CR 99-23 Variance - Garage Height
cIty OF
January 27, 1999 ~ Council Report 99-23
HOPKINS
. VARIANCE - GARAGE HEIGHT
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 99-6. denying a height
variance to an existing garage.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Gross moved and Mr. Brausen seconded a motion
to deny Resolution RZ98-30, denying a height variance. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Overview.
The applicant, Joe Haubenhofer, is applying for a height variance to construct an accessory
building. The applicant's property is located at 301 Wilshire Walk. The applicant is
proposing to construct a Cape Cod style garage that will be approximately 20 feet in height.
The zoning ordinance requires a 15-foot maximum height to the highest point for accessory
structures. A garage is considered an accessory structure.
. Primary Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
. What does the ordinance require?
. 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?
SUDPortin2 Documents.
. Analysis of issues
. Garage elevation plans
. Site plan
. Resolution 99-6
.
-_.,-
CR 99-23
Page 2
. Primary Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
The site is zoned R-I-E, Low Density Single Family. The Comprehensive Plan has
designated the site as Low Density Residential.
. What does the ordinance require?
The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height of 15 feet to the highest point for an
accessory building. The height is measured from the public right-of-way. A garage is
considered an accessory building.
. What are the specifics of the variance?
The applicant is proposing a Cape Cod type garage that will be higher than 15 feet. The
garage will be 24' x 30' and approximately 20 feet in height. The garage will be six feet
from the side property line. The rear property line was not detailed, but it is more than the
minimum three-foot setback. The garage meets all the ordinance requirements except for the
height.
. . Does the property have a hardship?
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 subject property has no undue hardship for the granting of the
vanance. 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.
0 Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property without the variance?
The applicant has reasonable use of the property without the addition of an accessory
building. If the applicant is not granted the variance, the applicant has reasonable use of the
property if the garage were lowered to 15 feet in height.
.
- - - - -- - -
CR99-23
Page 3
. . What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the variance with the Commission.
Ms. Anderson noted that if the
Commission approved the proposed zoning amendments, the applicant would probably not
need a variance. The Commission discussed the lack of hardship for the granting of the
varIance.
Altematives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to construct
the garage as proposed. If the Planning Commission 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 garage as proposed.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
.
.
- -..-
- -
-
2.10'
/
...
1'-
~
,
/
--
---
.
_.l -
- ,
0 5~r.~ III.... YOII ~J'j~~~~
I
I
f.LA~ I~Ld'
,
. D~
1lJri: .Y...;-;II JItI~c_
. I' "
-------- ....-+.- . ----.,.-
. -----~-
I ..... --
j
Eft} I
1- ~ I' I
, I
j:1LV~@ kyll::: I LOll
I
,.
- I
, - --- -
Q51ES HVlro1N[7~~rl
....- -- -- -
I ... . -- -------------------
! j 'X /7
--
CITY OF HOPKINS
. Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 99-6
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING A HEIGHT VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance VN98-7 has been made by Joseph Haubenhofer;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance was made by Joseph Haubenhofer on
November 24, 1998;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application on December 29, 1998, and January 26,1999: all
persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staffwere considered; and
4. The legal description of the property is as follows:
. Lot 14, Block 1 and Lot 3, Block 2 and that part of Lot 13, Block 1 and of Lot 4,
Block 2 lying easterly of a line running from a point in the northerly line of said
Lot 4 distance 50 feet westerly from northeast corner thereof to a point in the
southerly line of said Lot 13 distance 82 feet westerly from southeast corner
thereof. KnolIwood Addition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN98-7 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
vanance.
Adopted this 2nd day of February, 1999.
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
.
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk