CR 2000-134 Variance-Driveway
CITY OF
. ~
July 27, 2000 HOPKINS Council Report 2000-134
. V ARIANCE-DRIVEW A Y
Proposed 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 approval 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.
Primary 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?
SUDPortine: Documents.
. Analysis ofIssues
. Site Plan
. Resolution 2000-57 A
. Resolution 2000-57B
\
Nanc . Anderson, AICP
Planner
. Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
-
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
-- --
CR2000-134
Page 2
. Primarv 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.
. What are the specifics of the 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 stafT recommendation?
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.
.
-.-.,.....---
CR2000-134
Page 3
. Alternatives.
I. 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.
.
.
tV
<:s- --.- - .--.--. . -
'"
. _"A un_ t
-Ii ] ,
I
!
! i
!
'\1 I
1\, t
i
I
I
I
,
!
--.I..- f
f
\
\
\ +-
, (Jj
~ ~
1-
" l/)
I ,
I i
I
I
I
i
I
1
.,
I
I
I
\
, \
,
\
\ i
"
,
-IT
!~
I
"- -~ -.-J _s-_
_,_ .__... n. .___
I
!
;
~
'-<'
~ <i -l
a 5 U:t"C'''',/''''5" r,,,_,,- S -ra~. ._:~ -- 4 Cor,112':;:i
OATI':
0
~ _0.
~ ., J.
~ ~ /~,d.
:z:
:i!
w
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 2000-57 A
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
vanance.
Adopted this 2nd 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 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 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 2nd day of August 2000.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
. Terry Obermaier, City Clerk