Memo - Proposed House Addition & Setback Variance - 345 16th Ave N
.
Public Warks Department
Memorandum
From:
Nancy Anderson, City Planner .-.r-J--:J.
,\'J/
Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director .
To:
Date:
June 19,2001
Proposed House Addition & Setback variance - 345 16th Avenue North.
Subject:
It is my understanding that the property owner at 345 16th Avenue North has requested
a setback variance to construct an addition on the north side of the home (toward 4th
Street North) that will extend to within 1.5 feet of the property line.
I am opposed to allowing an addition to extend within the 5 ft. setback along 4th Street
North. Allowing construction within the setback area could limit the city's future ability to
install utilities and/or sidewalk. The existing street is 35' wide and the ROW width is
66'. This is a fairly typical street and ROW width for the central Hopkins area. The city
will need all the existing ROW behind the curb in order to have the ability to provide a
future 6-7' grass boulevard and a 6' sidewalk. The boulevard and sidewalk would be
similar to what currently exists along the south side of 4th Street N between 9th and 12th
Avenues (see attached photos). The remainder of the city ROW would be needed to
construct a retaining wall, slope the ground to the property line or just provide a buffer
area for construction of sidewalk repair or replacement. In addition, if a foundation wall
to a building addition were closer than 5' to the property line there could be problems
caused during retaining wall construction or changing frost depth conditions under the
wall footings due to proximity of the sidewalk and exposed face of the retaining wall.
Fourth Street North is an important east-west connector street and we should not limit
our future options for improvements along this roadway.
.
rilgc 1 Ui i
-
.
Pagel of 1
.
ii~Hf.;;",.:t:/ '1',,/"
'//
.-:. .
t
I
'N
I
". ~
Phone: GReenwood 3-8352
ARLEIGH C. SMITH
. Registered Pr fessional Engineer and Land Survey r
16215 Wayzaia Boulevard Wayzaia, Minnesota
. . PL,AT OF SURVEY. ~r;I/;fvY;l-IQ . ...
QF PROPERTY OF )AIr: 1- /:31/ I ~IYJ (>,~ hr. / t..r ~;~ii,L.''''Yr'tI.l1tYJ;d.t
describe~,;)~,s:,.tollows: L~{r::J I... ~ v~ I 9 I e;f'L" ,L~ (;)
. , ,a/a ~i;1
r ,; L /S"'/j . J I ~ w. J JrJ 1', .' ..
'=" I D~:5 ,,~ ".:/" .. '" (1 u ,..'$7 / In/) ilf,lI.:r
Scale: ~ :>mc}l ...5t!:> fit. ..).
"1~' .
, ;:~i:'lIi}';
Y~.......--oo:"" -4.:' T.
""-,
4:Ch
.~o
-./' /' 4 .
.;5-1 ~
NfW ~DO' 1\ ON
;.
~; ,..."...~ ,.., .
I
~~
..?!.O/J
,
I~'
"
,..
.\IM
BS " ,
, S
o~. ~j
~. ~l~ -- - - - - -- - ....
i I .
~, ~'~ 0' d
. . \J
'c\ -'--V' - ... - --...:; j'- --- 0'1. ·
.. ~(. ., - rt · 'f .t
-~
;(/t' I
o
~
-4 \
, ~ ~'.
'A
't.;
~
~;
~\
'~
"
\J
.J..
V
f
r~
~ J
. \ c- " ' '.
~L~50 .~
.'.' I
. .
Petition for Proposed Variance
May 13,2001
We the undersigned have seen a copy of the proposed 12' x 32' addition ~o
345 16th Ave. North, Hopkins, N1N 55343.'/
We approve the fact that the north wall of the duplex will be built 16.5 feet
from the curb on the 4th 81. side which requires a 3.5 foot variance from the
present City of Hopkins code.
Name
Address
Phone
.: .~. .~
.
.
- .--..--................-::..
...
~.
~~I
'1
-:-_~'"a.._.._
.---- :..
..',::.:.
.,' ~
j'
...:1
. >:.1
..;-' ".
" oor.'< :" ..... ..~..; 7" 1
. -, - \
'.~.:~' .:>;:~~: .}:' .: i ?~I;
. .: ". \~\~)<J
'. .:. .',.: ':.'':'':1
. ".":n I
'~.;'~ .(, .:'~ . : .:.>j I
. . '1' c'.-,.,:! I
C'.' . .<:. :, '.' ~J !
. -, .:.-J r.." ,; I
. ~_:.: ':':'~._~'; .'1 J
"'~"'.:.".
'~':~.~...' '.' '>
- ,
.. . ~ ..; .
. : . '." .....
. .
. . . : . ~ .' . -
;.
.f
-'t.
~.
:..'.1 .
......
'!
.1 I
i I
"11
I
. ."1 I
I
. ' - i
',.1
:.i
.~
1
l
C\TY OF
m
HOPKINS
June 27,2001
Council Report 01-84
VARlANCE-REARYARDSETBACK
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 01-42. approving a
one foot. rear yard variance at 41 0-13th Avenue North.
At the Zoning and Planning Commission Mr. Rowan moved and Mr. Szuba seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution RZO 1-7, recommending approval of a one-foot rear yard
setback. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview.
The applicant is requesting a variance for one foot to allow a two-foot rear yard setback
to construct a garage. The required setback for a detached building is three feet. The
applicant has an existing one-stall and wants to construct a two-stall garage. The
problem with the construction of a two-stall garage is that a large tree is located in the
rear yard that restricts the garage construction.
The new garage will be 20' x 24' with a 10' x 10' attachment on the side. The other side
of the lot was considered, but the two driveways abut each other and this allows both
residents easier access to their garages. The applicant has modified the eaves to
accommodate the tree.
Prima" Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property?
. What does the ordinance require?
. What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SUDDortine: Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Site Plan
. Resolution 01-42
Nanc . Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ NI A Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
YIN
Source:
N
CRO l-~
Page 2
Prima" Issues to Consider.
What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned R-I-A, Single Family and Two Family High Density.
What does the ordinance require?
The ordinance requires a rear yard setback of three feet for an accessory building.
What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant has requested a variance for a two-foot rear yard setback.
What special circumstances 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.
The subject site is unique because of the large tree. The applicant is not asking for a
huge garage, just a two-stall garage. The garage has been modified to keep the tree and
the garage meets all of the other zoning requirements except for the setback from the
alley.
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the applicant's request. Chris Tower, the applicant, appeared
before the Commission. The Commission discussed that the existing setback is two feet.
There was no one in the audience to speak on this issue.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to
construct the garage as proposed.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to
construct the garage as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative,
findings of fact will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
(jy
CROl-~
Page .:3
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: 2001-42
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A ONE- FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VNOI-3 has been made by Chris and Betsy Tower;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance was made by Chris and Betsy Tower May 25,
2001;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on June 26,
2001: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
4. The legal description of the property is as follows:
Lot 6 Block 108 West Minneapolis Second Addition
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VNOI-3 is hereby
approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the lot is unique because of the location of a large tree.
Adopted this 3rd day of July 2001.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
~OIOlf: ..
.......:...mR.
: 1
.......1..... i
tl
.
..................".......
i ;/. : .!.......'......
. ........i......../.............:.. .........].... .....(....... ..
y.. j : : :
.......~....'i...........i.........;.......T.....
........:...........~...~i........ .......................
......... .:. .............. :".: ..... ............! .?i ...... .....~..................:..........'
..........................-.......
.......,........,....1..
. . .
. . .
ZCcp'QSff.. ....:....,
....":..B.lqc~>......r....r
......, ..,...... ..........J,..
II
m_:mmt:mi
.....P[Qf~..
. . ,
. . ,
...-.............................-
. : .
: . ,
: . .
: . :
. . .
. . .
. ". .
.;. .. ,:,.. ... ...:h...... .'
...(Ql..f.A\0.'.~:
. '.
. .
'. .
: . . . .
. .
. . . . .
. . .
. .
. . . . .
. . .
. . . .
, .
n........ ...... n. .... n' ............."._.... .....
......... ...~~_t~...~+m....m_....!m.. ..- ........t...-...- .....-.r
. I
; :
....I..'.:"'.It..v...,,,'.. ..........1.......
v"'". I :
.....,.........<.... ....2i.~...:
. .
. : .
. .
. .
, .
. .
. 'no . ..". . n ". ................ ....
. . :
, '
iZO'P~" '
. : .
. .
. .
. : :
..... .......-.."............... .
:--____~~...._.....i._~....
-----
.............."........'........ ..... .
.....~~PH.AL:1. .. .....................:..~\t(f.."..:,..,.
,....; .. rttg.tOEu>- , ." ........ .......
. . .
. .
.................................-.....-:-..
. .
: . .
, . ,
. . .
. . - .
, . .
............ ... ..................
. . .
, . .
. . '
. - . .
.....;. ........................ .............
J .1
: . :
: . - :
. , .
ml' .
: : -.
:- : :
: . .
..........-............
. . . . .
" .
.. ..
'. .
. .. .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. .
'- . . . .
.. ..
" .
. . . : . .
: ,~ ; . ; :
. ....... .. ... . ... ... ..... "..'" .... ... ..... . .. . , . . .. . .. .., . .... .. . .. . - .~.. . .... - . . ... . - . . ..
PlO'I'! PCAN
, .
.. -- ...................-...-................ ....;....
, '
-...... .. ........
. .
. . ,
: : :
.................-.......-......
. .
... . ...... ......... ......n
. . .
...........................................
, . .
__.__.......n......... ._
. . .
. .
......... LG~At1f..
.. J08~t-l V IS 10 ~)t K
J i i 0 l~ -rf.i lilU-
SHEET NO. '-f -<-- ff1 ( e..
CALCULATED BY ~.I 0 p ~( i 11) S '
CHECKED BY c:; S2. - q3!;- 7'lO '::Z DATE
"
ODUCT206-1 ,?added 1'- EDGE) PRODUCT 206A-l (Padded 17' EDGElIM!!itiS/~ Ino.. Groton. Mass. 01471. To OrdarPHONETOll FREE 1,800.225-6380
SCALE
OF rJ h
DATE SSJ4J
.
~L/ '-.....-...~r.___-.'
.. ,~---.:_ .......::tSI ;. #'; .
~
'}'~'"
..",. ~"
~~"
~,~
1..~.'.. ~.>
.' ~
't~ :" .
.~'1t "
..~.~}'
l\. & 't\." ~ '-
1 ,,{' ~ ~"
,. " ~"
..'~
~
~
.~
t
"
'-'.
~
,~.
......-...--
~i.... :'. _ . ':":
. ..... ,."
.. ... ..-.... '-. ,...,
-.
""""""
-
'/A..
"',e
I?
\
. -::'~ ~
o
~
~
r-
S
r-
,c..
r
.~,
1.- '
. .. 'I
.: .;;"~
.: ./~
.' .~
'. .. ..r........'.".,
~.
0..
, .
..~-~o
~ -.--'-.
~
-'.....:. .
/a Tn /lr/q: ^'
-.....,...AWi.~:.
'r; _.. ..-:--- .
Ci.~ ':,~; .':~ :,: ::' o~;'. :~.:o.~. L;<' .
j"~lt{:~E!~~.~.<:~ :3i~rrhrfJn:;.
.... .... <~',' ..,"' :,...
7343 ANN COURT
-r
dura"ilt
additions / garages
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55346
(612) 938-9350
~uza'itt crldJlJciated, 9nc.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS
(612) 926-7616
ST. PAUL: (612) 771-8873
May 24th,2001
Attachment to letter F ,Supplemental data.
Dear Sirs;
We are requesting a variance to build a 20'0" x 24'0" detached garage
within 24" of our rear lot line. The code currently is 36". The circumstances unique
to our request are as follows:
1) .
20'0" isa minimal size for the front entrance of a double car garage, The 20'0"
allows 2'0" on either side of the garage to swing doors into. A 16' x 7' overhead
door is ,theiminimum size of the overhead door opening.
There is a large tree currently on the side of the existing garage.If the new
garage is moved to 36" off of the rear line, the tree would be less than 2411
away from the garage. If the garage is built 24" off of the rear lot line,
the tree would be 30" or more from the garage, the closer .to the tree we
get, the more likely the garage could kill the tree or we would have to cut the tree
down. We feel the code is creating a hafdshipon our lot. We would like to keep both
the tree and have a double car gar~ge.
The way thegar~ge is oriented on the1ot,current1y has the best site lines to our
neighbors dri veways and all ows all of thenei ghbors the :. abi-l i ty to swi ng their
cars in and out.
Currently our existing garage is 24" off of the rear lot line;and we ci're"!not2requesti
a setback that is not already existing.
We feel going any closer to the tree than we have to would be a hardship.
2) .
3).
4) .
5) .