Variance-Harrison•
A
Y
0
July 14, 1989 P K \ Planning Report: VN89 -1
VARIANCE - HARRISON
201 Homedale Road
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: "Move to adopt Resolution No:
Z89 -11 recommending denial of a 10 foot rear yard variance."
Denial of this variance will not allow the applicants to construct an
addition to the rear of their home.
Overview.
The applicants live on the corner of Homedale and Goodrich Avenue.
Homedale is considered the front yard because it is the shortest
dimension on a public street. The applicants want to put a
25'x25'addition on the rear of their home. The rear yard setback is
35 feet. The addition will consist of a two stall garage and a two
story addition. The existing porch and garage will be removed. The
setback with the proposed addition would be 25 feet.
Staff is recommending denial because there is not a unique
circumstance with the subject site and a lack of hardship
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the subject lot posses an undue hardship
the granting of a variance?
Does the applicant have other alternatives to construct
addition or garage on the site?
Supporting Information.
o Analysis of Issues o Owner Statement
o Location Map o Resolution Z89 -11
Site Plan
S. Anderson
r
that would allow
VARIANCE - HARRISON
VN:89 -1
Page 2
o Does the subject lot posses an undue hardship that would allow the
granting of a variance?
The state statute states "To hear requests for variances form the
literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such
variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. '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 if the
landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the locality."
In this situation, the applicants do not have a hardship that would
justify the granting of a variance and they have reasonable use of the
property. The applicants bought the home knowing the problems on
adding an addition to the rear of the home.
There is nothing unique about the applicants property that would allow
a variance to be granted. The applicants state that their home faces
Goodrich which really would make the addition appear as in the side.
yard. This maybe true, but the ordinance does not address where the
home appears to have the main entrance. A home maybe built with the
main entrance in what the ordiance considers the rear yard. The
ordiance only addresses setbacks and not the designing or entrances of
the home. In this case the front is Homedale because it is the
shortest dimension of the lot.
Our ordinance is less restrictive than many other city ordinances in
dealing with corner lots. Many other cities use both, sides on a
corner lot as front yards which require greater setbacks than sides
yards.
o Does the applicant have any alternatives to construct a garage or
addition on the site?
This question always arises with variance requests and is important
because a variance should not be granted if there are other options to
the applicants. These options may not be the preferred, but will
still solve the applicants problem in obtaining a larger garage. The
applicant does have the option to construct a detached garage on the
site in the rear yard. Setback for detached buildings are not as
great as a principal building setbacks. The applicant can also put an
addition on the north or south side of their home if they need a
larger home.
Alternatives.
VARIANCE - HARRISON
VN:89 -1
Page 3
1. Approve the 10 foot rear yard variance. If the Commission
approves the variance, the Commission will have to state
findings of fact which justify the variance. By approving the
variance the applicants can build the addition as proposed.
2. Deny the 10 foot rear yard variance. By denying the variance
the applicant cannot build the addition as proposed.
3. Continue for further information. If the Commission feels
that further information is needed, the item should be
continued.
1
t(26)2
30 (42) p
29 Q"
o (27)3
28
27
4
5
26v -0-
N. (28)6
25
■
•7
24
24
p 8
.- (
23 (37) tb
22— - 1 -
(30)10
21 (36) to
tr) (31) II
20 ` -
(32)I?
19 (35) s Il
13
18
h (33)14
17 (34) N
15
16
O (43)
130
2
3
29(54)
0
28
Itnl
Iihi1
27
26 (53) `
28
(24) 27 ^L
25 (52) N
- wr-
c�
s
7
24
(45)
8
23 (51) 0
(16)
—
9
22
(46)1d
21 (50) pp
11
20
14
—
15
12
19 p
(47)
13
18 (49) -
14
17 (48) Ni-
15
16
If)
1
2
(13)
30 O
(25) 29
3
O 4
` 5
(14)
28
(24) 27 ^L
to
26 S)
123` 25
'
6
7
(I5)
122) 24 N
N.
—
8.
9
11
(16)
—
ict
23
22 to
(2�
20
h
12
13(17)
(20) 19 NI-
18
M
'b-
14
—
15
(18)
—
(19) 17 d-
- --lc..-.
16
If)
15
(49)
1726
(42) 8 -
N.
14 (48)
(43)9
to
of
13 (47)
(44)10
0
in
12 (46)
(45)11
•}.
30
(12) 29 p
(11) 27 N
26
(10) 25 p
24
(9) 23 p
• 22 •r•-
)
5)
6)
�6)
7)
;8)
39)
91)
30
(98) 29T,
— 28 a-
27
97) 26 i
25 N
(96)24 to
— 23 N
►0) r
p
(93)20 N
19
(92)18
-17 91--
t � 16 -
1709 /7/5 1727
LANE
BOYCE
GOODRICH
1 (75) 30
N 2 (85)29 p
N-
3 28
ciL
h- 4 (76T 27
5 ' (84)26' sm
6 (83)25 p
▪ 7 (77) 24 N
8 (82) 23 c
9 • 22 N
v 10 (78) 21
11 20
to 12 (81) 19
N 13(79) 18
►r) 14 (80) 17
15 16
N (8)
(7)
ST.
• 2 (12)
3 (13)
h 4(14)
5 (15)
6 (I6)'
7(17)
( 23)13 . co
(22)12 O
11. ; .et-
(21)
(20)
(1 9
( 18) 8 o
O 4 (66)
5
6 (67)
N• 7
14
15
(5)
ST
(24)
30
(74) 29
28
27
(73)26
25
24
ks
N. 8 (68) 23
N 9 (72)22
10 21
11 20 p �
12 71) 19 N
13 (69) 13
(70 )17
16
ist
(25)
(33)
(27)
2
• (2 8)
b 4
(29)
P.' 5
(30)
6
(31)
0,7
of (32)
(7) N
(9) m
it o
30
O 2 (55) (64)29 p
-N- 3 — 28 et-
4 (56)
5
N _ 6
7 (57)
N 8
9
tr 11(100)
12
p 13
N 14 (99)
15
(2) -
27
(63) 26 -N
-25
24
(62)23
22
21
(61) 20 ( I t
10
— 1& —
(60)1? z
0)
(1)
(2)
.d I i' °GP ' T 117 n •s
GOODRICH
CONCRETE
TILE
5.3
132.00
CONCRETE
WALK
EXISTIN
132.00
o. i
STREET
W
0
40 - es—
'
■•
�s.t ... HOUSE
A
• CoA2q f
G a
n
- 21.411O
48_19 . 5, rye o' - ..
NN
P
ni
EXIST.
GARAGE
0
tt
L -19 balm ,4 ?p
t
-ROCK RETAINING,.,D9
WALL 0 9
1
sz
25.0
4. 4 `/ A / /acu d 42Z.
_It JO. e d f L, UA,'A-ac
& . Aa* N.. O .e. R , d
D. 4 X. S (t nub /D•S dio
% 0,
%r.
Legal Description
Lots 1 and 2 and the North 10 feet of Lot 3, Block 10, F. A. SAVAGE'S
INTERLACHEN PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Scole: 1 inch = 20 feet
Survey for:
LEE HARRISON
JOB NO.
894 - 888.00
BOOK
36/17
Area = 11,889 square feet (0,273 acre)
-• Denotes iron monument found
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation
of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and of
the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible
encroachments, if any, from or on said land.
Dated this j/ day of f4me 1989
REHDER-WENZEL, INC.
Alvin R. Rehder, Land Surveyor
Minnesota Registration No. 13295
Rehder - Wenzel, Inc.
CONSUUAMGENGINEER& LANO SURVEYORS
10100 Morgan Avenue South • Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 ■ 18121111M
‘ek are /'7o 7 a /v ,7 2O,2 ?,'Z e
7'o/72 i ' ar; o� f{o� JUT / 4tea. / ,Pcc%
7T e /107125 f ,0417//h , / aclM 5
/nu,�e5 /7
/ oraPoseI aa6i 40)2 /vov /c/, er re.
Al` M / 6u c 0,4 /Fo //y
ZaoZs Li /ze. /-4e_ karrt The `Q // o�
e Z-07 /ow/25%
/ oro l oosecl ac6:Aon wo //5 , 7 / be CesS
i 'e 3S r22AX2/23u/V .
7/2e C '/ /P/77 ✓ yafQy . Qt?%ore% /Joel
exIeraci /D. r r �,- ray, - fjo its /voii/o/
e- rP/77ovG tJ eXeau,��tP2 a / /off cv
/91 22ar7a %a17 asyi`v /e.).be b. /7
his area. ot 2 /c/ e._ y /a s e Ga'>/-/
di rec7' aeeess . /he_ /oor
c /ra�i� �v�ll also Ur /ZG /4 .,y
aoWai be 6a /fors 7o`o. jis Qo/a/7,/1
Lvdv be a rr7 /7ra/ /.was e o f Cv/Y1r>7
Gr/ 7 ‘a//25 . O � I � , 2722e Q/Ia/ roo.�
wov/l be y6 /e /.
- 77-/i 5 ,Q ,C)", / ���i�iov/ 5/-ft� /W'r27`
. -5V70C 742P 4 va/1.a /Ct ( h0/77
y/om •h& /07ooe'r7`y /ii76 Gc>kaL Gvrr��1 /y
9a/-43 Gyt ao/ yo/1re /e
/e?;:qc/ /5 ,5/22 L272 c7 has f�lli� a�sao%
77/ '614ziv aaa is /a 4arro4J Q /40 4.
/7o a /low 7 4 'xg.
a/v/ d P5 /��eva /,
Sio ( v/-h e. home cps oc /�, 97-
Lox /e / dace. ex
Gvooll be. 'M 6acLyrcvh /& tqz/*
Gooey //4e yrd.
9 ,ezas e at2c/ a a/e2 i 7zol1 e /2 be
/2/a cec/ h e. �ovM ea77e/2 f
home. a e -Fee/ his Cvov /J b� 74, e s
7 `7 /2..er5 � horn an q c-iveaxv
Or7 /v s6h • hi// of how vov lo/
becl4i yo , ' o os- 9o/71 rt.51- /7c7,o//7A O�
//7GOmin5
v�sa6,�
,72c,Lik a owe. ea.,' yaras�
/ S rJo egooyh /ocw / 's /arc /, 'n vor°c/
oel ids Ci woa7 haoe- t 2I' .s 4rec/ /;7
.a.heec/ of osmer f G1 /7e/cvoa /o/
a 7 e oie • y -A' s/ 61//U - Ge2
Garin eiGh es e. / s avovii / ai -mow /,z- .beep
1� £2v./75 Gvi -h vh re areh/ /ecvrc, o
%/-h / h - , e!<66o02hooal G ve_ / -ee/
C �_/
/5 /w/� ,e7 a� phis ad 6D/J />e a/ow °e
1/7 0/Oper ma,v•r• /D 7e /ec7 '7z-h e- /9r. /e-
GtJc 4 z 0.0 ee/ Gv /)z-h
/ ? h o r s 6 t' 7 4- / 1 - 7 / 2 5 . Mv yb /y
o,_o's . a 7/7 7ivo/'
DU 72. ADOi77o/7 awl"
0a72
yaa /..S /7 . eE 6e.) 6 »7o5 //,..0e7 //v
` Darz7L
462( 7 2 9 ,4
'2 9 77
6P 7 , y 06 c 7C4 7 /S
f o,o& 7 ,f9,0/776 Sv,®,,&ne7`
■••■•••■•
•
1
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: Z89 -11
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL
OF APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN89 -1
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN89 -1, made
by Lee and Cynthia Harrison, 201 Homedale Road,
for a 10 foot rear yard variance to allow
construction of an attached garage and porch is
recommended for denial.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as
follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN89 -1 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on July 7,
1989.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on July 25, 1989.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission,
pursuant to mailed notices, held a public
hearing on July 25, 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
VN89 -1 hereby recommended for denial subject to
the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the subject lot does not have an undue
hardship that would justify granting a
variance.
2. That the applicants have reasonable use of
the property.
Adopted this 25th day of July, 1989.
Edward Anderson, Chairman