CR 92-182 Sideyard Variance - 253 Maple Hill Road
~ (\
f" t\-,;; I: \ Y :
,( ... \ 0 1
:-&
1 '.y .."", :
,--e August 17, 1992 ! ,,' Op'K ,\ ~',' , I Council Report 92-182
SIDEYARD VARIANCE - 253 MAPLE HILL ROAD
Proposed Aotion.
staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution
R92-76 denying a side yard variance.
Mr. Winship moved and Mr. Racek seconded a motion to approve
Resolution RZ92-20 recommending denial of a side yard variance. The
'motion passed 6 - 1, Mr. Gullickson voting nay.
Overview.
The applicants are proposing to re~ove an existing small addition on
the north side of their existing home and add a larger addition that
would square off their home. The existing home is 4'8" from the side
yard. The new addition would have the same setback as the existing
addition. The site is zoned R-1-C, which requires a 10 foot setback.
The applicant's property is located in a single family residential
area. The SUbject property is surrounded by single family homes.
The addition that is proposed to be removed does not have a basement
,under it. The new addition will have a basement constructed.
. The existing setback is legal non-conforming. A legal non-conforming
'\. setback allows an existing si tuation to exist, but not expanded.
~Also, in this situation the applicant is removing the non-conforming
part of the home and then reconstructing an addition.
Staff reviewed the applicants request with the commission. Mr. and
Mrs. Hoye appeared before the Commission and reviewed their request.
There was considerable discussion on any alternatives, the hardship
for granting a variance, and other homes in the neighborhood that'
could have a similar situation. Mr. Hoye had a letter from the
neighbor to the north stating he did not object to the addition. A
neighbor also appeared and stated he had no objection to the variance.
primary Issues to Consider.
o What are the standards for granting a variance?
o Does the applicant's property have a hardship?
o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property?
o Does the applicant have an alternative?
o What is the staffs recommendation?
sup~orting Doouments.
o Analysis of Issues
o site Plan
o Resolution R92-76
.
'~'~
, '
f
. \
Zonl.ng ,
Page 2
.
primary Issues to Consider.
o What are the standards for granting a varianoe?
A variance is a modification of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance in
order to provide relief to a ,property owner in those cases where the
ordinance imposes undue hardship to the property owner in the use of
his land. The hardship must not have been created by the action of
the landowner. .
Some factors used in determining whether a landowner has incurred
undue hardship are the following:
1. Does the landowner have reasonable use of the property?
2. Does the property have a unique circumstance? If the
hardship is common to several properties the variance should
not be granted.
o Does the applioant have reasonable use of the property?
In this case the zoning of the property is for single family homes.
The applicant has the use of a single family home on the site.
~4IIk 0 Does the applioant's property have a unique ciroumstance?
The applicant in this case does not have a unique circumstance to
warrant the granting of a variance. The applicants situation would be
no dif$erent from another structure in the area wanting to construct
an addition if that structure did not meet the proper setback.
. ,
o Does the applioant have any alternatives?
The applicants can build additions to their home as long as the
setbacks are met, but a variance is the only way to have the addition
constructed on the north side of their home.
o What is the staffs reoommendation?
Because the applicant has reasonable, use of the property and the
property does not have a unique circumstance, there is no basis for
granting a variance.
If the Council indicates a variance is warranted the following are
some suggested findings of fact:
o That the new addition would not increase the existing non-
comforming setback.
~ 0 The the new addition will improve the property.
------..----...---.---.. ---
1"
Zoniilg
Page 3
.~ Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant
will be able to construct an addition to the side of his home.
2. Deny the var iance . By denying the ~ariance the applicant will
not be able to construct an addition to the side of his home.
3. continue for further information. If the city Council indicates
that further information is needed, the item should be continued.
.,
.
.
--~--_.~-- ---- --. -
I I eo;;) ;) \;);)J --:.
I (35) I {36} I (3n (39, · M (27)
, ~ 'I ' I Lo~atl~n ap 10 t-. 2
" /603,/607 1/6/1 . . , ", , (7) t\I
I ", PRESTON ' LANE:'" 0) 3 (13), (22)12 ~, ':::: (2~)" ,t\j
/604 ' , 16 15 /726 (14)
. I 23(57)' (50), \\I h) (49) (42) 8 .' , ~ 4 (~:)::!: ~ (~) (8) ~
It-. 22(5&) (~J) 17 10. t-. 14(AS) (43)9 10 ~ 5 (15) (20)'0 ~ ~ 5
. ~ c:i ~ (30) (9) ~
~:::: 21 (55) (52)18 ~ a:: 0) 13 (4n (44)1() ~ t\..: ..... 6 (1St (19) 9 t\I ~ t-. 6
, I~ ..... ..... ........ t\I t\i ~ t-. (31)
\() 20(5~ (53) 19 'It- \() 12(46) (45)11 ' 'It- \() 7(17) (18)8 ~ 0) 7 (10) ~
..... ........... ..... t\I 0) 0) (32)
~ _ _ _ BOYCE ~---5L, -
I 30 ..... I 30 ~ I 30 (42) ~
~ 2 (i) (/2)29 ~ ~2(13) ~29 ..... '- (26}2 29-
~-- -- -
'3 28
;- 4 (2) (ii)27 \\I "4 (I4) (24) i.7 .::::
~----
'- 5 26 ..... 26
.
~. -GOODRICH - ST. . - -.
a3 '- I 3P ..... I (75) 30 ..... - / 30 I
~ ~ 2(86) (98)29~ ~ '2 - (85)29 (;) . ~,2(65) (74)29 ~ - .....
~ 0) 3 (87) -28 ~ It.J :; -i8' -- - -is.\\l.. ~
ff: !t ',' - 2,2- 1t t. 4176l _22-... i 4 (66) _ 27 _
H:: t-. 5 (97) 26 ~ 5 (84}26 5 (73)26 'It-
s: i\I 6 (88) - 25 ~ ~ 6', (83)25 ~ 0) 6 (6~ 25 ~
T \() 7 (89) (96)24 10 c:::::: I<) -::;-(77) - 24 ~ ~ -:; - - 24 - - -
~ 8 - - 23 l\j !\L. 8' - (82)23 .~ t-. 8(68) 2.3
- - t\I C\I --'- - -
9 (90) 9 22 t\i l\j 9 (72)22 C\I
lQ...-- - _-- __.No
I ~ '0 (94)21 ~ ~ ~(78) _ 2~ ~'_ 21
/I (93)20 t\j 1/ 2011' 20
/2 I Ie) 12 (81) ;"9 - i2 - (71) /9 t
-- --""Cr ~---- - - ---
0) 13 (91)(92) 18 'It- t\j 13 (79) 18 13 (69) :
1:ta-._ - - _ _ _ _ __ _ _
C\t 14 17 /4 (70n
-----~
16 ' 15 I /6 l\j
--- -----
- 7/05) - - 003.
a (II) (10) ~ :g (8) (7) (5) (4) (I) (I)
. \\I \\I
~ @ t (
. @ N 112 SEC. 29.'
" ^..
" , "
.
. _______.__._______.0._____._._. .~__.____.._. '._ __~__._._ _,"_
-_. ~.._~. .." . '--."---"-.,
-----L.'18j21J- - jj~ll. .j[ D. ,-.
r r
r I
. ------ - ......-
r . (
~ \'
I \:).-
I I
I'
,----f r
I
.s:.>'~ t r
~ '\
~ 0
::......~ ,
- ~ ' r
r ';l I
~\J f
, II
. f..1 g-}S ~' ,
~ '\" -. - 2:...1 ;',
~ ~
(\
~ i f~
. ~'
'\ "t- -"".,
I~
<=>:::. I I
I ~ "\ I
! ~- ~
2....~
I ,- ~ I r
I :,.'t
, " "
- - .. ~ : ~ ,- I (
----- ..... -:"""i - - ""-- -.-
" I
I
(
1
I
" r
. I
. .--. -:-.'=_ V~"_~-.-~-"""""'''~-=-_:'~_'':':_~h-_-':--:"' _._..'~ _'0 .. ' . . .. _.- -. -
.
~~ I
""
f .,
!:-:f
~ ,
J. :
'. .~
. --
.. ~ ) V",
. .., I
....... JJ
.;'~::', il i I s:r
.,'. , , ;, ':, I
... "I ' I'
.. II I I ',. 'I' ,{~
i ; ~ I . I Ie
' I .
: f , I \r
'i l!, I I
' ,I. I ; I
' , . 'I '
' i : I : I .
'. I, t
. ii, ;, i ' ,
. I I ! . I I ' ! ,
I '. , ,
I I
. . " 'j , ,
. . ; I
. . ,', ; II: i, ' I I i
II i I j I
" ,
",
., . \
.
~. ,~. ~:~
....'..
,~~f" .
;. ~.' ...., ,
'..... .i: '
....,
, I " I I
' . . ,
' , "'"
. . .. , ,
. ' I I I ! I I I
I II : I: ' ; ,
.c, " , I I
' '.'.. I ' I
.: " I I ~ I I :'
. . , ,
. I,', .
".,',. I' ____
'.,1, " 'JI'
:', " I I ., ~\I
.:'~:. I' , ! . 1 ,~
,~, 1 :: 1 I I ::>
,,';; , .; , ;';: '~'ll'
.'. I . i. . 11;\
, '" . "i ' jv.\
' Ii,
'." I. . ..
"C',.' : , , \. \'--
" l:e' !, 'i' ...j
.' ;', ' : 1 ~
';:;/ ! . of ~
"" I 'j;",
Ii', .. '
'\:: ~
~''''''
----- -- -
..
.
CITY OF HOPKINS
,
Hennepin County, Minnesota
, ,
NOTICE OF HEARING
The Hopkins Zoning and Planning commission will hold a
hearing on Tuesday, August 25, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. , in the council
Chambers of City Hall, 1010 First S'treet South, to consider an
application by Michael Hoye for a 5 foot 3 1/2 inch side yard variance
to construct an addition at 253 Maple Hill Road.
If you have any interest in this hearing, please attend this
meeting.
For further information, contact Nancy Anderson at 935-
8474.
.~~~
Planner
.
HEARING/7
,- of'. llz f!o; e ~ p I..J)/I.. c; f-o
I JI1L (} I/v',d re
~
c::'\ J J 0",,- Yo f /"-Q ( ~~ /1\. 0 v $z. d "'- J WO IP'-IJ e I^. co v V'd6' ~
-fk <t~ C(i; df' Hoft (0-5 'fa f/"2rA I- Tk A-e C<o> '?s""~
, 1M;;' c!o~e5f !AlL ( '7 ?-. h 01""'
UJ. r-t ~IA c. ~ , ::z ~l/lA..
o (I' c1 fk r c: --C;;, I~ -(. VV-O ~ t 2 .fiE' c (e 2 0) f!~
, - -
cd '1 ~ .;kc I $(O~ cJ \/'-.1 "'; J I Y'- s~., e Y\O redSo~
lAP f & if'oJ,jeJ,
. [{,~ f 1,-,-- {/2 n'i''' c C . JAc;,u! j
~. ~
,/ f-,. ./11cy/~ I! f }~ ~'.w I~ CV- 0-PV-
.
ff c:r)J~ 0&\50 / ~/~l/q ~
-i~" 'il .. .(.
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: R92-76
.
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance titled VN 92-4 made by Michael
J. Hoye is denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural ~istory of the application is as follows:
1. That an application forVN 92-4 was filed with the City
of Hopkins on July 24, 1992.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on August 25, 1992.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a hearing on August 25, 1992: all
persons present at the hearing were given an
opportunity to be heard.
. 4. That the written comments ~nd analysis of the City
Staff and the Planning Commission were considered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN 92-4 is hereby
denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. ,That the applicant has reasonable use of the property.
2. That the subject property does not have an undue hardship to
warrant the granting of a variance.
Adopted this 1st day of September, 1992.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
.
James A. Genellie, city Clerk
.