CR 01-083 Variance - Sideyard Setback
C\IY OF
m
July 12, 2001
HOPKINS
Council Report 01-83
VAmANCE-SIDEYARDSETBACK
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 01-41. denying a
three and one half feet sideyard variance at 345 16th Avenue North.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Szuba moved and Mr. Thompson seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution RZOI-4, recommending denial of a three and one half feet
sideyard variance at 345 16th Avenue North. The motion was approved on a 6-1 vote.
Mr. Rowan voted nay.
Overview.
The applicant is requesting a three and one half feet sideyard setback variance. The
home is situated on the comer of Fourth Street and 16th Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance
requires the front yard on a comer lot to be the side of the lot with the shortest frontage.
In this case, 16th Avenue is the front yard and Fourth Street is the side yard.
The applicant is proposing a 12' x 32' addition on the north side of the home that abuts
Fourth Street.
Attached is a memo from Steve Stadler and Steve Bot regarding the issues involved in
the potential vacation and reduction of right-of-way from 66 feet to 60 feet of Fourth
Street.
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 is the recommendation from Public Works?
· What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
· What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SUDDortin2 Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Memo from Steve Stadler
. Site Plan
· Memo from Steve Stadler and Steve Bot
. Resolution 01-41
CROl-83
Page 2
Prima" Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned R-1-A, Single and Two Family High Density.
What does the ordinance require?
The ordinance requires a side yard setback of five feet when a side yard abuts a public
right-of-way.
What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant has requested a variance to allow for a one and one half feet sideyard
setback.
What is the recommendation from Public Works?
Steve Stadler, the Public Works Director, has reviewed the applicant's request. Mr.
Stadler is opposed to the addition. Attached is the memo from Mr. Stadler.
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 not unique. If the variance is granted the home will be one and one
half feet from the. property line. The zoning ordinance was amended a. few years ago to
allow a lesser setback on the side for home that abuts a right-of-way. The setback is five
feet if the lot abuts a public right-of-way. The usual sideyard setback for homes ranges
from 8 to 14 feet.
Staff has also noticed that the applicant has constructed a non-conforming fence on the
south side of the lot. The City does not have a record of a fence permit. The fence is six
feet in height and six-foot fences are not allowed between homes.
Several neighbors have called after notification of the variance request. These neighbors
did not want the variance approved.
CRO 1..83
PageJ
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the applicant's request with the Commission. Steve Stadler, the
public works director, discussed how a sidewalk could be constructed in the right-of -
way and the amount of right-of-way needed. Bob Brandel, the applicant, appeared
before the Commission. Mr. Brandel reviewed the variance request with the
Commission. Mr. Brandel stated that he needed additional space.
Harold Christenson appeared before the Commission. Mr. Christenson was concerned
with the safety of the intersection if the addition were constructed, if granting a variance
without a hardship created precedence, and the effect this addition would have on the
property values of the homes in the area.
The Commission discussed the hardship issue at length, including whether the applicant
had a hardship.
Alternatives.
1. Recommend approval of the variance. By recommending approval of the variance,
the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. If the Planning
Commission considers this alternative, findings of fact will have to be stated that
support this recommendation.
2. Deny the variance. By recommending denial of the variance, the City Council will
consider a recommendation of denial.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further
information is needed, the item should be continued.
t~;::',t..~"~'
',//'
f
$'N
I
~,
,
Phone: GReenwood 3-8352
ARLEIGH C SMITH
. Registered Professional Engineer and Land Surv yor
16215 Wayzata Boulevard Wayzaia, Minnesota
. . PL,AT OF SURVEY, . ~<;I/;fW;!-;/.:? ..
OF PROPERTY OF fY(->/-13I/1 /IoM(J~Ji,C /!..r&lfAJl.J.ltJrtt/i,#"1I.f1tfJ;4~
describe~,.O$tollows: Ll!D I~ /- '# ,~, '9; af LIJ} t.J C)
"~'I(Jt:k,~ , "
C:,6bS /5r1Ii.l"70JY~'; A11P);1';141/;~
Scale: ~'~'inc}1..$1O fit. ,,)
:!~~., 1
, ..Ff(ir-#;'~':
~,
,r/,
4,,~,
":'''; ...."..._..< .
'" "
0
~
~
{
'tQ,
~\
''!)
"
'~/M
BS ' ,
~~~
'"
-
'0'\ ,
.;5-1 ~
,~o
V"~ ·
f? I.,'. T.
}.tf'v'J AOO'I\ON
!
r
I~
~
v'
i
?!..oo
~
~ \
.iy
''t
.,: 'V
-7-''--
~ .' C)
,"!'II
,'"
.'
~
\,
""
....~,.> '
{,F ~ I
f
lv
I hereby certify that )....V'. : 19J!'
I surveyed the property esc .ibed above and that
the above plat isa corree representation of said
survey.
,
.......~,. ---.. , ,--
" ~:t-
5"t.l,
'r"..
\J
.f..
0-
\j
Petition for Proposed Variance
May 13,2001
We the undersigned have seen a copy of the proposed 12' x 32' addition to
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
. ":-:~:"- ~.
-.-. ..-- ----~':.-~..;:.~~.-.~.~--.?:~:'-'bj;;;;:.~r=(~~:.L'I
. . :' '* "~
:7
. ","
.'
~'I
I
i .t.-
. t .~l.
.j' .,' '..
.1 .\.I~..
...l'~
. ! !
!.' . ' I
. " " .1
. . .1
.' \.
! ' .~. ":', .
~~T~~ \! .;...:'
!llj~ '..;:'
'~."'. .' I i~J I ".--.
~., . .'.
. .-
. .
..........01._ ......... .
" ,
.'
. I . .'
:__..:..:~......:..
. .. ....): .~~,'...; .
. "
. ...
.\
,'.r
- .-
~ . ,.: ".....
..4 .
~:'II ~;.,"
,;" ",
. . I .
: ~I . . ., ",
""-7:'~. . ....: :.. .1 ;'.:'.
.'. ..:. ') I.,'
I
I
. I !
. , I
I
. . 1
., .
~ I I EJ EJGl,
. "C'
- ;. '.").'L,
. . ~..: '..
"
...~ "
. :,..'
- .~~. ,: - Q
.q,' ," ,,~
('
. r,
! .
I '
.'.
,
i '
", ~ .
~ . ..
. ~...~-,- -j :-
"
. '.
," I."
. ...,1.:. _. ....:..a..:..:.
J-~
"':-L
, (
.; J
- l
. i
..:_ 1.
, ,
. f.. .
1 ' 'j
.' I .:
l.~~
II.:
.~.~.. -~ " -J.- -
~. .. i' ,"
'. .
i
!'
!. .
i .
1'.
I
" L~
" .
j
., ..'
. "
. .
:.]
1
-:z
>, <::>'
-
. .,' \-:-\
~."
. ~ Ll..
;>
,:.. LU
.~
uJ
~
-1'
"\~
:'-:2-
\6
'~
,LL
",
. \,
"\
\I
-,
-:.
")"
--.
"'7.
-::J
~
I;f
?
..u
-...:J
"ill
i
Public Warks Department
Memorandum
To:
From:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director ~
Date:
July 3, 2001
Subject:
Variance Request - 345 16th Avenue North
In an effort to help City Council consider this variance request, I have attached two
drawings and a photograph.. The drawings are section views that show how we might
install sidewalk along 4th Street North if the proposed addition were built. The drawings
were provided by Mr. Bob Brandel, the owner of the 345 16th Avenue North property.
Each drawing assumes a slightly cantilevered addition (the foundation wall is set back
from the exterior wall). Moving the foundation wall back reduces potential future conflict
with retaining wall construction or sloping of the ground. However, the ground slope
may exceed 2:1, which is difficult to maintain. AI~o, this slope assumesthe property
ownerwHl allow sloping all the way to the foundation wall. If not, the retaining wall
. option may be needed.
The photograph shows a section of 4th Street North where there is currently a boulevard
and sidewalk. I have superimposed an outline of a house addition approximately 4 - 5
feet back from the sidewalk. This is simply to help visualize the proximity of the
proposed house addition to a future sidewalk.
~
M
I !
I
I.,.
~
~
J
~
~
{. ""
r
.f
" r"
~
f
f
('
f.
f
I
/
--- L
.:.....<<f'>
" '
i
1
"
1
.~
~
7-=?:,
. <::>
. ""~ ~
;:>
. -' LU -
." . -I -
W '"
!..,.j
~,
~.
~. 1"_. .
1--'
-:z..
\<::)
~
LL
" b
I
/j
~
~
j
\,r i
Q.. " "J:
~ -r-
>(\ . -..
\,.. ~
"r-;j
- "7
..:...:. -.q.-"
'J
'"
'\.
~
~
I . ~"-'-. .~.
1 -'- -",,- ':o.J
- "~
~
)-~
e:_
~"-J
~
\L
"'--T
}
-
~
-..:3 .
- ~4
. I
},-
e;
~
1
i.
;'
, -t
'EJ"EJo.
, I
''''J ~
~,
I. ,
.~ -"0 . \... 1'_.
1;),'.:) ~
.....
-::_-:':==r==r===T ~
i ~ ~ n "ii ." .
;1. I 'J .' " '{.:,:?, ( ,.'
.~ --- .
I
~.
I~
J
i-
'\
-rl
:::
-~
~
_1.__ ___
-::J,NI,
I I
I
~'. .' I
-.
" ;" .
'-' ..- ---
-- L
~.'"
'. -z
o _
.' \--... "\. .
d:
/:"
.- L1J -'
. -1
W"1'
1----
-z.
I <:::>
~
LL
.C) ,
....,. '8- -, ~-
~
~
l V .
,r- "'2 ",
e:_
'Cl-.J
~
'1..
1'"
i
~
;;:r
-~
-i
1
<:!::
-~
1.
~(')'?
..~
')
'I'"'
if
~ " :f\
.J.-
,,~
'.
~i .
, .
..
.('
~
.~
~.
to" .
....~
.
~.. i!Jt~
.'
.~';:~
..
'.~~
~~~,. '..::.
.~... .;
.~
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 2001-41
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION
TO THE EXISTING HOME AT 345-16TH AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VNO 1-2 has been made by Robert Brandel; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VNOl-2 was made by Robert Brandel on
May 21, 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 the City staff were considered;
and
4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
Lot 21 and the North 9 feet of Lot 20 Block 1 Gibbs First
Addition to West Minneapolis
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application for Variance VNOl-2 is
hereby denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the property does not have a hardship for the granting of the
varIance.
2. That the granting of the variance could limit the City's ability to install
utilities and/or sidewalk in the future.
Adopted this 17th day of July 2001.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
Public Warks Department
Memorandum
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
COPY:
Steven C. Mielke, City Man~ger
Nancy S. Anderson, City Planner
~'
Steven 1. Stadler, Director of Public Works
Steven G. Bot, Assistant City Engineer M6
FROM:
DATE:
July 12, 2001
SUBJECT:
4th Street North Right of Way - Issues Regarding Potential Vacation and
Reduction of Right of Way from 66 feet to 60 feet
As you requested, we have outlined below the City issues that should be given serious
consideration in making any decisions regarding potential vacation and reduction of the
4th Street North right of way (ROW) from 66 feet to 60 feet in order to allow a house
expansion at 34516th Avenue North. We have reviewed the entire 4th Street North
corridor from 1 ih Avenue North to Minnetonka Mills Road for the possibility of
narrowing the right of way as it makes sense to keep the right of way consistent along
this long and straight corridor. The characteristics of this corridor would make it difficult '
to say that one block is any different than any of the other blocks in relation to the right
of way.
. COSTS: It is clear that a decision to vacate and reduce the right of way along 4th
Avenue North from 66 feet to 60 feet would result in some cost to the City of
Hopkins and its residents. We estimate the minimum cost of such a decision
would be $5,000 to $25,000. This minimum cost is difficult to estimate because
of the potential legal, maintenance, and public reaction ramifications. The
potential maximum cost to the City over a 20 year period is approximately
$75,000 which is made,up mostly of potential state aid funding losses.
. STATE AID FUNDING: Narrowing of the 4th Street North right of way from
66 feet to 60 feet would greatly limit the City's ability to potentially collect the
maximum allowable state aid needs in future. It would be impossible to construct
a two lane road with parking and sidewalks (wi boulevards) on both sides to state
aid standards with only a 60 foot right of way. Some aspect of the ultimate design
such as roadway width, parking, or sidewalks would have to be sacrificed to
comply with state aid standards on a 60 foot right of way. This sacrifice would
ultimately cost the City an estimated $50,000 over the 20 year design life period.
This estimated cost is a percentage of the maximum available state aid street
width needs only and doesn't include the elimination of a side~alk need on one
side. Due to the roadway changes within the City over the last couple of years,
this segment is projected to be added to the City's state aid needs in the near
future.
The following chart defines the maximum allowable construction needs
that the City can report to the state aid office for the 4th Street North
corridor (a lesser need equals a smaller funding allotment):
60 Foot Right of Way:
Street Width = 38 Foot
Sidewalk = One Side
66 Foot Right of Way:
Street Width == 42 Foot
Sidewalk = Both Sides
. PRECIDENT: Perhaps the greatest risk of all in vacating and reducing the right
of way along the 4th Street corridor to allow a house expansion is the precedent
that this action may set for future expansion, variance, and right of way requests
in 66 foot right of ways throughout the City. It can be seen in the attached map
that about one third of the streets in Hopkins have a 66 foot right of way.
. LEGAL: Approximately 30 legal descriptions along this corridor would have to
be described in conjunction with vacation and reduction of the right of way. It
could be estimated that the legal work to accompany this reduction would cost
approximately $5,000 to $10,000.
. TRAFFIC: Both traffic patterns and traffic counts through the 4th Street North
corridor from 1 ih Avenue North to Minnetonka Mills Road show this corridor is
being used as a collector street by residents off both the local streets in the area as
well as a connector route to and from other collector streets (Minnetonka Mills
Road, 17th Avenue North, and 1ih Avenue North). Because of their use, it is both
a local and statewide standard for collector streets to have a 66 foot or larger right
of way. The necessity for this ROW need is based off of the various demands
(vehicle traffic, parking, pedestrian traffic, safety, etc) that are characteristic of a
collector street.
. PARKING: Both businesses and residents currently use and enjoy the fact that
parking is allowed along both sides of 4th Street North. As mentioned in the state
aid funding section, parking on one or both sides could potentially have to be
eliminated to ultimately comply with state aid standards should the ROW be
reduced from 66 feet to 60 feet.
. SAFETY: Moving the right of way from 66 feet to 60 feet could force a
narrowing of the typical City boulevard width from 5-6 feet to 3-4 feet if
sidewalks were put along this corridor. A narrower boulevard would present
obvious safety and clear zone concerns.
. TREES/SIDEWALK IMPACTS: Many of the large trees within this corridor
are located in the 5-6 foot boulevard area. A great number of these trees would
have to be removed to accommodate a smaller 3 -4 foot boulevard area should
sidewalk be installed. It would also be problematic to attempt to plant or maintain
any trees in such a narrow boulevard. There currently exists four trees ranging in
diameter from 30-48 inches and approximately 20 trees ranging in diameter from
4-6 inches are currently within the 66 foot right of way and would be outside the
right of way should the right of way be narrowed to 60 feet. This would mean the
property owner rather than the City would be responsible for maintenance and
potential removal of these trees which could potentially place a large financial
burden on the resident. Sidewalk already exists along the south side of 4th Street
North from Minnetonka Mills Road to 12th Avenue North and it is conceivable to
think that this sidewalk could be extended in the future all the way to 1 7th
Avenue. If the right of way were reduce from 66 feet to 60 feet, the 3 foot buffer
that exists between the sidewalk and the right of way would be virtually
eliminated. This would eliminate the City's ability to maintain and repair the
existing sidewalk without acquiring additional easements from the property
owner.
. SNOW STORAGE: Another consideration in the initial planning and right of
way requirements is the capacity to store snow within the right of way. Both the
street width and presence of sidewalks reduce this storage capacity and thus the
right of way width is extremely important. If more snow is accumulated than the
right of way and zoned setbacks can handle, the City is forced to haul and
stockpile snow in other parts of the City which can be very costly and time
consumIng.
. UTILITIES: All utility companies located within the 4th Street North corridor
would have to be notified and heard at a public hearing should a narrowing of the
right of way be considered. A strong objection could be expected from the phone,
cable TV, and electric companies in the area as one of their utility poles would be
outside the right of way should it be narrowed. This pole, that is located between
\ 12th Avenue North and 13th Avenue North, was newly placed in 1998 at the
direction of the City so that an alley driveway apron could be widened. It is
conceivable that these utilities may have a justified grievance with having to bear
the costs of moving the pole and their utility lines again.
. PROCESS: Vacation and reduction of the right of way along the 4th Street North
corridor would be a lengthy process as notifications to all residents and utilities
would have to be mailed and published, a public hearing would need to be held,
and legal property descriptions would need to be described and recorded. I would
estimate this process to take a minimum of2-3 months.
In conclusion, City staff feels strongly that it would be bad public policy for Hopkins to
vacate and reduce the 4th Street North corridor right of way from 66 feet to 60 feet in
order to allow a house expansion at 345 16th Avenue North. In addition to setting a
potentially detrimental precedent, this decision could have adverse financial and political
consequences for the City of Hopkins both now and in the future. Based on the reasons
previously mentioned in this memo, staff does not feel it is in the best interest of the City
to further pursue a vacation and restriction of the right of way along the 4th Street North
corridor. We hope this memo has provided you with the information you need to make.
your decisions and further directions. Please let us know if you have any questions
regarding this memo or if you need any additional information.
h
~
~
~ 18
MINNETONKA
@>
EDINA
ST. LOUIS PARK
@ BACE
e
tI;I
~
~
~
~
~
Il\f-
i ~
~ II r1
/TIC"
J( _~
~'-S'
1: ~
u' ~
6'>~
1:5":>,>
1'.}.
~~
/'I
~~
..,.. v.,
~ ~.
~ ~
-t
1~2 @~
:~pv
@
I
0
LJ
^
:r: 1--1
IT1
Z Z -I
Z (/) :r:
IT1 IT1
-0 ..
()
z 5:
-I
() t--I -<
0
C Z 0
z Z "
-I
-< IT1
(/)
0
--I
)>
!lllli~1
,liI,I"iI
,:I,itl'r
""I'lfTl
I I I I I C)
I I I I I I fTl
I I I 171 I I Z
· I I . . I I I 0
. I I I I I I I
I I ! I I I I I
t!J
111~cm8