CR 93-49 Lot Area Variance - 7 Webster Place
~ 1 y
\ 0
'i C> .""
:CC:
" Mafbh 22
1993 o P K , ~ Council Report 93-49
.~.. . <
"
LOT AREA VARIANCE - 7 WEBSTER PLACE
'.
/. prol>osed Action. \
\
\
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 934
28 denying a variance to allow a 31, 351 square foot lot in an R-1-E
zoning district.
Mr. Gullickson moved and Mr. Winship seconded a motion to approve
Resolution RZ93-7 denying a variance to allow a 31,351 square foot lot
at 7 Webster Place.
Overview.
The applicant currently owns 7 Webster Place. This lot is 89,851
square feet. The applicant is proposing to divide this lot into two
parcels. The lot where the home is currently located on would be
31,351 square feet and the new lot would be 58,500 square feet.
The subject lot is located in an R~1-E district. The R-1-E district
requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
The applicant has applied for a waiver .or the plat to divide the lot.
Staff is also recommending denial of this request.
Staff. reviewed the applicant's request with the Planning Commission.
. The applicant, Mr. Hayes, appeared before the commission. Mr. Hayes
.' stated that in order to get the minimum lot size the proposed common
, Clot line would have to be moved 80 feet which would make the access to
'the new lot almost impossible. Mr. Hayes 'also stated that he wants to
build a new home on the new lot.
Several surrounding neighbors appeared before the Commission and spoke
against the' lot split.
There was considerable discussion on whether there was or was not a
hardship for the property.
Primary Issues to Consider.
0 What is the site zoned?
0 What is the site designated in the Comprehensive Plan?
0 Has the property been divided in the past?
0 Will the site meet the other zoning requirements?
0 What will be the access to the site?
0 Does the property have a hardship?
0 Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property?
0 Why is the staff recommending denial?
Supportinq Documents. .
0 Analysis of Issues
0 Site Plan
0 Resolution 93-28
0 Letter from Ellen Lavin
.>.
'\
I'
Planner'
-.
. ..
CR93-49
Page 2
-
primary Issues to consider.
o What is the site zoned?
The site is zoned R-1-E, Single Family Low Density. A minimum lot
size of 40,000 square feet is required.
o What is the site designated in the comprehensive Plan?
The site is designated as low density multiple family in the
Comprehensive Plan.
o Has the property been divided in the past?
Originally 7 Webster Place was a large lot consisting of approximately
153,000 square feet. Approximately 10 years ago a waiver of plat was
granted to split approximately 63,000 square feet into a new lot. on
which a home was constructed. Access to this lot is from Loring Road.
The applicant was not the owner of the property at this time.
Now the applicant owns 89,851 square feet of the remaining lot and is
proposing to divide the lot into two parcels. The proposed parcels
will be 58,500 and 31,351 square feet. The applicant is proposing to
. construct a new home on the vacant lot. Access to the lot will be
from an easement on the north side of 7 Webster Place.
Any future division of the lot should have been undertaken at the time
of the previous waiver of plat. The division of the lot could have
potentially provided for adequate access for any future divisions.
At the time the lot was divided previously, the minimum lot size was
20,000 square feet.
o Will the site meet the other zoning requirements?
The site where the existing home is located meets all the other zoning
requirements.
o What will be the access to the site?
Access to the new lot is difficult. The proposed lot abuts Loring
Road, this portion of the lot is wetlands. Access from Loring Road
would require the construction of a bridge. Fill is not permitted.
The applicant is proposing to have a 15 foot easement on the north
site of the lot with the existing home for access.
The Zoning Ordinance requires all lots that have a home constructed on
them to have a minimum frontage of 20 feet on a public street. The
purpose of this requirement is to have all lots have access to a
.PUbliC street. Even though the proposed new lot does meet the
requirement of having a minimum frontage of 20 feet on Loring Road the
lot cannot in a reasonable manner provide access from Loring Road.
; "
CR93-49
Page.3
.0 Does the property have a hardship?
The new definition in ,the zoning ordinance defines undue hardship as
the following: in connection with the granting of a variance means the
'property in question cannot be put .to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by the official. controls, the plight, of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality.
The subject site does not have a hardship according to the above
definition. The only hardship in this case is the hardship that is
created by the applicant in wanting to divide the lot. The lot as it
exists today does not have a hardship.
0 Does the applioant have reasonable use of the property?
The applicant has reasonable use of the property without the variance.
The applicant currently is living in a home which is constructed on
the lot.
0 Why is the staff recommending denial?
The staff is recommending denial because the property does not have a
~hardshiP to justify the variance.
Alternatives.
1- By approving the variance, the city Council will allow the!
applicant to divide his lot.
2. By denying the variance, the City Council will not allow the
applicant to divide his lot.
3. continue for further information. If the City Council indicates
that further information is needed the item should. be continued.
.
- .
l i Cl ) (2/ ) (10)
L alion M p 22W 20E, I 18 16
I (6) 2D EAST ST.
\
~' 13
1/7 ~
) I ~-- '2fW 19E, /5 II
/' (9) (8) I
.- ~----f~ 7 (0) (15 )
6 5 ( 14)
I 4 3
~ ---------- !
i
I (7)
( 17) i 14 (II ) (/2) ( 13) I
8 9 10 ( 16)
_C T 8 I
/2 I /I (17)
M4N/ r084 12
8 I
6
(14) ({6 ) II R04D
4 8 7 (15) 9
{20)
..~----
- /0 (8) 6 5 (
9 (7) (8)
-
I
(9) . I (/0 )
~-- (9)
J
(€) 2 12 /3 I
II I
5 (2)
6
_.
\ /0720 /0706
/1100
COUNTY ROAD (M/NNETONl(A BLVD.)
/ ///5 ( 10) ')
5 I (34)
(15) 1
( /4) ( 13)
4 3 (II)
2
-'-~
5A
(16)
: ,
/8 " I'
-
\ (22) (21) i (33 )
/9 /3 12
3 (y,) \(31) /4
\
\
4
(26) 8 (32) (~I J
(29) 8 (20)
-- -- (30) (19)
-- 10 II
, -- 9 I
-- -.
5 8
/27) 10
14 /2 of
ROAD f===~ (I)
-- ,~,I J I
----.----
, .
#3
There are two possible access points to this lot, one from the west and one from the
east. Since our western access to the proposed parcel A is denied to us because of
the Minnesota Protected Waters Act, we are forced to access the proposed lot from the
east. To meet the 40,000 square foot requirement, we would have to place the house
so far down the hill that access on the steep slope would be impossible and would
place the structure too close to the wetland.
'_;~'l~ tJ. ii"it.,
i~:~rliH~~
:,~; lr- i~'.f:' a'~~,
:;:~Mjlt4
, "i;>,iit Ai!
' \'" \1 " :~ l~mf'
. " / tii'"
< 'V 1;
;f('/~ ~ ') 1\ .' :
<\( V) q: r
. ~~\~....i/ ""____ '
..... '-~~
-;... oS; ~r' I
"'.~ -( r ","
'; -r-.,... --r ~
,
O\;6
00'0;/
~
I 11b.lO
I'
,
\ -I ()
'" 'I
'V
~ /
/
-II v/ _,
-7
/ /~ ,(
,/ q,' C1'
'-'
\/
--.... ,
.-
~
~I
.. '.
ELLEN LAVIN
. ATTORNEY AT LAW
14 LORING ROAD
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
(612) 935-1440
March 17, 1993
City of Hopkins
Zoning and Planning Commission
1010 So. First Street
Hopkins)Minn~sota 55343
RE: HAYES VARIANCE APPLICATION
Dear Members of the Commission,
I was notified by mail today that the Hayes' will be seeking a
variance in order to subdivide their lot at 7 Webster Place. I live at
. 14 Loring Road, The back yard of my house faces the back yard of
their house. This was the first I heard that this variance was being
requested. I attempted to reach Mr. & Mrs. Hayes today to discuss
their plans, but was unable to do more than leave a message on
their machine.
I am leaving the country tomorrow morning for two weeks 'and
will not be back until after your March 30 meeting. Since I have
no information on their plans other than your notice I must object
to any variance ih lot size.
This neighborhood association spent a good deal of time a few years
back seeking to have the Zoning & Planning Commission and the
City Council increase the minimum lot size in Bellgrove to its
current size, We did this because there had been several
subdivisions at that time and we believed that if this trend
continued the unique character of the neighborhood would be
substantially changed. The Commission and Council agreed with us '
and made the change to the current square footage. I see no reason
now to. change this position.
I respectfully request that their request for variance tor a smaller
. lot size be denied.
Sincerel>j, . I
a/1/
/j
/#'7
) //
--// / '---'-
~11_,",,,, T .'\"" ...~"'"...
.;; . .
ELLEN LAVIN
. ATTORNEY AT LAW
14 LORING ROAD
HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
(612) 935-1440
March 17, 1993
City of Hopkins
Zoning and Planning Commission
1010 So. First Street
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 ."
RE: HAYES VARIANCE APPLICATION
Dear Members Of the Commission,
I was notified by mail today that the Hayes' will be seeking a
variance. in order to subdivide their lot at 7 Webster Place. I live at
. 14 Loring Road. The back yard of my house faces the back yard of
their house, This was the first I heard that this variance was being
requested i I attempted to reach Mr. & Mrs. Hayes today to discuss
their plans, but was unable to do more than leave a message on
the1rrnach1ne.
I am leaVing the country tomorrow morning for two weeks and
will not be back until after your March 30 meeting. Since I have
no information on their plans other than your notice I must object
to any variance in lot size,
This neighborhood association spent a good deal of time a few years
bacI('seekii:ig to have the Zoning & Planning Cornn1ission and the
City Council increase the minimum lot size in Bellgrove to its
current size. We did this because there had been several
subdivisions at that time and we believed that if this trend
continued the unique character of the neighborhood would be
substantieilly changed, The Commission and Council agreed with us
and made the change to the current square footage. I see no reason
now to Change this position,
..
I respectfully request that their requesffor variance Jor a smaller
. lot size be. denied.
SI;;J' /
..... ,/ /
?j'/' /
,.;1 ./
Ad ~
- Ellen . Lav1n
- " > '<
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 93-28
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a variance entitled VN. 93-3 made by
Gregory and Susan Hayes is denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance entitled VN 93-3 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on February 15, 1993.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a meeting on March 30, 1993 and
reviewed such application.
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City
Staff and the Planning commission were considered.
. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of
Hopkins that based on the above findings, the application for VN 93-3
is denied based on the following reasons:
1- That the property does not have an undue hardship to justify
granting the variance.
2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property
without the variance. i
3. That the lot meets the literal interpretation of the minimum
20 foot frontage requirement but it does not meet the
practical intent of the frontage requirement.
Adopted this 6th day of April, 1993.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
. James A. Genellie, City Clerk