CR 93-114 Rear Yard Variance - 102 East Wayside RD
June 21, 1993
, "{ y 0
(j ~
~
..y '"
o P K \ ~
council Report 93-114
REAR YARD VARIANCE - 102 EAST WAYSIDE ROAD
Proposed Action.
staff recommends
Resolution 93-68B
setback variance.
the following motion:
denyinq a variance for a
Move to approve
14 foot rear yard
Mr. Winship moved and Mr. Racek seconded a motion to approve
Resolution 93-68A recommending approval of a 14 foot rear yard
variance at 102 East Wayside Road.
Overview.
The applicant is proposing to construct an additional 14 feet to
his home on the south side. The addition will be used for a
garage. The property presently has a large two car garage. The
home is located at 102 East Wayside Road and is zoned R-1-D.
The applicants home is corner lot. The front yard is Wayside
Road and the side yard is Hollyhock Lane.
An R-1-D zoning requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet.
The applicant would have a 23'6" rear yard setback with the
proposed addition. The applicant's home currently has a 37' 6"
rear yard setback.
staff reviewed the applicant's request with the Commission.
Robert Schmidt, the applicant, appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Schmidt proposed a change in the construction of the addition
from what was originally submitted. The addition is now proposed
to have a flat roof. There was considerable discussion on the
merits of the variance. It was noted that the applicant could
construct a detached building 3 feet from the lot line.
Primary
o
o
o
o
o
o
Issues to Consider.
What are the specifics of the variance request?
Does the applicant have any alternatives?
Does the applicant's property have a hardship?
Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property?
Have the surrounding properties owners been approached?
Why did the Planning Commission recommend approval?
supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o site Plan
o Resolution 93-68
AICP
CR93-114
Page 2
primary Issues to consider.
o What are the specifics of the variance request?
The applicant's property is located on a corner lot. wayside
Road is the front yard and Hollyhock Lane is the side yard.
Wayside Road is the front yard because by the Zoning Ordinance
definition the shortest dimension of the two roads is the front
yard. Because Wayside Road is the front yard, the area where the
applicant is proposing to construct the addition would be
considered the rear yard. This portion of the lot abuts the side
yard of the property to the south.
The applicant's property is located in an R-1-D zoning district
which requires a 40 foot rear yard setback. The applicant is
proposing to have a 23'6" rear yard setback with the addition.
The proposed addition has the minimum setback for the side yard
setback.
o Does the applicant have any alternatives?
The applicant could construct a detached building within 3 feet
of any side or rear property line. The Zoning Ordinance allows
detached buildings closer to the lot line than the principal
building. In this case it may not seem logical. However this
section of the Zoning Ordinance was written to allow detached
buildings to be constructed on smaller lots with access directly
to the alley.
o Does the applicant's property have a undue hardship?
The Zoning Ordinance and state statute requires that the Council
must find that an undue hardship exists for the granting of a
variance.
The Zoning Ordinance defines undue hardship as the following:
undue hardship as used 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.
In staff's opinion the applicant does not have any unique
circumstance to his property and the applicant is creating the
situation for the variance.
o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property?
CR93-114
Page 3
The applicant currently has a large home with a 30 foot attached
garage. The applicant appears to have reasonable use of the
property.
o Have the surrounding properties owners been approached?
The applicant has contacted some of the neighbors, it appears
none are opposed to the addition.
o Why did the Planning commission recommend approval?
The Planning Commission discussed in great detail the use of the
property and the hardship. The applicant does not have a
basement and needs more storage space. The applicant did propose
a change in the exterior appearance of the addition which would
make the addition appear smaller. The addition now would have a
flat roof and appear from the street as a courtyard.
The City Attorney outlined a finding which was the basis of the
Commission approving the variance. This finding is included in
Resolution 93-68A.
The reasons for approving the variance were the following:
The property is a corner lot
The configuration of the house
The size of the house
The home does not have a basement
Alternatives.
1. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to
construct an addition to his garage.
2. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to
construct an addition to his garage.
3. continue for further information. If the City Council
indicates that further information is needed the item should
be continued.
t-)
c:>
~
\"l v "
(32)
-1-/
I (~3)
I
I
~
STATE
..... s..... ,.......
" ...... I .. .....
:L:.... =...... r(. C- ....:
3
2
o
(3)
B
(4)
::~~.
/
(94) (95
1(61) TUR 'G
! p:
2 (62) AD'.
40/-
3 (63)
e
7(67)
8 (68) "> (IC
i<).
9(69) 0) (10
c:>___
I'<)
10(70) C (77
t<)
11(71) ~
1P.r,
HOllY HOCK LANE
43.55
138
---
--...--------
-----
----
---
----
----
- -
- - I
----
-----
----
----
I
'25'9"
I
, ,
I
~ - - - 44' '"
I --_-..
I
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
\
\
,
\
\
\
,
\- ..
.
25' 0"
,
,
y
....-~
......
\ 23'6"
,
,
\
\
,
\
159 '
\
\
,
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,
,
,
\
,
,
\
\
,
, ...
\.... ... ....
....-----------------------
......
....
75
.....
...
....
...
NORTH .." _ _ _ - ~
-----
60
---
. ..
'02 E WAYSIDE RD.
PLOT WITH A IT ACHED GARAGE ADDITION
_ AREA TO BE ADDED
SCAl.E , "=30'
45.9
:(
J>
-0:
(f)
o
I'T1
;u
o
100
~
· c(
.1......:....:....
:'0 ":':-:':-:
it;f:i;~~~::
:'::: :'::: :"::: :"::
;::::'::::"::::"::
:":.:.:"::: :"::: :'.:~
~::::~ ~:::::~ ~:::::~ ~::::~
:~;i((~i l~~~I l~~j
:"::::"::::':.::':j
:::~t:~1~{J:~~
~:::j~~::~~~:::::~r
~~~~
:'::::":.:':"::::":.
::::::~ ~:::::~~~:::~ ~~::
:"::::'::::'::::":.
,'::::::':..:
:":;: :'::::'::: :":.: :'::::::: :"::::'::::'::: :"::::'::: :'::: :",.:'::: :'::::'::::'::::":::: '::'::::"::::"0":::'::::"::::":;::'::::"::: :':::
:'::: :'::: :"::: :'::: :'::::'::::'::::':.': :"::::"::: :"::::". .:"::::'0':::'::::".:.::"::,:::::"::. . ":::'::: :::::":.:::.::"::: :'::: :':::::'::
:.::::....:. :'::: :':.'::"::::"::: :'::::"::: :'::::::::: .0 . ::::'::,:'::: :.: :::...:: :::::"::::::: :".. . ";.:':.::::"::::.::::"::::.::: :::::";::
;":.: :":;: :.;:: :.:..: ;.;:: :.::: :.;....:::: ;.::: :.: .. ...... :.::: :.::: :.::: :.::::.":::.::: :"::::.: ::: :::: . .::......:::..: :..:::.::: :::::.::::":::
:":,,: :::: :"::: :"::: :.::: :.::::,,:...::.;;::.:..." ....:.;:::.::::::::.:...: :.::: :..:.::.:.~ :.::: :"::::::::.:." ..:::.:.~:"::: :.::::.::::.::: :":::
0000000;~000f00f00f00l\0ff00:
,,:::;..:.: ;.::: :"::: ;.::: :..:.::.; .. . . ;: :.;:::";;: :.:;. :.::: :..:.::.;:::.::: :..:.::.::: :.::: :.::: :.;:: ;.:;: :...;: :.... .:;: ;.:;: :....... ;.;:::...::
:':::;.::: :.::: :.;:: :.;:: :.:.. . :::.;:: :.;:::.~.:: :.;:::.::: :.:.~ :.;:: :";:: :".:.::.;:: ;...:: :"::: :.;:: :";:: :........ :.::::" . ..::::.;:: :.::: :~.::
:":;::::::'::: :'::: :':::. :. :.::: :.::: :.::::.::: :.;.... :.::::::: :.::: :.::: :::: :.:.... :.:::::.:: :.::: :'::: :::::.::::.::." ".::.::::::::.;::
".: ~;'.:.:;.,,:.::..: ": .. ". .;.:::;..: .::.::::".:.::":".:;".:.::'.:.: ;..:.:;'::: ;.::: :..:"::"::: :"~.:: :::: :'::: ;.:..: :.::::.:....:...:::"." .::: ;.::: :.."::
:"::: ;'::: :"::: :': .: ::: :.::: :::: :.::: :.::: :'::: :";.: :.:.... :...;: ;.::: :::: ;.::::: :: :.;;: :.::: :"::: :.::: :.::: :.::: :"::: :.::::. . :.::::":::
:.:".: ;'::: :.: .. . . :: :.::: :'::: :.:.... :.::::.::::'::: :.:;:;'::::'.":: ;.;:: :.::: ;.::::...:: :.::: :'::: :.::: ;.::: :.::: :.::: ;"::: :.::: :::.. ".: ;,,'::
,':.'" :.:: ":::.:": :..: "::"::::.,,:.:;..:.::".: .:;.:::;..:.:;..:.::..:.::..:.::..:.:;..:.::..:.:;.::: :.::: ;..;:;.:::;.,,:.::..:": :"::::..:.: :.::::.. . . ..:::
:':::: .' :.:;: :"::: :.::: :.::::.;;::.;:: ;.;:: :.::: :.::: :.:.... :.::: :.::: :.::: :.::::.::: :.::::'::: :.::: :.:;: :.;;: :.;;: :.;:: :.::: :.::::.:::: :
,. ::.:::.:::::: "::;.:o";.: o";.::.:.:":o" ..;.:..;:::: :~::.: :;.::;.::;.: ::.:o";.:o":: :;:..; .::...:o":.: o":.:..;.
N
.J:lo.
o
,
N
U1
9
r
......
~
9
,
~
I'.:'.:.:.:.:'.
.:::.:....:.:;:::
.;::.:;::::::.:
..........
.:::~.:.~:~.:.:::~.:.
.:........o"...
)>
;;:0
m
)>
--i
o
OJ
m
)>
CJ
CJ
m
CJ
-
I I
I I
I I
OJ
)>
n
^
SQ
o
m
o
"
G')
)>
;:0
)>
G')
m
~
^
^
^
~
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
- ^
~
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
^
~
^
^
^
~
^
Z
m
:E
V>
~
m
Z
o
<
m
:E
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
m
><
~
z
G)
(/)
~
m
Z
o
<
m
::E
m
X
en
-i
z
G>
Z
~
m
r
m
<
~
o
z
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 93-68B
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a variance entitled VN 93-4 made by Robert
Schmidt is denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance entitled VN 93-4 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on May 28, 1993.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a meeting on June 29, 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 Planning Commission for the
City of Hopkins that based on the above findings, the application for
VN 93-4 is denied based on the following reasons:
1. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property
without the variance.
2. That the property does not have an undue hardship to warrant
a variance.
Adopted this 6th day of July, 1993.
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, city Clerk
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 93-68A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a variance entitled VN 93-4 made by Robert
Schmidt is approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance entitled VN 93-4 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on May 28, 1993.
2. That the Hopkins Planning commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a meeting on June 29, 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 Planning Commission for the
City of Hopkins that based on the above findings, the application for
VN 93-4 is approved based on the fOllowing reasons:
1. Based on the fact that the applicant's property is a corner
lot, the configuration and size of the house, and the way
the home was originally constructed in California fashion
(no basement), the applicant can not put his property to a
reasonable use without a variance.
Adopted this 6th day of July, 1993.
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk