Lot Area Variance X
1 Y 0
G
i
March 22, 1993 d o c2 Planning Report VN93 -3
P K
LOT AREA VARIANCE 7 WEBSTER PLACE
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution RZ93 -7 recommending denial of a variance to allow
a 31,351 square foot lot in an R -1 -E zoning district.
rea51c1CcLQ '\G 1CAmrd 3 n a` lvit'o1
Overview.
The applicant currently owns 7 Webster Place. This lot is
89,851 square feet. The applicant is proposing to divide
this lot into two parcels. The lot where the home is
currently located on would be 31,351 square feet and the new
lot would be 58,500 square feet.
The subject lot is located in an R -1 -E district. The R -1 -E
district requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
The applicant has applied for a waiver or the plat to divide
the lot. Staff is also recommending denial of this request.
1111
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What is the site zoned?
o What is the site designated in the Comprehensive
Plan?
o Has the property been divided in the past?
o Will the site meet the other zoning requirements?
o What will be the access to the site?
o Does the property have a hardship?
o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the
property?
o Why is the staff recommending denial?
Supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plan
o Resolution RZ93 -7
o Letter from Ellen Lavin
anctuam
Nancy b. Anderson, AICP
Planner
VN93 -3
Page 2
1 110
Primary Issues to consider.
o What is the site zoned?
The site is zoned R -1 -E, Single Family Low Density. A
minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet is required.
o What is the site designated in the Comprehensive Plan?
The site is designated as low density multiple family in the
Comprehensive Plan.
o Has the property been divided in the past?
Originally 7 Webster Place was a large lot consisting of
approximately 153,000 square feet. Approximately 10 years
ago a waiver of plat was granted to split approximately
63,000 square feet into a new lot which a home was
constructed on. Access to this lot is from Loring. Road.
The applicant was not the owner of the property at this
time.
Now the applicant owns 89,851 square feet of the remaining
lot and is proposing to divide the lot into two parcels.
The proposed parcels will be 58,500 and 31,351 square feet.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new home on the
vacant lot. Access to the lot will be from an easement on
the north side of 7 Webster Place.
Any future division of the lot should have been undertaken
at the time of the previous waiver of plat. The division of
the lot could have potentially provided for adequate access
for any future divisions.
At the time the lot was divided previously, the minimum lot
size was 20,000 square feet.
o Will the site meet the other zoning requirements?
The site where the existing home is located meets all the
other zoning requirements.
o What will be the access to the site?
Access to the new lot is difficult. The proposed lot abuts
Loring Road, this portion of the lot is wetlands. Access
from Loring Road would require the construction of a bridge.
Fill is not permitted. The applicant is proposing to have a
15 foot easement on the north site of the lot with the
4110 existing home for access.
VN93 -3
Page 3
1111 The Zoning Ordinance requires all lots that have a home
constructed on them to have a minimum frontage of 20 feet on
a public street. The purpose of this requirement is to have
all lots have access to a public street. Even though the
proposed new lot does met the requirement of having a
minimum frontage of 20 feet on Loring Road the lot cannot in
a reasonable manner provide access from Loring Road.
o Does the property have a hardship?
The new definition in the zoning ordinance defines undue
hardship as the following: in connection with the granting
of a variance means the property in question cannot be put
to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to his property not created by the
landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the locality.
The subject site does not have a hardship according-to the
above definition. The only hardship in this case is the
hardship that is created by the applicant in wanting to
divide the lot. The lot as it exists today does not have a
hardship.
o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property?
The applicant has reasonable use of the property without the
variance. The applicant currently is living in a home which
is constructed on the lot.
o Why is the staff recommending denial?
The staff is recommending denial because the property does
not have a hardship to justify the variance.
Alternatives.
1. By recommending approval of the variance, the City
Council will consider a recommendation of approval for
the variance.
2. By recommending denial of the variance, the City
Council will consider a recommendation of denial for
the variance.
3. Continue for further information. If the Commission
indicates that further information is needed the item
should be continued.
L a ti on M I `2
13 2 22 W. 20E. /8 /6
I p• EAST ST.
2/vv. /9E, /7 /5
V
4) 7 (10) (6) (8) (15)
5 (14
4
(17) i
(I I) 3
;,T 14 �N
Q 8 (19) (13)
10 (16)
/2 11
4 /44//7 (17)
12
/S e
(14) (16) I I 6
4 r^ 00 ITO�`i
8 7 (15) D
(20) 9
y/
(r)
(4) 3 3 (3) 9 (7) 10 (8) 6 5
6 T (8)
3 7
(6)
(5) 2
g 5 I (9) (10)
(2) 1 II 12 13
.,i8 1 1
///00
COUNTY ROAD /0720 /0706
//s (�VI /NNET011h�fq BLVD
5
(15) I (10) it
1
N
(14) I (I3) (35)
4 3
(II) 02)
5A I 2 2
6
(16)
4 21/2 2 4
/B SUBJECT PL
PROPERTY 5
3 /9
C34I /O• x(31) (22) (21) (33) G
2 14 13 12 1
(33;
4 Gm
(26) 8
(29) 8
0 a' (30) (19) (20) (32) (31
1 9 10 II
,/7)
/4 /2 (23)
/0 8
ROAD
Variance Request
Gregory and Susan Hayes
7 Webster Place
Hopkins, MN 55305
#2
The existing parcel is 89,851 square feet. We are requesting that the lot be split into
two parcels: parcel B which will contain the existing home would have 31,351 square
feet and parcel A would have 58,500 square feet and would be the site for our new
home.
#3
There are two possible access points to this lot, one from the west and one from the
east. Since our western access to the proposed parcel A is denied to us because of
the Minnesota Protected Waters Act, we are forced to access the proposed lot from the
east. To meet the 40,000 square foot requirement, we would have to place the house
so far down the hill that access on the steep slope would be impossible and would
place the structure too close to the wetland.
v 1.4
X11 9r
f^ 1 6
v Q 1 ts6
L �V 1•
H1noS
1
caul auoydall ...wo poay 2s6
°1 3
°ra
1k v t
r
N A V h
o ZS6 •-•Sl a P I t`
b D rivf w
Arlo EOf� t be y
y o56 a I
946 �b r
446 t' }1 I
=fit i Z O •16 49
a boo
y
:96:1216 T 0£6
I 02
00'0Sl
vi6-
gib
@16
1
O r 916
P U 1p 416
Q
f
jrm 0 1
00:
m
ID
-4.1 1 fib' 10 i\ b j
m t77,,,-
/6 pP
7 1DN c
r /b
--if 6-
JI �'1'�
v -1, ,33 /r"
/2 .1;1*
ill
�o, I G
4-
o V ,o �O
—1 i 0/
f/
ELLEN LAVIN
S ATTORNEY AT LAW
14 LORING ROAD
HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343
(61 2) 935-1440
March 17, 1993
City of Hopkins
Zoning and Planning Commission
1010 So. First Street
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
RE: HAYES VARIANCE APPLICATION
Dear Members of the Commission,
I was notified by mail today that the Hayes' will be seeking a
variance in order to subdivide their lot at 7 Webster Place. I live at
14 Loring Road. The back yard of my house faces the back yard of
their house. This was the first I heard that this variance was being
requested. 1 attempted to reach Mr. Mrs. Hayes today to discuss
their plans, but was unable to do more than leave a message on
their machine.
I am leaving the country tomorrow morning for two weeks and
will not be back until after your March 30 meeting. Since I have
no information on their plans other than your notice I must object
to any variance in lot size.
This neighborhood association spent a good deal of time a few years
back seeking to have the Zoning Planning Commission and the
City Council increase the minimum lot size in Bellgrove to its
current size. We did this because there had been several
subdivisions at that time and we believed that if this trend
continued the unique character of the neighborhood would be
substantially changed. The Commission and Council agreed with us
and made the change to the current square footage. I see no reason
now to change this position.
I respectfully request that their request for variance for a smaller
lot size be denied.
Sincerely,
7 1 7;--,..,_
410 CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ93 -7
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a variance entitled VN 93 -3 made by
Gregory and Susan Hayes is recommended for denial.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance entitled VN 93 -3 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on February 15, 1993.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a meeting on March 30, 1993 and
reviewed such application.
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City
Staff and the Planning Commission were considered.
41 11 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the
City of Hopkins that based on the above findings, the application for
VN 93 -3 is recommended for denial based on the following reasons:
1. That the property does not have an undue hardship to justify
granting the variance.
2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property
without the variance.
3. That the lot meets the literal interpretation of the minimum
20 foot frontage requirement but it does not meet the
practical intent of the frontage requirement.
Adopted this 30th day of March, 1993.
John T. Hutchison, Chairman
4110