312 WILSHIRE WALK
~
January 17, 1985
Case No: 85-02
Applicant: Bruce Goldstein
Location: 312 Wllsh1re Walk
Request: Conditional Use Permit to construct 10' fence
STAFF FINDINGS & COMMENTS: Anderson
1. Applicant is requesting a Condit1onal Use Permit to construct a 10 foot fence.
The property 1S located at 312 Wilshire Walk. The subject slte is zoned R-1-D.
2. Ordinance 427.11(8) requires fences for special purposes and fences dlffer1ng
in construction, height or length may be permitted in any district in the City
of Hopkins by the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit approved by the Zoning
and Planning Comm1ss1on and by the City Council upon proof and reasons subm1tted
by the appl1cant and upon the slgning by said bodies that such special purpose
is necessary to protect, buffer or 1mprove the premises for Wh1Ch such fence is
intended. Such special fence permlt, if issued, may stipulate and provlde for
the height, location, construction and type of special fence thereby permitted.
3. The proposed fence 1S to be put on the south side of the property which faces
State H1ghway 7 and continue 15 feet along both slde lot llnes.
4. The proposed fence 1S to be made out of wood and stained off-white. High and
low shade trees are proposed on the inside of the fence.
5. The concrete noise barrier stops to the east of the subJect property at the
request of the homeowners in 1981. The applicant did not own the subJect property
in 1981.
6. The applicant is requesting a 10 foot high fence because the property is lower
than the surrounding property and a lower fence would not adequately screen the
road noise from Hlghway 7.
7. The proposed setback for the fence 1S five feet unless the adjacent property
owners decide to construct a fence, then the fence would abutt the side property
line.
8. The applicant has contacted the neighbors, none were opposed to the proposed
fence.
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
NOTE. The purpose of a varlance 1S to prov1de relief to a property owner when
the str1ct enforecment of the Zon1ng Ord1nance would cause an undue hard-
~ to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the prope~----
Hardsh1p to the appllcant lS the cruclal test. Var1ances w1ll be granted
only 1n unusual situations Wh1Ch were not foreseen when the Zon1ng Ord1n-
ance was adopted. Econom1c sltuat10ns are seldom un1que and are rarely
consldered a val1d hardsh1p.
Hardsh1p A.
Expla1n why strict enforcement of the Zonlng Ordlnance would cause undue
hardsh1 p:
A vJ...()" ~,4; At~ IQ1II M( ~-r ()t1;L.tAfJ $~ ~
~ I-ivv i dr., etb~ ~ "F- '1Ue ~ ~ t<>>I!€. A
IO'..Cj' f.Hf,~ PGYC.G LV,H ~pttst-J "fltt~.
ConditlOns B.
What are the spec1al conditlons (shape of lot, exceptlonal topograph1c
conditlons, etc.) of th1S request that are unlque to th1S property and
do not apply generally to other propertles In the d1strlct?
lA\~ ~. fJr ~~'n4'n0'11, ~~ nlt5Ef 1!:::IlfU1.IetL
~~ ~ 6~ -m NftIMl/15 pa,~. D-Jr ftlnwtt!et:J
1tJ f(~ A ~p 6P" Otv/~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ Q,Je.
L1St of Homeowners
Contacted by Appllcant C.
Submlt a 11St of names and addresses of nelghtobrs contacted.
~ ~ l.J$r
~
il
( ?-
r,
\ li
I, ....l
~) '\'.
-) 'J
f'
I \ \"
~ ~J
~
l ' ~~'
c'
( ! I ~
l:.l
r~
~ t OJ
-~ ~~
~l ~ ,cHj
~\L:
t'
~ ~ ..
r-
t~~ I \ c)
\ L
jli I "
IJ
\ c
\ r-"':
,
,
!..,
\ (,
.. \
\
,
\ I
, ,
,
"
'-
"
-:...~ ---..-
,
\
:"'
<
l:
,. ~ - -~- - L
(jjp .i~l~i ..
~ ~ l~ :J~
~ · 11 1!
! tl ~!~<<~
~
~
I
JAr>! 1 0 135$
~ ~ fJ~1VU
{,u~/O'~~'
% s. 'i' /J, SI
1/7/tfS
.
~/~
~ Jrl~ f?~~:
~~~~~~ ~
~ ~ d /'Jte- ~~ ~ .
~~t1~ ~ ~ "'-Io'~
~~Ju.~~ ~/~?
.5'd'~
~.J~ kJp..L.(,
~..r.~' ')~ _~.7'
r-------~-l!lll!IIl--- --::
I e. ~ .",1 \; ,~~ :;
..'\~......'"\(~(
----- ,
. IW'~ - ,r-, 'I!~~~
~~
Ih 1?. tU. {J ~
tu~/t?'~ ~ k
ir" &'. '1 jJ, 51
~
J