CR 2004-081 Variance- Front Yard Setback
.
(' '\
, ., , CITY OF
~
HOPKINS
. May 26, 2004 Council Report 04-81
VARIANCE - FRONT YARD SETBACK
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution. 04-42, denying a
front yard setback for the lot at 109 Holly Road.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Paul moved and Mr. Sholtz seconded a motion
to adopt Resolution RZ04-18, recommending denial of a front yard setback for the lot at
109 Holly Road. The motion was.approved unanimously.
Overview.
The applicants, Diane and Mike McDonnell, are proposing to move their laundry room
to the rear of their existing garage and construct an eight-foot addition to the front of the
existing; garage. The home is located at 109 Holly Road and is in the R-l-C zoning
district. R-I-C zoning district requires a front yard setback of 30 feet. With the
proposed addition to the garage they will have a 26' 2" front yard setback.
. The existing home has the required 30-foot front yard setback.
Primary Issues to Consider.
. What does the ordinance require?
. What are the specifics of the applicants' 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 04-42
Nanc S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N - Source:
. Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
"
CR04-81
Page 2
. Prhnary Issues to Consider.
. What does the ordinance require?
The front yard setback for in the R-I-Czoning district is 30 feet.
. What are the specifics of the applicants' request?
The applicants are requesting a variance of three feet, ten inches for the front yard
setback.
. What special circulllstances or hardship does the property have?
The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance is a modification or variation
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 must find
that the literal enforcement of the provision 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
for said hardship is in keeping with the intent of this code.
. In this case, the applicants do not have an undue hardship that is unique to the property.
The applicants, on their application, stated the following "No undue hardship but
adjacent property encroaches and addition will not alter the essential character of the
locality." The home on the corner does not meet the minimum setback require1l1ent, but
that is not a justification for this variance. All the other homeS south of the applicants
home are in line with the applicants' home. The home was constructed with the required
30-foot setback. If the variance is granted to allow a setback of 26 feet, 2 inches without
any hardship, then the ordinance should be amended for a new minimum front yard
setback.
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the variance request. Diane and Mike McDonnell appeared
.before the Commission Mr. McDonnell reviewed the proposed addition with the
Commission. Mr. McDonnell stated that the home to the north of their property has only
a 17-foot front yard setback. The Commission discussed at great length ifthere was any
hardship for this property.
Alternatives.
1. Approval the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to
. construct the addition as proposed. If the Planning Commission considers this
alternative, findings of fact will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
, t.
CR04-81
Page 3
. 2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to
constructthe addition as proposed.
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: 04-42
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
A VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN04-4 has been made by Diane and Michael
McDonnell; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN04..4 was made by Diane and Michael
McDonnell on April 27, 2004;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
May 25,2004: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered;
and
4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
Lots 3 and 4, Block 3 F. A Savages Interlachen Park
. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application for Variance VN04-4 is
hereby denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the subject property does not have a unique circumstance or hardship to
grant a front yard setback variance.
Adopted this 1st day of June 2004.
ATTEST:
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
.
" '.
.
.
.
" ,
.
.
.
.
i09 +\0 fI \1\ f2c\
I
...^' l
,
# IV 1
.
t
"
. I
.
I ~
.--
-,
! ex '(f~~"'. .; ,',~!
-\\ . I
~. iIt>. .. ~'
- 't' . \
u r _ r . -
~
"
~ -
!A
. . -\P
~ II(?Jk FanO
, : i 'Slie Ft.-AN ~ _ ~1. HItty ~.
I""$> ljJ.o'
. ~,.Iq~ I Mfr
l
i
I
..
.'~. - \
LAV/,QP.'1'/ /"'Nt:> ~'M
/ ,
/
/ /
.r:; ,Al~. A h>-e
..
-- - - - -t:t:---~--
, r+j
-. I
+-- "'-
I .n .... .OJ
---- ~
'1!(? ! I
L<'t
ri../+. IV 'I '1
rfeP,PtlSEO
~ ".. I" 0 " , , .4-..LJ......~.IL.
~
,
D~
J:::::j
I I
I
j
rfe.oFOSeD IELeVA7! ON I
I
7f-"-s It?' 1-:~.o+-