CR 01-84 Variance - Rear Yard Setback•
•
G'tTY OF
NOPKINS
June 27, 2001 Council Report 01 -84
VARIANCE --REAR YARD SETBACK
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 01 -42, approving a
one foot, rear yard variance at 410 -13 Avenue North.
At the Zoning and Planning Commission Mr. Rowan moved and Mr. Szuba seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution RZ01 -7, recommending approval of a one -foot rear yard
setback. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview.
The applicant is requesting a variance for one foot to allow a two -foot rear yard setback
to construct a garage. The required setback for a detached building is three feet. The
applicant has an existing one -stall and wants to construct a two -stall garage. The
problem with the construction of a two -stall garage is that a large tree is located in the
rear yard that restricts the garage construction.
The new garage will be 20' x 24' with a 10' x 10' attachment on the side. The other side
of the lot was considered, but the two driveways abut each other and this allows both
residents easier access to their garages. The applicant has modified the eaves to
accommodate the tree.
Primary Issues to Consider.
• What is the zoning of the property?
• What does the ordinance require?
• What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
• What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
• What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supporting Documents.
• Analysis of Issues
• Site Plan
• Resolution 01 -42
Nanc
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
•
•
W
CR01 =S.1.
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
• What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned R - 1 - A, Single Family and Two Family High Density.
• What does the ordinance require?
The ordinance requires a rear yard setback of three feet for an accessory building.
• What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant has requested a variance for a two - foot rear yard setback.
• 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 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.
The subject site is unique because of the large tree. The applicant is not asking for a
huge garage, just a two -stall garage. The garage has been modified to keep the tree and
the garage meets all of the other zoning requirements except for the setback from the
alley.
• What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the applicant's request. Chris Tower, the applicant, appeared
before the Commission. The Commission discussed that the existing setback is two feet.
There was no one in the audience to speak on this issue.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to
construct the garage as proposed.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to
construct the garage as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative,
findings of fact will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
CRO1 -tS,
Page 3
• 3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further
information is needed, the item should be continued.
•
•
• CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
•
•
Adopted this 3rd day of July 2001.
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO: 2001 -42
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A ONE- FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN01 -3 has been made by Chris and Betsy Tower;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance was made by Chris and Betsy Tower May 25,
2001;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on June 26,
2001: 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 108 West Minneapolis Second Addition
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN01 -3 is hereby
approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the lot is unique because of the location of a large tree.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
•
til
'.a
•
k\l'\
/0 ge/f0'
0
prt Qt 7, l / ; ' '
R3% / % ,
c /
o7
•
•
•
7343 ANN COURT
(612) 938 -9350
May 24th,2001
durabfilt
additions /garages
Oarediet ogaadciatea, Onc.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTRACTORS
Attachment to letter F ,Supplemental data.
EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55346
(612) 926 -7616
ST. PAUL: (612) 771 -8873
Dear Sirs;
We are requesting a variance to build a 20'0" x 24'0" detached garage
within 24" of our rear lot line. The code currently is 36 ". The circumstances unique
to our request are as follows:
1). 20'0" is a minimal size for the front entrance of a double car garage, The 20'0"
allows 2'0" on either side of the garage to swing doors into. A 16' x 7' overhead
door is the minimum size of the overhead door opening.
2). There is a large tree currently on the side of the existing garage.If the new
garage is moved to 36" off of the rear line, the tree would be less than 24"
away from the garage. If the garage is built 24" off of the rear lot line,
the tree would be 30" or more from the garage, the closer to the tree we
get, the more likely the garage could kill the tree or we would have to cut the tree
down. We feel the code is creating a hardship on our lot. We would like to keep both
the tree and have a double car garage.
3). The way the garage is oriented on the lot,currently has the best site lines to our
neighbors driveways and allows all of the neighbors the _ability to swing their
cars in and out.
4). Currently our existing garage is 24" off of the rear lot line,and we a re'not_.requesti
a setback that is not already existing.
5). We feel going any closer to the tree than we have to would be a hardship.
0
m
O