CR 06-136 Sideyard Setback Variance-Vacant Lot South of 620-10th Ave S
C\TY OF
m
HOPKINS
November 29, 2006
Council Report 06-136
SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE - VACANT LOT SOUTH
OF 620 TENTH AVENUE SOUTH
ProDosed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 06-81. denying a four-foot
sideyard setback variance at the vacant lot at 620 Tenth Avenue South.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting Mr. Aarness moved and Ms. Aristy seconded a motion to
adopt Resolution RZ06-32, recommending denial of a four-foot sideyard setback variance at the
vacant lot at 620 Tenth Avenue South. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview
The property 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 two-story home on the southerly lot. The lots are zoned
R-2, Low Density Multiple Family. The sideyard setback in the R-2 zoning district is 10 feet for
a one-story home and 12 feet for a two-story home. A four-foot southerly sideyard variance is
being requested to construct a ,two-story home on the vacant lot.
The applicant has applied for a sideyard setback variance on Lot 5.
Primarv Issues to Consider
. 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
. Resolution 06-81
bkCkr./.OJW1r\
Nancy . Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Y/N
Source:
CR06-136
Page 2
Primarv Issues to Consider.
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 the house for a two-story home.
What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant is proposing an eight-foot southerly sideyard setback. The applicant is requesting
a four-foot southerly sideyard variance.
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.
In this case the applicant has no hardship for the variance. The home is buildable, a square lot
and a house can be constructed on it without a variance. A single story home with 10- foot
sideyard setbacks can be constructed on the lot without a variance with the existing zoning.
Staff is recommending that instead of a variance that the two blocks of 1 Oth Avenue are
considered to be rezoned to R-I-A. The two blocks of 10th Avenue are zoned R-3. R-3 zoning
district is a multiple family zoning. These two blocks are platted in 50-foot lots, and there are
only single and two family homes on the blocks that are permitted in the R-I-A district. If the
two blocks are rezoned, the sideyard setback would be eight feet and a variance would not be
needed.
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed variance and the reasons staff is recommending denial.
Mr. Petruska, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Jackie Lewis of 628 Tenth
Avenue South appeared before the Commission. Ms. Lewis was not in favor of the variance.
Ms. Lewis stated that there was no hardship and the two-story home to be constructed would be
for Mr. Petruska's financial gain.
CR06-136
Page 3
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to construct the
new home as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative, findings of fact will
have to be stated that support this recommendation.
2. Deny of the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to construction
the new home as proposed. With the recommendation of denial, the Commission could
recommend that the Council direct staff to consider looking at a rezoning to R-I-A.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
/I
""r
I
I 0
~
I 0
D:::
tf)
::)
I 0
z
~
::)
I I-
m
25.4 l.l.-
-------- 0
I w
0
0
-t w
x
'\
S '\-:v I -:v "'-:v
~G~
GO ';:",G~ ~
GO"
3.3 I
t,
It ~
I
Ix ~
~ CONCRETE
t..I
--'" ~
\
\ ~
14.9
----
EXISTING
GARAGE
1--
"...'J.
I
I
Il'-J
It..I
Il'-J
I
I
"'--
.L.I
:J
Z
.L.I
.L.
::l
:>
:>
5:
I/I-r
L. vi
CORNER FENCE IS 1.1'
NORTH OF PROPERTY LINE
I
~I
01
WOODx FENCE-L
EXISTING
DWELLING
N1
. I
.q-,
~
I
~I f':1
t") .I :::: I
..xl. -.i
GARAGE
I /1 -r
i.VI
1-STORY
WID DWELLING
620 10TH AVE. S.
/
CONCRETE
- , 30.00
N 89-57'56" E
13
4.
W
xl It
If',
1O..q.
0..
.te)
SSP
10
10
en
'~
~
~
';
/ /f ;>-
~- v/
46.0
22.0
S<::.,<;:)
I\.) ~O
b <(~a ~\:J<::"
~ '?--<(...
S"TREE
., e P;iBCEL g
b e
16 "TREE
~~
6-' ~<v\.,\)
s~ ~{'-<
~o ~!b \ ~
<(~a'J.:'" W
S"TREE
50.0
-.a.
0')
o
17.0
-
-!'--
o
x
12.0
22.0
x
x
WOOD xFENCE
130.00
S 89D55'17" W
x
fXl
o
I
I
'--
--""
01
fO
f11
o
1-
Ifn
1CJ1
......
......
0,1<
f
6,7 I
o
~
c'
-l-{.
j-(-
~
o 00 '-
)
)
( 69'\.'\
Jf
c.
---
o *
---k:
-
DO
11~EH3~11
I .
1:2
~;
DO
83EEEEEEEE
. 00000
00000.
00000
Pt~Ru>klf
~ AO- tDiVl A v~f5,
fRONI E::L.f;V A110N
;;c~e:: 1/ 4"-11
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 06-81
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DENYING A VARIANCE FOR A SIDEY ARD SETBACK
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN06-6 has been made by Frank Petruska; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN06-6 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 6, Block 58, West Minneapolis
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN06-6 to reduce the 12-foot
sideyard setback to 8-feet is hereby denied based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That Lot 6 is a buildable lot in the R-2 zoning district 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 12- foot sideyard
setback would not 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 not in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, that the variance of
four feet is not reasonable.
Adopted this 5th day of December 2006.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk