Variance-Leadens InvestigationsDecember 13, 1988 Planning Report: VN88 -9
Supporting Documents
o Staff Analysis
o Site Plan
o Resolution
J'
11K1 ` ')i ( "t ,4 0 n.Dc \
Nancy ' Anderson
Community Development
Analyst
VARIANCE - LEADENS INVESTIGATIONS
Proposed Action:
Staff recommends the following motion: "Move that the 6 foot side yard
and 25 foot rear yard setback variance is denied.
The denial of these variances will not, allow the applicant to
construct the addition as proposed. -
Overview.
In addition to the rezoning and the waiver of plat, Mr. Leaden is also
requesting setback variances for the proposed addition. The required
setbacks are: 10 feet for the side yard. and 35 feet for rear yard.
These setbacks are required because Mr. Leadens property butts a
residential district. Mr. Leadens is requesting a 4 foot side yard
setback and a 10 foot rear yard setback.
Staff is recommending denial of the variance request because the
property does not have a hardship to warrant a variance and the
property has a reasonable use.
Issues to Consider.
o Is the property put to a reasonable use without the
variance?
o Is there a hardship to allow the variance?
Staff Analysis.
- Is the property put to a reasonable use without the variance?
The property without the addition has a reasonable use. It is used as
an office building and will continue to be used as an office building
with or without an addition. The applicant has submitted a site plan
with an addition that complies with the setback requirements.
The Ordinance requires that the property must have an undue hardship.
The State Statute states "undue hardship as used 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 this property not created by the landowner, and the variance
if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship
if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the
rdinance ". The subject property does not have a hardship. There is
othing unique about this property that would justify the granting of
the variance. I checked several other cities zoning ordinances to see
if they had a large setback when a business district abutts a
residential district. All the cities had a large setback when a
residential district abutts a business district.
Alternatives.
VN:88 -9
Page 2
Is there a hardship to allow the variance?
1. Approve the variances as requested. By granting the
variances, the applicant will be able to construct the
addition as proposed. If the variances are approved, the
Commission will have to make Findings of Fact to support
their decision.
2. Deny the variances. By denying the variances the
applicant will have to move the addition to comply with
the setbacks.
3. Continue for further information. If the Commission
feels that additional information is needed, the item
should be continued.
KODET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, LTD.
15 GROVELAND TERRACE
MPLS., MINI•'. 55403
377 -2737
0 KOOET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, LTD. 1988
0
o\
Lfl
cc
DEC. 9 1988
EXISTING
/ CONCRETE
PAVING
'` BITUMINOUS pAVING�
= =usTING
PROPERTY LINE
SITE PI AN
20'0"
11.51
EUISrING 31rORAINOUS
PAVING
PROPO5 EO
PROPERTY' LINE
// EXISTING I V2 STORY
w000 FRAME- SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE
/ / / / / / / / /// /
133.0
j
REMOVE Ex15TING
WOOD FE
EXISTING
PROPERTY L lr1£
EXISTING ONE STORY
CONCRETE DLOCK/BRICK
PA IL DING 1625.6 SP
PK)POS
EP
Dull DIN G
ADDITIO N
1,620 5.F
PROPOSED FENCE IVOOD- TO MATCH EXISTING
EXISTI CON PAV
4
PROPOSED W000 FENCE
L a
TO MATCH EXISTING
/EXISTING
GARAGE
4.
EXISTING
GARAGE ON
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
In
NO TN
9
S
m
DET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, LTD.
GROVELAND TERRACE
MPLS., MINN. 55403
377 -2737
ON '
I
c� I
O
L
NOV. 2 3 1888
' REMOYE Exi5TING'
1N1000 FENCE
�� - ---- ^�. - - - _ j
PROPERTY PRO(�E17 LINe PROPOSED
. C.I - hITUMINOUS PAN/ IN -
PROPOSED FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING
— '�pusTrNG
PROPERTY LINE
2005F DECREASE TO
MARE ADDITION OOP
COMPAT15 W/
EXISTING .
(5UILDING
EXISTING (IruMINoug
PAVING
PROPOSED
PROPERTY LINE
tr) ' j EXISTING (V2 STORY �/
Nt w000 FRAME- SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE
/////////// /
1
_SITE LIMITATIONS DIAGRAM
SITE PL AN
1 °=
/ 57 NG ONE STORY
CONCR (bLOCKARICK
P�UIL DING 1.625.6 5F
1 ADpIItiO 9e
5P
// ///
EXISTING CONCRGTE PAVINO
C
/ EXISTING
/ / //•
8^
�} O
35.0
EXISTING
GARAGE ON
ADJACENT
PROPERTY
9
2
U
< ry
0
2
PROPOSED WOOD FENCE
TO MATCH EXISTING
Donald J. Milbert, Mayor
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 89 -3
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN:89 -9
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled
VN88 -9 made by William Leadens, 1202 East Excelsior Avenue,
to allow a four foot side yard setback and a ten foot rear
yard setback for an addition to the existing building is
denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application
is as follows:
1 That an application for Variance VN88 -9 was
filed with the City of Hopkinson December 9,
1988.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviwed
such application on December 27, 1988.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant
to mailed notices, held a public hearing on
December 27, 1988 and January 31, 1989; all
persons present at the hearing were given an
opportunity to be heard.
4 That the written comments and analysis of the
City Staff and the Planning Commission were
considered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for
Variance VN88 -9 is hereby denied subject to the following
Findings of Fact:
1. The property can be put to a reasonable use.
2. The applicant does not have a circumstance
unique to his property to warrant a variance.
Adopted this 7th day of February, 1989.