At the November Zoning and Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended denial of Mr. Kelley's variance. After the Zoning and Planning meeting Mr. Kelley submitted to the staff a recent court case dealing with a variance. The City Council referred Mr. Kelley's variance back to the Planning Commission in light of the recent court case. Mr. Kelley appeared before the Commission on 1/29/91 and stated the new addition would reduce the burden on neighbors because a non- conforming building would be removed. He also stated that he would ^ agree to a condition on the variance that a portion of the garage not be used as living area. There was considerable discussion on the other options available and lack of hardship. The Commission voted 3-2 to affirm their previous motion to deny the 6. 5 side yard variance. Mrs Reuter and Mr. Maxwell voted nay. Primary Issues to Consider. o What are the specifics of the court case? o What is the impact if Mr. Kelley's variance is granted? o What are the alternatives for the City Council? supportincx Documents. o Analysis of Issues o Alternatives o Court Case o City Attorney Memo o Planning Report:VN90-1-2 `� Nancy S. nderson Plann r � � i � � CR: 91-30 Page 2 Primarv Issues to Consider. o What are the specifics of the court case? Rowell vs. Board of Adjustment involves a church which wanted to construct an addition three feet from the front property line. The ordinance requires a 25 foot front yard setback. The existing church has a three foot front yard setback. The City granted the variance on findings of aesthetic and functional considerations. The Court ruled that the City's satisfied the requirements for undue hardship on findings of aesthetic and functional considerations. Also, the Court ruled that the expansion of the church to the existing 3 foot setback was not an expansion of a nonconformity because the church was already three feet from the property line. Mr. Kelley is requesting the City to review his variance request based on Rowell vs. Board of Adjustment. Mr. Kelley stated in his December 5, 1990 letter, "that the court permitted the city to consider the practical difficulties strict enforcement of a setback requirement a cause in determining whether the city had properly found that hardship existed. The city could take into account functional and aesthetic concerns such as whether roof lines and the front line would match, � internal corridors would be misaligned and exit routes would be adversely affected" . o What is the impact if Mr. Relley's variance is qranted? If Mr. Kelley's variance is granted there would be a precedent set for granting similar variances. The finding of fact of aesthetic and functional considerations coul3 be could be applied to most homes in the City. This would place the City in the position of it being very difficult to deny most variances. o What are the alternatives for the City Council? There are three alternatives for the City Council. They are as follows: - change the existing ordinance Should the ordinance be changed? If the standard setback for side yards is unreasonable the ordinance should be changed. In comparison to other cities a side yard setback of 10-15 feet is not uncommon. - continue existing policy regarding variances ^ The staff, Planning Commission and the City Council in the past has interpreted variances in line with the State Statue. This policy has been that a property must have an undue hardship unique to the property for the granting of a variance. ---� CR: 91-3 0 Page 3 The staff will continue to interpret variances as in the past. A applicant will have to prove that the lot has an undue hardship. From what the staff is aware of, this restrictive policy is the policy followed by most cities regarding variances. . - amend existing policy regarding variances The Planning Commission and the City Council can change their policy on granting variances. The attached case is an example of a City interpreting the ordinance in a different manner than we have in the past. This court case points out that the courts will not overturn a case unless a clear abuse of power by the City is evident. However, there are ramifications in granting variances. Some issues to consider are the following: o what will the finding of fact be if the Planning Commission reviews two similar variances, one which no neighbors object and the second a neighbors objects. � o homes will be closer to lot lines, which creates a new set of problems. o all variances with similar circumstances will have to be granted. Alternatives. 1. Approve the previous action by the Commission. By doing this the applicant will not be able to construct the addition as proposed. 2. Approve the variance. If the City Council approves the variance, the following are findings of fact that the Council can consider: - that the setback requirement would create a hardship because the addition would not be coordinated with the existing structure. . - that the additions roof line would be consist with the existing structures roof line. - that the granting of the variance would force the property � owner to build a smaller structure. 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: 91-10 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR SIDEYARD VARIANCE VN90-1 WHEREAS, an application by Stephen Kelley for a sideyard variance to allow an addition to the home at 121 Blake Road South, PID# 19-117-21 44 0003, is hereby approved. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the amendment is as follows: 1. That the application for variance was filed with the City of Hopkins on October 31, 1990. 2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on November 27, 1990. 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a hearing on November 27, 1990; 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. 5. That the matter was referred back to Zoning & � Planning by Council December 11, 1990 for review and consideration; the Commission reaffirmed their action to deny the variance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for Variance VN90- l is hereby approved subject to the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the setback requirement would create a hardship because the addition would not be coordinated with the existing structure. 2 . That the additions roof line would be consistent with the existing structures roof line. 3 . That the denial of the variance would force the property owner to build a smaller structure. Adopted this 5 day of February, 1991. Nelson W. Berg, Mayor ATTEST: James A. Genellie, City Clerk � � January l9, 1991 Planning Report:VN90-1-2 KELLEY - SIDE YARD VARIANCE Proposed Action. Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Move to affirm the Zoning and Planning Commissions previous motion to deny the 6.5 side yard variance. Approval of this motion will not allow Mr. Kelley to construct the proposed addition. Overview. The applicant, Mr. Kelley applied for a 6.5 foot side yard variance to construct an addition to his home. At the November Zoning and Planning Commission meeting, the Commission denied Mr. Kelley's variance. After the Zoning and Planning meeting Mr. Kelley submitted to the staff a recent court case dealing with a variance. The City Council referred Mr. Kelley's variance back to the Planning Commission in light of the recent court case. Primary Issues to Consider. o What are the specifics of the court case? o What is the impact if Mr. Kelley's variance is granted? � o What are the alternatives for the Commission? supportinq Documents. � o Analysis of Issues o Alternatives � o Court Case o City Attorney Memo o Planning Report:VN90-1 - - �,���.��.�- - Nancy Anderson Planne --� � VN:90-1-2 Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider. o What are the specifics of the court case? Rowell vs. Board of Adjustment involves a church which wanted to construct an addition three feet from the front property line. The ordinance requires a 25 foot front yard setback. The existing church has a three foot front yard setback. The City granted the variance on findings of aesthetic and functional considerations. The Court ruled that the City's satisfied the requirements for undue hardship on findings of aesthetic and functional considerations. Also, the Court ruled that the expansion of the church to the existing 3 foot setback was not an expansion of a nonconformity because the church was already three feet from the property line. Mr. Kelley is requesting the City to review his variance request based on Rowell vs. Board of Adjustment. Mr. Kelley stated in is December 5, 1990 �letter, that the court permitted the city to consider the practical difficulties strict enforcement of a setback requirement a cause in determining whether the city had properly found that hardship existed. The city could take into account functional and aesthetic � concerns such as whether roof lines and the front line would match, internal corridors would be misaligned and exit routes would be adversely affected. o What is the impact if Mr. Relley�s variance is granted? If Mr. Kelley's variance is granted there would be a precedent set for granting similar variances. The finding of fact of aesthetic and functional considerations could be could be applied to most homes in the City. This would place the City in the position of it being very difficult to deny most variances. o What are the alternatives for the Commission? There are three alternatives for the Commission. They are as follows: - change the existing ordinance Should the ordinance be changed? If the standard setback for side yards is unreasonable the ordinance should be changed. In comparison to other cities a side yard setback of 10-15 feet is not uncommon. - continue existing policy regarding variances The staff, Planning Commission and the City Council in the past has ^ interpreted variances in line with the State Statue. This policy has been that a property must have an undue hardship unique to the property for the granting of a variance. The staff will continue to interpret variances as in the past. A applicant will have to prove that the lot has an undue hardship. From �--� VN:90-1-2 Page 3 what the staff is aware of, this restrictive policy is the policy followed by most cities regarding variances. - amend existing policy regarding variances The Planning Commission and the City Council can change their policy on granting variances. The attached case is an example of a City interpreting the ordinance in a different manner than we have in the past. This court case points out that the courts will not overturn a case unless a clear abuse of power by the City is evident. However, there are ramifications in granting variances. Some issues to consider are the following: o what will the finding of fact be if the Planning Commission reviews two similar variances, one which no neighbors object and the second a neighbors objects. o homes will be closer to lot lines, which creates a new set of problems. � o all variances with similar circumstances will have to be granted. Alternatives. 1. Affirm the previous action by the Commission. By doing this the applicant will not be able to construct the addition as proposed. 2. Approve the variance. If the Commission approves the variance the following are findings of fact that the Commission can consider: - that the setback requirement would create a hardship because the addition would not be coordinated with the existing structure. - that the additions roof line would be consist with the existing structures roof line. - that the� of the variance would force the property owner to build a smaller structure. 3 . Continue for further information. If the Commission indicates ^ that further information is needed, the item should be continued. ,s ,u� U�� .��� �--•. C I T Y O F H O P K I N S MEMO Date: December 11, 1990 To: Nancy Anderson From: Jerre Miller Re: Stephen Kelley You have asked that I review the variance application by Steve Kelley to build an attached garage 7.5 feet from his side yard. Ordinance 515.07, Subd. 118 defines "variance" as a modification or variation from the rovisions of this code or variation from its rovisions qranted by the board and applying to a specific parcel of pro erty because of undue hardship due to circumstances peculiar and unique to such � arcel. Minnesota Statute Section 462.357, Subd. 6, a copy of which I have attached is much more definitive. Contrary to our own ordinance, the term "undue hardship" is defined in the statute as property which cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by an ordinance, the plight of the owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the owner, and the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality if granted. The statute goes on to say economic consideration alone is not an undue hardship if a reasonable property use exists under the ordinance. After reading cases involving the Court's interpretation of a variance and construing undue hardship, it is clear a fair amount of sub�ectivity is employed. If a general rule can be carved from the various cases, it would be that an Appellate Court would not overturn a City's denial or grant of a variance as the case may be unless a clear abuse of power is evident. This observation recognizes the sub�ectivity applied by various municipalities in construing the existence or lack of circumstances allowing a variance. � 1010 First Street South, Hopkins,Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474 An Equal Opportunity Employer � Thus a City may relax the literal imposition of an ordinance by granting a variance and finding undue hardship upon which to rely or it may adopt the opposite approach and literally interpret the strict wording of the statute or ordinance in which event few variances would be recognized. The most recent case decided by the Court of Appeals in 1989 involved a resident's challenge to the City of Moorhead who granted a substantial variance to a church who wished to expand the building into a 25 foot front yard setback to within three feet of the line. Citing the general rule that a reviewing Court won't set aside a city's decision unless it is unreasonable and it acted in good faith and within the broad discretion given it by statutes and ordinances, the Court found imposing the setback requirement on the church would be hardship because the proposed addition would then not be coordinated with the existing structure concerning roof lines, internal corridors and adversely affect exterior design, exit routes and classroom configurations. To say the decision was a substantial relaxation of the � literal language of the variance statute is a large understatement. "-' I think this concept of how a City wishes to interpret and impose the variance statute on applications depends on its philosophy each time a variance application is presented. Considerable latitude obviously exists with respect to a decision and as long as its-.done in reasonable fashion with due regard to the facts up r� which the City acts in good faith, neither a denial nor ffirmance could be set aside by legal challenge. ( �. 1` �" �\ ( ��/ l 1 / /� , v i� i i