CR 04-56 Variance - Flag Lot Oak Ridge Place
,'-' (' CITY OF )
~'\, '.<.~ -- y .
I ,:
'~'
!I ,
, ,
. HOPKINS i
March 31, 2004 Council Report 04-56
,
VARIANCE -'- FLAG LOT OAK RIDGE PLACE
Proposed Action, ,
Staff recommends the following m~tion: Move to adopt Resolution 04-27. approving a
variance for a flag lot for Oak Ridge Place.
At the Zoning and. Planning meeting, Ms. Aristy moved and Mr, Sholtz seconded a
, motion to adopt Resolution RZ04-9, recommending approval of a variance for a flag lot
for Oak Ridge Place. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview, i
I
The applicant, Halley's Custom Homes, Inc" is proposing to construct 18 for-sale, one
and two-bedroom condos north oftq.e Hopkins Methodist Church located on Highway 7.
The subject lot currently has the chl1tch located on the south side and a parking lot on the
I ,
north side of the site. The church does not need the additional parking, and it appears
that their parking canbe accommodated on the south side ofthe site.
Access to thesite'has been reviewed and the public works department has recommended
. that there be a private road for access to the site. This access creates a flag lot that is not
allowed under the subdivision ordinance, The applicant has .requested a variance for a
flag lot.
,i
The proposed building would be three stories and have underground and surface parking.
The condo price range will be from $350,000 to $500,000. The building will be
marketed for residents 55 years of age and older.
,Primary ISsues to Consider.
. What does the ordinance require?
. What are the specifics ofthe applicant's request?
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supportin2:Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Site Plans
. Resolution 04-27 !
i
Nancy ,Anderson, AICP
Planner ':.
. Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
-
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes: 1
"
. f
i
:"-:".: ;:., >""" "
CR04-56
Page 2
. Primary Issues to Consider.
. What does the ordinance require?
:
f
Section 500,55 Subd. 9 states Flag lots are not permitted in arty subdivisions. A flag lot
is a lot that looks like a flag on a pole. The staff looked at various scenarios on access to
the site. At first the discussion regarding access into the site focused on a public road.
A public road would require a 60-foot width and the applicant would have requested a
variance from 60 feet to 40 feet. i In discussing the options with the 'engineering
department and City Attorney, the route that was determined to proceed was to have a
flag lot with a private road for accessi to the site.
f
. What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a flag lot.
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
1
The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance isa modification or variation
f ' '
. from the provisions of this code granted by the board and applied to a, specific parcel of
property because of undue hardship' due to circumstances peculiar and unique to such
parcel. The Zoning Ordinance also states the following: that the Commission mustfind
that the literal enforcement of the provision of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an
undue hardship because of circunlstances 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 ofthis code.
j . .
In this case, the applicant does have an undue hardship that is unique to the property.
The access will serve only a single parcel, and from a public works standpointt9 have a
public road to maintain does not ,make sense, The smaller road will provide more
opportunities for landscaping. and green space rather than a 60 foot right-of-way that
would not be needed for the condos.
i
,
. What was the discussion adhe Zoning and Planning meeting?
I'
Ms, Anderson stated that when staff!reviewed the various options for access to the site,
staff thought the best option was a private road and that a variance for a flag lot should
be granted.
Alternatives. ;
, j
'!
. I, Approve the variance. By apprqving of the variance, the applicant will be able to
construct the development as pro~osed.
'I
i i
." ,. IJ
:,
1":" ~
CR04-56
Page 3
.'. 2, Deny the variance, By denyitrg the variance, the applicant will not be able to
construct the development as' (proposed. If the City Council considers this
alternative, findings of fact will h,ave to be stated that support this recommendation,
3; Continue for further informatlpn. If the ,City Council indicates that further
information is.needed, the item should be continued.
i:
i
i
.
.
~ " "" ~<<' "
I
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
. RESOLUTION NO: 04-27
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A iVARIANCEFOR A FLAG LOT "
, '
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN04-2 has been made by Mike Halley; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history ofthe application is as follows: ,
1. That an applicati~n for Variance VN04..2was made by Mike Halley on
March I, 2004;
2. That the Hopkins. Zoning ,and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
March 30, 2004:, all persons present were given an opportunity to be
heard;
3. That the written c?mments and analysis of the City staff were considered;
and
4. Legal descriptiOllofthe parcel is as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1 Oak Ridge Place
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, application for Variance VN04-2 is
hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the private road will serve a single lot.
BE IT FURTHER RES()LVED that applicationfor Variance VN04-2 is hereby
approved based on the following conditions:
,
I. That the property is replatted,
2. That the park dedication fee is paid,
3. That the conditional uSe permit it granted to construct the condo building,
4. That the property is r~zoned from Institutional to R-4, '
5. That the property has the Comprehensive Plan designation is amended from
I
Institutional to High Density Residential.
Adopted this 6th day of April 2004,
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST: \j
:"
.
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
.
-
I \
I \
I \
I Ii
I \\
I \~T~
PLACE ~\ \ OJ
~"""'\.'.....,.......," \\\;
t-: :,,~
- ~ . ~
. ~ ~
. "':j ~':j \\ ~~~
~ .~
-<l " ff'~~ :-.::" ,,-,, 0' ~ \
..d:. ~ J ~ ~ ~ \ \ 3f.
: :p~ 'Y':""-,,,:i
; 1'1 G~~""" ,,,,. ~ ~'~% \
,: ~ ~.~ \ \ -J~
:1..,.:",.:-.." '. '" .l.. \
, \ cO 1 \
' \"'X
. t \ \
r \ ~ \ \
.:l ",lSJ
1 \ ~~ \
.< \ ~ \
~ \
I~ \) \
~ '-VIi'"
\ . \lJ
\ \
\ \
I \
\
eENCH/lIARK
TO~ NUT [J~ Hl'[lRl,tlT /oJ THE SOUTH QST COftNOl.
0, mSEN<lCWEIl nEto!E:IlfIlll~ SClIOOL AND
tOI.lIAlNITl' C~rm:;;.
I.lU:9::'l.S1 {N.C.V.O. 192eJ
-
Revisions 11l=tlj'c~r:llythal1hisplan\u5PteJl6redbym!!grundar A Schoell & Madson, Inc. Clio'll1-:
Date: DescrlpUt:>n: eo: Date: Oesc:ripticn: By: mydlIl!ctJupSfVlsIDn..ndth"tl"",&.~....dPI,,\l>ss\""1I1
::;-..:3-C~ ell'!' CO\,o\1>\EN1S '" Engll1eerlmderthelDwll:IftheSlal.OgfMlnnel'o.... ~ Eng!!\I!JIlring . Surveying" Planning Halley's Custom Homes,
_==_ Soil TestIng" Envlronmentsl Services ,"'-,... .,. lIl_on_.. .....- ;''' -~
o~ Rog.No. ~ -WWWs""~..llm~,l.~" ~~~