CR 91-145a Rear Yard Variance - 212 Meadowbrook Roadti
\ t Y p
July 9, 1991 y o 1� Council Report 91 -145
P K 1
REAR YARD VARIANCE - 212 MEADOWBROOR ROAD
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt
resolution R91 -77B denying the variance for a 30 foot rear
yard setback.
Denial of this variance will not allow the applicant to
construct a shed as requested.
The Planning Commission in a five to one vote approved a
varaiance for a 32 -foot rear yard setback.
Overview
The applicant, Mr. Smith, currently has an existing 7 16'
shed attached to the rear of his garage. This shed is
currently in disrepair. Mr. Smith wants to construct a new
shed in the same location and also enlarge it. The new shed
will be approximately 9 17'.
The existing shed is non - conforming because the shed is
within the 35 foot rear yard setback as required in the R -1-
C district. The proposed shed will have a 30 foot rear yard
setback.
Mr. Smith appeared before the Planning Commission and
reviewed the variance request. After much discussion the
Commission indicated that there was a hardship due to the
fact the existing structure was unsafe.' The Commission also
indicated that Mr. Smith could rebuild the existing
structure according to the present dimensions.
Primary Issues to Consider.
• What are
• Does the
variance
• Does the
• Does the
property
the ordinance requirements?
property have a hardship to warrant the
request?
applicant have another alternative?
applicant have reasonable use of the
without the variance?
Supporting Documents
o Analysis of Issues
o Location Map
o Site Plan
o Resolution No: R91 -77A
® o Resolution No: R91 - 77B
I NMDM
I
Nancy S. Anderson
C
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What are the ordinance requirements?
Since the shed is attached to the garage, it is required to
have the setback of principal building. If the shed were
six feet from the garage, it would be considered an
accessory building. An accessory building is allowed three
feet from the side and rear property line. The ordinance
requires a 35 -foot rear yard setback in the R -1 -C zoning
district
o Does the property have a hardship to warrant the varianc
request?
The ordinance requires that a variance is granted because of
undue hardship due to circumstances particular and unique to
such parcel. In this case there is no basis for assuming
that the applicant's claim of hardship is different from
other properties in the same zoning district. There is
nothing peculiar or unique about the applicant's property to
• warrant the granting of a variance.
o Does the applicant have another alternative?
Since the shed is already existing, its location in the
setback area is grandfathered. This shed can remain and
the applicant can make repairs to the existing structure,
but if the repairs involve major reconstruction, the shed is
not grandfathered. The existing shed can be repaired
without a variance.
The applicant can also put an accessory building is his rear
yard. Accessory buildings can be,constructed within 3 feet
of a side and rear lot line.
o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property
without the variance?
The applicant has reasonable use of the property now and
will have in the future without the variance. There are
other options the applicant could do without expanding the
attached shed. The applicant can repair the existing shed
or place another accessory building in the rear yard.
Alternatives
1. Approve the five foot variance request. By
approving the variance request the applicant will be
able to construct the new shed as requested.
2. Deny the five foot variance request. By denying the
variance request the applicant'will not be able to
expand the shed as requested.
3. Continue for further information. If the Council
indicates that further information is needed, the
item should be continued.
•
11
1 I 16l1 I
2 (12) (23)13 co
16031 1607 1615 1709 1715 1727
PRESTON LANE 3 (13) (22)12 0
•
i
.I
1604
16
23(57)
(50) N
22(56)
(51) 17 O
(12) 29
q
` 21(55)
(52)18 O
20 (5
(53) 19 a
I BOYCE S T.
i
i
1
15
I
30
(42)8 .
O '
2 (1)
(12) 29
q
q 12 (46)
(45)11 of
28
— 28
O
4 (2)
(II) 27
N
�
r
26
(29)9
—
5
26
(10) 25
—
p
6 (3)
(22) 24
7
24
�-
ny
8 (4)
(9) 23
q
i 15
9
22
.�
%
10
(8) 21
10
r
If (5)
20
11
12
19
14
12
13
I8
16 N NT
h
14 (6)
(7) 17
h
14 (18)
15
16
5
-- —
6 (88)
i
1
15
1726
►� (49)
(42)8 .
n 14 (48)
(43)9 to
l (oh, 13 (47)
(44)10 O
q 12 (46)
(45)11 of
LQ
J
Q
W
V
I
30
O
�s
_
2 (13)
__.
_
(25) 29
2(65)
— 4
3
28
— 28
O
4 (14)
172-4);; 7
^
24_ _
23 (3 7) CO
8
26
(29)9
—
•.
6 (15)
(23, 25
M 0301(
(22) 24
9
7
8
u
(33)14
23
2
i 15
9 (16)_
20
.�
%
3 (87)
1
—_
10
_
(2 1) 7
co
3
11
20
1
14
12
(20) 19
c}
16 N NT
13 (17)
18
`
►�
14 (18)
(19) 17
t�
�--
5
-- —
6 (88)
15
— 16
LQ
J
Q
W
V
1
30 (42) o
O
�...
(26) 2
29
28
o, (27)3_
2(65)
— 4
27 V
)A
— —
— 28
(28)6
25 _
(19) 9 c�
N
7
24_ _
23 (3 7) CO
8
�
(29)9
_.
22
•.
(30)10
21 (36) cfl
20
M 0301(
^ 24
9
19 (35) e
18 `
13
u
(33)14
17 (34) c�
2
i 15
16
LQ
J
Q
W
V
h 4 (14)
11 �r
O
�...
` 5 (15)
(20)10,
6
2(65)
(74) 29 g)
%
— —
— 28
5
6 (162
N
(19) 9 c�
N
Q
�
a
N 7(1
(18)8 (b
LQ
J
Q
W
V
lb
1
v�r.
O
�...
1
30
6
2(65)
(74) 29 g)
%
— —
— 28
5
O
GOODRICH
27
�
I
3Q
7
5
•.
1 (
30
' 7
^ 24
9
N
2 (86)
(98) 29p
9
N
2
(85)29
p
20
.�
%
3 (87)
28
12
(71) 19
13 —
3
28
14 404)
(60)17
14
N
4
27
__
16 N NT
`J
`l �
4 (76j
27
(5)
t�
�--
5
-- —
6 (88)
(97)
-- —
25
0
N
5
(84126
(83)25 p
6
7 (89)
(96)24
�
M
—
7 (77)
r 24
N
N
H
23
N
8
(82} 23
cp
9 (90)
9
22
N
N 10
(9421
4
10 (78)
— 21
—
1
1
(93)
N
II
20
12
19
h
12
_
(81) 19
O
1 ( 91)
(92)•18
N
13 (79)
18
N
14
— '
17
►�
14 (80)
�
17
—
15
i 6
N
15
16
(11)
(10)
' o
F)
(8)
(?)
lb
33
`l.
1
v�r.
O
�...
1
30
6
2(65)
(74) 29 g)
—
— —
— 28
5
O
4 (66)
27
�
25 (52),
7
5
(73)26 e�
— 25
o� 6 (67)
N
' 7
^ 24
9
8 (68)
23
N
9
(72)22
21
10
Id
1 !
20
11000)
(47) 13
18 (49)
a
`
12
(71) 19
13 —
_
15
16
14 404)
(60)17
14
I� Q
—
15
16 N NT
16
(5)
33
`l.
0
cc
O
cc
m
O
Q
O
N
0
(I} (2)
22 � 21
N 1/2 SEC. 29,T.117,1
1
30
O
�...
(43) 2
29(5,4) O
r
�-
3
28
4
27
5
(44) 5
26 (53)
6
25 (52),
7
24
y
— —
+tr-
N
23 (5 1) q
22
(45) 8
9
M
(46) )d
21 (50) p
9
11
20 2--
Id
12
19 p
11000)
(47) 13
18 (49)
a
`
14
17 (48)
13 —
_
15
16
0
cc
O
cc
m
O
Q
O
N
0
(I} (2)
22 � 21
N 1/2 SEC. 29,T.117,1
1
30
q
2 (55)
(64) p
�-
3 —
— 28
N
5
+tr-
N
— —
8
— —
(62)23
�
— 9L
9
Id
21
�-
11000)
(61) 20 a
12
13 —
18
N
14 404)
(60)17
15
16
0
cc
O
cc
m
O
Q
O
N
0
(I} (2)
22 � 21
N 1/2 SEC. 29,T.117,1
4-- woo-
------ ----
VX)
-
AM
PC
-- — --- ----
---------------------------
10 i e
bcL
s
r 0,�-let E '
-
3
re A U C. Grt�rt
i
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 91 -77A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION
FOR REAR YARD VARIANCE VN:91 -1
WHEREAS, an application by Donald Smith for a rear yard variance
At 212 Meadowbrook Road is hereby approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the amendment is as follows:
1. That the application for Rear Yard Variance 91 -1
was filed with the City of Hopkins on May 28,
1991.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on June 25, 1991.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
published and mailed notices, held a public
hearing on June 25, 1991; all persons present at
the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard.
4. That the written comments and analysis of the City
Staff and the Planning Commission were considered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN:91 -1 for a
32 -foot rear yard setback is hereby approved subject to
the following Findings of Fact:
1. A hardship exists due to the unsafe condition of the
structure.
Adopted this 16th day of July, 1991.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
•
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 91 -77B
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING APPLICATION
FOR REAR YARD VARIANCE VN:91 -1
WHEREAS, an application by Donald Smith for a rear yard variance
At 212 Meadowbrook Road is'hereby approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the amendment is as follows:
1. That the application for Rear Yard Variance 91 -1
was filed with the City of Hopkins on May 28,
1991.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such .
application on June 25, 1991.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
published and mailed notices, held a public
hearing on June 25, 1991; all persons present at
the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard.
4. That the written comments and analysis of the City
Staff and the Planning Commission were considered.
C]
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN:91 -1 is
hereby denied subject to the following Findings of
Fact:
1. That the applicant's property does not have' a hardship
for the granting of a variance.
2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property
without a variance.
Adopted this 16th day of July, 1991.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk