CR 98-139 Variance - Side Yard SetbackAugust 26, 1998
Overview.
Primary Issues to Consider.
Supporting Documents.
• Analysis of Issues
• Site Plans
• Resolution 98 -54
Nanc re Anderson, AICP
Planner
Y
0
0 K
VARIANCE — SIDE -YARD SETBACK
Council Report 98 -139
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 98 -54, denying a side -
yard variance at 341 Herman Terrace.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Blair moved and Mr. Boen seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZ98 -18, recommending denial a side -yard variance. The motion
carried on a 5 -0 vote; Mr. Gleeson abstained.
The applicant, Roger Jewett, is proposing to construct a 6' x 10' addition to the existing
home at 341 Herman Terrace. The addition will be used for a bathroom.
The subject property is zoned R -1 -C, Single Family Residential. The zoning ordinance
requires a 10 -foot setback for a side yard. The applicant is proposing an eight -foot side -yard
setback.
• What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
• What are the specifics of the variance?
• Does the property have a hardship?
• Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property without the variance?
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
CR98 -139
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
• What is the zoning of the property,
designated the subject site?
The site zoning is R -1 -C, Single Family Residential.
designated the site as Residential.
What are the specifics of the variance?
The side -yard setback for the site is 10 feet. The applicant is proposing to have an eight -foot
side -yard setback. Because the side lot line is angled, the setback to the rear of the home is
slightly greater.
Does the property have a hardship?
and how has the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan has
The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance is a modification or variation from the
provisions of this code or variation from its provisions granted by the board and applying 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 has no undue hardship. There is nothing unique to the
applicant's property. The staff feels that this situation does not constitute a hardship to the
property according to the above zoning requirements and, therefore, would not qualify for the
granting of a variance.
Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property without the variance?
If the applicant is not granted the variance, the applicant has reasonable use of the property.
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the applicant's request with the Commission. Roger Jewett, the
applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Jewett stated that his lot had an unusual
shape, he also stated that when the home was constructed 45 years ago, the side -yard setback
was five feet. Richard Barkman, of 345 Herman Terrace, appeared before the Commission.
Mr. Barkman is Mr. Jewett's neighbor and has no objection to the addition.
Mr. Jewett also stated that by building the bathroom they could stay in their home longer and
provide a better life style.
CR98 -139
Page 3
The Commission discussed other alternatives for moving the bathroom or moving the lot
line.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to construct
the addition as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative, findings will have
to be identified that support this alternative.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to construct
the addition as proposed.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
Adopted this 1st day of September, 1998.
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 98 -54
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DENYING A SIDE -YARD SETBACK
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance VN98 -4 has been made by Roger Jewett;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a side -yard setback variance was made by Roger Jewett on
June 23, 1998;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on August 25,
1998: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
4. The legal description of the property is as follows:
Lot 6, Block 1, Campbell Addition to Hopkins
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN98 -4 is hereby
denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the subject property does not have a hardship.
2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property without the granting of the
variance.
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
•