Rear Yard Variance y t Y 0
y
1111 February 12, 1993
0 P K Planning Report VN93 -2
REAR YARD VARIANCE 201 WEST PARK VALLEY ROAD
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution RZ93 -4 approving a five foot rear yard variance
to construct a home at 201 West Park Road.
;6--ors:
Overview.
The applicant is proposing to construct a home at 201 West
Park Valley Road. The subject property is located on the
corner of 2nd Street North and West Park Road. Since the
site is located on a corner lot the front yard is 2nd Street
North. A 35 foot rear yard setback is required for a home
in the R -1 -C zoning district. The applicant has requested a
foot rear yard variance.
The home the applicant will be constructing will be L shaped
with a two car garage on the north side. All the other
setbacks for the home will be met.
The site also has a 10 foot drainage easement on the east
property line.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What is the site zoned?
o What is the site designed in the Comprehensive
Plan?
o What are the specifics of the site plan?
o Does the property have a hardship?
o Will the property have reasonable use without the
variance?
Supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plan
o Resolution RZ93 -4
�'I!�y", .,1r. 1 l
Nancy)S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
UogIn bors with l5 -c{- 5e4-b ct
Page 2
1110 Issues to Consider VN93 -2
o What is the site zoned?
The site is zoned R -1 -C. Single family homes are a
permitted use.
o What is the site designed in the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is designed Low Density Multiple Family.
o What are the specifics of the site plan?
R -1 -C Proposed
Front yard 30 feet 30 feet
West side yard 10 feet 10 feet
East side yard 10 feet 10 feet
Rear yard 35 feet 30 feet
The home as proposed meets the side and front setbacks.
Access to the site will be from West Park Road. The
proposed home will not have a basement.
The home to the north is approximately 30 feet from the lot
line. The home to the north can build within 10 feet of the
applicant's north lot line because it is the side lot line.
o Does the property have a hardship?
The subject site is a corner lot, odd shaped and has soil
problems. All these reasons create a hardship to the
property and make construction in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance very difficult. These features make the lot
different from the other lots in the area.
In 1967 soil boring were taken at the subject site. The
report indicated that any home on the site would require
pilings. The report also stated that "the length of piling
could be minimized by holding the house as close as possible
to the north lot line."
Soiling boring indicate that the subject lot does have poor
soil conditions. The past history of the lot indicates that
two times previously variances have been granted because of
poor soil conditions.
o Will the property have reasonable use without the
variance?
In order for the applicants home to fit on the lot almost 4
feet will have to be taken from the garage. The garage the
VN93 -2
Page 3
4110 applicant is proposing is not larger than a normal two car
garage. It seems reasonable to allow the applicant to have
a two car garage in order to provide adequate off street
parking.
Alternatives
1. Recommend approval of the variance. By recommending
approval of the variance, the City Council will
consider a recommendation of approval variance.
2. Recommend denial of the variance. By recommending
denial of the variance, the City Council will consider
a recommendation of denial of the variance.
3. Continue for further information. If the Commission
indicates that further information is needed, the item
should be continued.
4 11 0
4110
f Location Map
I
0 I
I
\14Pk
I (7)
11609 29(52) _2
v 28 (51) _3_
(1) 27(50) 4
26(49 (42) 5
K (45)
G� r\. 25(48 6 24 7 1
7 23(4 8
(46) M 22 9
21(47 (43)10
2 0 II
19 12
0. (3) i 0 18 (4 13
17 14
(43) O (6 (44)15
4)
(44) 0 30(72) (54) 1
N N 29 2 N
v (3 (27) (14) I rn N I 1 (38) (28)1 N 2• 3 to
N c.) d5 (55) 4 N h) I• Mat 6 5N czy
N N 10 (37) (29) 2 N
a 12 (26) cm M 25(70 (56) 6 N
((5)2 (30)3 7 Q
N 1 1 2 5 N N 9 (36) _23(69 (57) 8 N
cg 1` (31) 4 0 1 N 22(68) (58) 9 N
(16) 3 (34 N
10 (24) 0 21(67) (59)_10 ct,
a
�'QZ 9 (23) (1'7 4 c, 13 .36 3 Site 20 a 44' a 1 91 (60) 12 N
(18) 5 o -e _18(64) (61) 13 0
1.) I7 14
N 8(22] N
(20) 6
7 (21) (33) 1 N 16 (63) (62) 15 N I
411
I 0 L OEvO \f\
2o4- (o -00\
Z.2- c 1��
=20
ZY
22- v
sZ
1
T 3C :e lid.1
II `li. ..I� INC.
615 NORTH C OUNTY RO. JB MINNEAPOL IS. MILAN 55
BRAUN. P.E.
5'1
77/----- 10°). .7,4,, A,
October 1 1967
,2:A4
11
l Re: 67 -270 SOIL BORINGS
South Part of Lot 8, Block 2
Vr West Park Addition
Hopkins, Minnesota
At your request, soil borings were taken to assist in
v
oundation conditions for a proposed house on the above refer ereng
IIII
lot. A check of legal description with the City of Hopkins
indicated that the lot immediately south of the existing house
1209 West Park Road is the south portion of Lot 8, in Block 2
West Park Addition rather than the description you indicated at
time the work was authorized, of the
a small triangular tract south of the City i residue f r o b o m owns
grading of 2nd Street. It would seem logical that an
made to acquire that tract for inclusion with the south portion
Lot 8. p of
You indicated that the proposed house would be rectangu Yar in
approximately 26.x 60 feet. Since topographic features of the
indicated the greatest potential foundation problems on east
of the lot, the two rear corners of the indicated house locati on were
selected for boring locations. These locations were referenced
the northwest lot corner, where an iron monument was found a
on the attached sketch. Surface elevations were referenced to
assumed bench mark, established on the existing manhole as shown
of the adjacent intersection. enced to an
Park Road in line with the not The centerline of
Park
also referenced.
ml I'l LI
S 1--
0:
OUR lU T(RS AND REPORTS ARE FOR THE [XCIVSIVE USE OF THE CUFNi TO ...J
WHOM THE T ARE ADORESS[D, AND THEIR COMMUNICATION T!1 ANT OTRS I
OR PURIICATIpN Of ST AILMENTS. CONCLUSIONS, OR EXTRACTS EROY OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS 1S RESERVED. PENDING OVR WRIT UN A PP N( ROYAL.
BORINGS TESTS INSPECTION ANALYSIS REPORTS RE COMMENOATIONS
_270
O fkesaty, Inc. -2- 10/13/67
The borings were taken, on October 12, with a truck mounted core and
auger drill equipped with hollow -stem augers. Samples are taken with
the standard 2 -inch OD split sampler, driven by a 140 -pound hammer
falling 30- inches, thru the hollow -stem augers. Blows per'foot of
penetration (BPF) were recorded. Use of hollow -stem auger equipment
eliminated the driving of casing and use of jetting water.
Mineral soils encountered in the borings were visually classified.in
accordance with the U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils Classification
System. A copy of that chart is attached.
Immediately before leaving the lot, the depth to water was measured
and recorded in each boring.
RESULTS
Logs of soils encountered, water level observations, and penetration
resistances are plotted on the attached soil boring log sheet.
Both borings indicated 9 feet of fill over organic materials. These
•11 materials were mostly sandy loams which were very soft. Eight
et of organic materials were found to underlie the fill in boring
T -1, the north boring. Boring ST -2 indicated 20 feet of soft organic
materials below the fill. Judging from topographic features of the
vicinity of the lot, the bottom of the organic soils would be expected
to slope from north to south. Boring ST -1 encountered a thin stratum
of sand below the organic materials and was terminated in grey or brown
cohesive soils. Boring ST -2 encountered grey sandy clay loams below
the organic materials and extending to the 40 -foot depth.
Water levels were recorded at depths of 5.5 and 6.0 feet in borings
ST -1 and ST -2 respectively. Water levels should be expected to show
normal seasonal and annual fluctuations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The soft inplace fill and underlying organic soils would undergo
excessive and erratic settlement under footing and slab loads. These
borings indicated organic materials extending as much as 23 feet below
current water levels. Since it would-be virtually impossible to
satisfactorily excavate such an extensive depth of organic material
from below water, so that a compacted fill could be placed, it would
be necessary to support all structural elements, including floor slabs
of both the house and garage, on piling. Because the depth of organic
materials is variable, required piling lengths would also be quite
variable. Judging from these two borings, it appears that 20 -ton timber
iling in the south portions of the proposed house area would have to
111
a as much as about 45 feet in length. The length of piling could be
son ,,,mm,L'RIA4 ItaVICUS. IMC
67-270
tieLegyii meaty, Plc, -3- 10/13/67
minimized by holding the house as close as possible to the north
lotline.
Current water levels are about 10 or 11 feet below center -of- street
grade in line with the north lotline. Assuming a typical basement
depth on the order of 6 feet below the highest adjacent street grade,
that is, in line with the north lotline, basement moisture problems
are not anticipated.
Of necessity, the area of the borings in relation to the area of the
lot ,_and the depth _of the borings are limited. Suggestions and /or
recommendations of thisZr< eii. Q, rta.. ar e_.:opinionslbased: upon ;.the data
obtained from the borings.
If we can be of further assistance in evaluating these data, kindly
contact us at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
OIL ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
le34,-ex,30
Braun, P.E.
oils Engineer
JSB;mlk
Enclosures
SO!( IWEIN1IRlNO JIRVIC•1 INC
s t�
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ93 -4
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a variance VN 93 -2 made by Thomas
Larson is recommended for approval.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance VN 93 -2 was filed with the
City of Hopkins on January 25, 1993.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on
February 23, 1993.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a hearing on the application on February 23, 1993: all
persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be
heard.
4. That the written comments and anaysis of the City staff and the
Planning Commission were considered.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for variance
VN 93 -2 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following
Findings of Fact:
1. That the subject property has a unique hardship due to
unique shape and having poor
soil.
2. That without the variance the applicant would not have
reasonable use of the property.
Adopted this 23rd day of February, 1993.
John T. Hutchison, Chairman