CR 99-198 Variance- Rear Yard Setback
CITY OF
-
October 27, 1999
HOPKINS
Council Report 99-198
VARlANCE-REARYARDSETBACK
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 99-103. denying a rear
yard setback variance to construct a porch.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Engel moved and Mr. Rudolph seconded a motion
to approve Resolution RZ99-15, recommending denial of a rear yard setback variance to
construct a porch. The motion carried unanimously.
Overview.
The applicants, Dr. Mark Jensen and Dr. Sue Penniston, are proposing to construct a porch
off the rear of their home at 133 Ashley Road. The proposed porch is 14'x 15'. The porch is
located on the south side of their home.
The subject site is located in the R-I-C zoning district. The R-I-C zoning district requires a
35-foot setback. The proposed porch will encroach in the rear yard setback by three feet.
Primarv Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property?
. What is the required rear yard setback for the R-I-C zoning district?
. What are the specifics of the applicants' 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?
Supportin2 Documents.
. Analysis oflssues
. Site Plan
. Resolution 99-103
~CP
Planner
CR99-103
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned R-I-C, Single Family Medium Density.
What is the required rear yard setback for the R-I-C district?
The required rear yard setback is 35 feet in the R-I-C zoning district.
What are the specifics of the applicants' request?
The applicants are proposing to construct a 15' x 14' porch off the rear of their home. The
setback with proposed porch will be 32 feet.
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 or variation from its provisions 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 applicants have use of
their property without the proposed porch, and there is nothing unique about the property to
justify the granting of the variance.
What is the staff recommendation?
Staff would recommend denial of the variance for the setback, based on the fact that the
property does not have a hardship.
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed variance with the Commission. The Commission
asked if the home was at the same front setback as the other homes in the neighborhood. The
subject home has the same front yard setback as other homes in the area. The applicants did
not appear at the meeting.
Alternatives.
I. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicants will be able to construct
the addition as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative, findings of fact
will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
CR99-103
Page 3
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicants 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.
FRANK R. CARDAREllE
(612) 941-3031
Land Surveyor~ Inc.
6440 Flying Cloud Drive
land Surveyor
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Qttttifitalt ef i>Ut'Utl!
Survey For Sue Jensen
1)~ Ashl~ ~d.
Hopkins, MN.
Book 349 Page 60 . Fila 4648
C4/-1C.
L> ..:ve-- -
J 33- /J
.f
, - 77. 8 - ';-
· LI'~-=,,-..
1....-- -
.. -
~
tC
or;;:)
~
Q
}4 ""
~
t=J
~
f
1
I
I
.1
,
-If-a
. fa-r. ,
... ~ '-- _ ---l
'f..
~-~ -
~:
f- -I
J I
/ .\
~ n-'-' A .,
l"t ~J'p.~- l'"..e~ r-
J/AI/5..J; :23. S - --
q'J-!t -* /33-
~
-..
~,
'..7.
;r,
()
~
~
/-: -,-
I ,:..L"':'-
!.--
----
'1.~
Lo.
..
73.6-
, ,"\
,. ~-!..-
PiLof'058J
j"Q~I-i_.
~
~
'Q
,....
;..-
-J"....
/ JJ', IJ
Scales 1"= 3D'
o t1enotes Iron Mon. Found
& -"'f tIIat lNe .. . .... - oaMtltnpt._d... af. .......,. of ~ ~
B'm'c'k 2 F .A.Savage I B Interlache~COuhty.~IInd"''-u
~by.......ltol. 12th d-rof April .1Q 99 ~
frank R. Cardaralle
Stat., Re.g. No. 6506
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 99-103
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT
DENYING A REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN99-6 has been made by Dr. Mark Jensen and
Dr. Sue Penniston;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a lot area variance was made by Dr. Mark Jensen
and Dr. Sue Penniston on September 27, 1999;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
October 26, 1999: 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:
Lots 9 and 10 and the South ~ofLot 8, Block 2 F.A. Savage's Interlachen
Park
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN99-6 is
hereby denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the lot does not have a hardship to grant a variance.
2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property without the variance.
Adopted this 3rd day of November, 1999.
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk