CR 06-135 Sideyard Setback Variance-620-10th Ave S
C\TY OF
m
HOPKINS
November 29, 2006
Council Report 06-135
SIDEY ARD SETBACK VARIANCE - 620 TENTH AVENUE SOUTH
ProDosed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 06-80. approving a 4.2-foot
sideyard setback variance at 620 Tenth Avenue South.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting Mr. Aamess moved and Ms. Aristy seconded a motion to
adopt Resolution RZ06-31, recommending approval of a 4.2-foot side yard setback variance at
620 Tenth Avenue South. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview
The property at 620 Tenth Avenue South consists of two 50-foot lots owned by one individual.
There is an existing home and garage on the northerly lot, Lot 5. Lot 6 is the southerly, vacant
lot. The applicant wants to construct a home on the southerly lot.
The existing home is 5.8 feet from the southerly lot line. The sideyard setback in the R-2 zoning
district is 10 feet for a one-story home. A 4.2-foot variance is being requested.
Primarv 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 applicant's request?
. What is the staff s recommendation?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SUDDortin!!: Documents
. Analysis of Issues
. Survey
. Letter from Neighbor
. Resolution 06-80
%motH~
Nancy S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Y/N
Source:
CR06-135
Page 2
Primarv Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated
the subject site?
The subject property is zoned R-2, Low Density Multiple Family. The Comprehensive Plan has
designated the site as medium density residential. Because the lots in the area do not meet the
minimum requirements for lots in the R-2 district, the only use allowed is a single family home.
What does the ordinance require?
The ordinance requires a 10- foot sideyard setback for a one story home and a 12- foot sideyard
setback for a two-story home.
What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The original home was constructed in 1954. Since the original construction, there have been
several additions added.
What is the staff's recommendation?
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.
This is another situation where one individual owns a home with a vacant lot abutting it.
Without a variance the vacant lot will be unbuildable. Staff is recommending approval of the
variance. Staff would also recommend a consideration of rezoning of the two blocks of 10th
Avenue to R -I-A. The R -1- A sideyard setback is eight feet, and if these properties are rezoned
the vacant lot could have a 10- foot northerly sideyard setback to have approximately 16 feet
between the two homes.
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the variance. Frank Petruska, the applicant, appeared before the
Commission. No one else appeared regarding this issue.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the vacant lot to the south of 620 10th
Avenue South w'ill be buildable.
CR06-135
Page 3
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the vacant lot to the south will not be buildable.
If the City Council considers this alternative, findings of fact will have to be stated that
support this recommendation.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
14.9
EXISllNG
GARAGE
//I-r
L. L/ /
CORNER FENCE IS 1.1'
NORTH OF PROPERTY LINE
~; ",'
01 ~:
WOOiic FEN CE-L
_>LL
I
I
II'-)
I Vol
II'-)
I
I
/ /1 -r
LO' L/ /
"'--
130.00
N 89-57'56- E
JJ
~
Z
J.J
.I-
~
::>
::>
~
/ /I -r-
<:. L/ /
8"TREE
e fJiflC$L g
e
16"TREE
12.0
22.0
S<:.,~
I'-) ~O
b <(~aa tr--~<:" ~
~ tr--"" 0
22.0
x
WOOD xFENCE
130.00 -
S 89-55'17- W
'--
x
...
CJ1
fa
I...
1!J1
101
fJ1
o
A
"r
I
I
I
I
I
--------
I
-1,
I
EXISllNG
DWELLING
25.4
I
~ I ": I
,." I :: I
..J ---.i
x
~..:\x'
~G~
cP
3.3 I
~I\
I
Ix
B
46.0
A-' ~(,
L.; ~<:.,\,\)
S~ ~('-<
~O "9:;) \ ~
<(~O~ W
8"TREE
LrJ
x I I
I~
IOv
o.
.(0
~p
,0
10
en
~
0)
a
17.0
4.
...
~
a
x
50.0
x
fX'
o
--'"
...
...
00)<
~
6.7 I
x,'\x,
~G~
GO
CONCRETE
24"TREE
I
I
o
<(
o
cr:
(/)
~
o
z
~
~
I-
m
l..L..
o
W
()
o
w
~
~
~
~
~
'~
~
'-;
o
<(
Co
This note is in regards to the house at 620 1 Oth Ave S and the vacant property to the south
of it. Due to previous plans it is not possible for us to attend this meeting.
The variance requesting a 4.2 foot southerly sideyard setback for the existing house
should take into account the history behind this property. When the house was build it
would have required a variance on the north and east sides. The side garage was too
close to the north property at the time. Also the house would have needed a variance for
being closer than the 20 foot setback required at the time.
With the request now for the latest variance it should be the third such request making
three of the four sides of the property requiring variances. While things back in the 50's
and 60's were different on how the city handled such issues, the variances were not given
and neighbors were not allowed to speak. The building plans at the time were approved
when they shouldn't have and now nothing can be done .about this.
The house should not be given what should be considered a third variance. I think that
the house was allowed to be built without variances in the 50's and 60's because it was
on two lots. It was two lots thought of as one because the setback was too close to the
second lot so it could never be built upon. It was easier to say it was two lots then to
make it into the one with all the paperwork needed to be filed.
Please don't make the house at 620 1 Oth Ave S be the eyesore of the block with it being
too close to the north, east and south property lines with the granting of the variance
requested.
Thank you for taking this note in consideration for your decision,
Paul and Bridget J oppa
614 10th Ave S
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 06-80
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR A SIDEY ARD SETBACK
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN06-5 has been made by Frank Petruska; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN06-5 was made by Frank Petruska on
October 27, 2006;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
November 28, 2006: all persons present were given an opportunity to be
heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered;
and
4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
Lot 5, Block 58, West Minneapolis
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE, CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN06-5 to reduce the 10-foot
sideyard setback to 5.8 feet is hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That Lot 6 is a buildable lot in the R-2 zoning district
2. That the home on Lot 5 was constructed in 1961 with a 5.8 foot sideyard
setback
3. That Lot 6 is unbuildable without the variance
BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the City Council of the City of
Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement of the 10- foot sideyard
setback would cause an undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the subject property,
that the granting of the requested variance to the extent necessary to compensate for such
hardship is in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, that the variance of 4.2 feet is
reasonable, and that granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the area in
which it is located.
Adopted this 5th day of December 2006.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk