CR 2000-134 Variance-Driveway
CITY Of:
.. . .
~
August 8, 2000 HOPKINS Council Report 2000-134
. V ARIANCE-DRIVEW A Y
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 2000-57 A denying a
two-foot variance to construct a driveway on the lot line at 136 Homedale Road.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting Mr. Bartz moved and Mr. Thompson seconded a motion
to approve Resolution RZOO-16, recommending approvaJ of a two-foot variance to construct
a driveway on the lot line at 136 Homedale Road. The motion carried unanimously.
Overview.
The applicant and his neighbor had a joint driveway for over 40 years. In 1998 the
applicant's neighbors removed the driveway to his lot line. The applicant is in the process of
constructing a new driveway. The zoning ordinance requires a two-foot setback for
driveways. The applicant is required to construct a new driveway that meets the existing
zoning requirements.
The applicant's garage is located on the rear of the lot. Access to the garage is along the
south side and wraps around the house to the garage. The applicant is proposing to move the
driveway two feet to the north.
. The neighbors did contact the staff and are opposed to the variance.
Primarv 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 is the staff recommendation?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SuvDortin2 Documents.
. Analysis ofIssues
. Site Plan
. Letter from neighbor
. Resolution 2000-57 A
. Resolution 2000-57B
\
. Anderson, AICP
.
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
-
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Nates:
.
CR2000-134
Page 2
. Primary Issues to Consider.
What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned R-I-C, Single Family Medium Density
What does the ordinance require?
The ordinance requires a two-foot setback for driveways.
. Wbat are the specifics of tbe applicant's request?
The applicant is requesting to construct the driveway on the lot line. The applicant has stated
that if the driveway was moved farther north, a tree would have to be removed and a
retaining wall would have to be constructed.
. 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.
In this case the subject property does not have an undue hardship. The applicant can
construct the driveway two feet from the property line and either put in a strip of grass or
have a rock strip.
What is the stafTrecornrnendation?
Staff would recommend denial of the two-foot variance.
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed variance. Ms. Anderson stated the neighbors had
contacted the staff and are not is favor of the variance. Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, the applicants,
appeared before the Commission. They stated they are replacing the driveway where it was
and it is unique for that reason. They also stated that if they move the driveway further to the
north they would have to remove a tree. The Commission discussed the hardship. No one in
the audience appeared before the Commission regarding this issue.
e
CR2000-134
Page 3
. Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the Applicant will be able to construct
the driveway as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative, Resolution
2000-57B should be adopted.
2. Recommend denial of the variance. If the City Council considers this alternative,
Resolution 2000-57 A should be adopted.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
.
.
. July 25. 2000
Nancy Andersen
City of Hopkins
Hopkins. MN 55343
Dear Nancy:
TIus letter is in regards to the request by Gerald and Beverly Johnson to be granted a variance to code on
their installation of a new driveway.
It is my desire that this request be denied for several reasons. They are as follows:
1. There is ample room to lay the new driveway within code without impacting any existing structure.
TIlere exists approximately 10 feet between the edge of the existing driveway and the deck.
2. We installed a new driveway last year within the current code despite having little to no room to spare.
Our home is 12 feet off of the lot line based on current code, and the driveway is 2 feet off the lot line.
also adhering to code. We were required to adhere to the current code restrictions despite a much
tighter situation.
3. TIle only logical reason not to adhere to code is to protect landscaping that was installed the day after
the old driveway was removed. Had a permit been pulled prior to any work being done, the issue of
adherence to code would have been identified and the new driveway would have been laid correctly.
TIle approval of a variance should be done only if a hardship exists. Protecting landscaping is not a
hardship.
4. No accurate survey stake is in place to ensure that the driveway does not go over the property line. We
. had a survey done and two nails were placed on the property line. During removal of their old
driveway. the nails were removed and thus any correct installation of a new driveway is in jeopardy.
5. Safety of our children is a major concern. Our two children play ex1ensively on our driveway, and this
added space would provide a needed safety buffer.
6. By adhering to code and positioning the driveways 4 feet apart versus the 2 feet setback on our lot
only. the appearance will be greatly improved. Not following code leaves any separation between the
driveways entirely up tlle us since the only division is then the 2 feet on our lot which we planted with
a hedge.
7. As a result of their desire to install a new driveway on the lot line, the Jolmsons partially buried a
retaining wall we had installed a year ago. We had this put in entirely due to their complaints about soil
erosion. Again. a 2 foot setback would improve this situation.
Based on thesc items alone. the variance should not be granted. Also, if a variance is granted, I would
eXl'cct that an accurate survey be conducted to guarantee that the driveway is positioned correctly.
I appreciate your attention to this matter, and I hope that a decision will be made that takes these facts into
consideration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 938-3573.
Sincerely.
1 1 Bo--
t~.~f/1, .~
David Bowers
144 Homedale Road
Hopkins, MN 55343
.
!
i
~ .J
., ...- 'I
- f',,-'l- 'oj_
i"---- ! ~,.."
; --:-.r.-
i I' !..
' ,
. '1 ..
~1 -r-! _
'< . I
i i
!! i ' 'I
I I Ii
.., , ~
I I " '"
" Or I '1
' " ..
i : I~, ~.. ....
' , I . 4'~
I , I i ~,
I Ii.. ~'\.~____~_ .. __ . _
' , I_..~
I ~I . :~
I \ I
1 \ f
' i I
! i " !
1 I, ~w '.,~ ':
' "'L
' i \ . .' L,;:'. . .....j
~ I .'. 1 I F~1
' '- '[ .!
I I ':. '.1' i .
' I . '''.., I
i . I I.......~: ...!
' 1.\ .....c., ,. l
I · \, i:.. ..'
i,\ '. ,..../. . . . _._"
! ;, .~. ~k ....
. . .. "~ .
' ", 0", ,
i '"-,, ". .
I '__.,~, _
' \_- -"-'. ----.
I \. ". '. . .... '" ... .. ::" '''" '0., ......
. , , ~<;. '. v__..
,I ~ '.,-_ ~~_
' \
I !
! !
I I
! '--------- ---
. ......'
' , ..... ......
i i __.._ ___'_ ..._ __ .... .. .
1/ ..... ---- . I ,~
m~_._ I ..
I
I
i
I . .
r'"
. <'---i<e;: - 4comer..s
~ 5 . ''eu(}'{SU_ ._'':'._.._.
"... ~(.:.--~... . .
il ___.__
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 2000-57A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A DRIVEWAY WITH A ZERO SETBACK
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VNOO-4 has been made by Gerald and Beverly
Johnson; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VNOO-4 was made by Gerald and
Beverly Johnson on June 29, 2000;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
July 25,2000: 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 20,21 and the south 20 feet of Lot 22 F.A. Savage's
Interlachen Park
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application for Variance VNOO-4 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.
Adopted this 15th day of August 2000.
Eugene 1. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
. Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
.
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 2000-57B
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT
A DRIYEW A Y WITH A ZERO SETBACK
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VNOO-4 has been made by Gerald and Beverly
Johnson; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VNOO-4 was made by Gerald and
Beverly Johnson on June 29,2000;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
July 25, 2000: 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 20, 21 and the south 20 feet of Lot 22 F.A. Savage's
Interlachen Park
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that application for Variance VNOO-4 is
hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the topography of the lot dictates where the driveway can be located.
2. If the Applicant moved the driveway to the north, a mature tree would
have to be removed.
3. That the driveway is being replaced at the original location.
Adopted this 15th day of August 2000.
Eugene 1. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
. Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
-----..---