Frontyard Setback-LWM Partnership•
•
•
February 16, 1988 Planning Commission Report: VN88 -1
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: The request by LWM
Partnership (Dennis Madden) for a zero front yard setback is denied.
Adoption of the motion will not allow Mr. Madden to construct the 18
foot addition into his front yard.
Overview.
On November 5, 1986 the City Council granted the applicant a variance
to construct an addition with a zero front yard setback. The addition
that affected the front yard setback was approximately 30'x 6'8" wide.
The applicant is now wanting to go approximately 18 feet further south
along the front. The construction that was approved has never been
started.
Issues to Consider.
o Whether the applicant possess a hardship to grant the
variance.
o Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property
without the variance?
o What were the reasons for the original variance which was
awarded?
Supporting Information.
o Background
o Analysis
o Location Map
o Site Plan
•Ondonva6n
Nancy Anderson
Commu i
Y ty Development
Analyst
K
LWM PARTNERSHIP - DENNIS MADDEN
• VN88 -1
Page 2
BACKGROUND
On November 5, 1986, the City Council approved a front yard variance
for an addition. They approved this variance with the following
Findings of Fact: That there would be no greater intrusion into the
front yard than the existing building. Staff recommended denial of
the variance at that time. The variance granted on November 5, 1986
is unaffected by this request, it can be built at any time.
The applicant has changed the interior design of the new addition and
existing bar. When the applicant applied for the last variance the
new addition consisted of a dance floor and seating for 90 people.
Now the interior consists of billards with seating for 24 along the
front only. The area of the new variance request will be used for
seating and a new entry.
ANALYSIS:
Name of Applicant: LWM Partnership (Dennis Madden)
Address of Property: 17 - 8th Avenue South
Present Zoning: B -3
Reason for Request: To add a new entry and additional seating
along 8th Avenue
Nature of Request: A zero front yard setback 18 feet further
south than previously approved.
The applicant has no hardship. Without this addition the applicant
still has reasonable use of the property. Economic situations can be
considered but cannot be the sole reason for granting a variance. The
applicant will still be able to construct the previous approved
addition.
The applicant without the variance will have reasonable use of the
property. Bursch's is a restaurant /bar and will continue to be one
without the variance.
The variance on November 5, 1986 was granted on the following Finding
of Fact: "That there would be no greater intrusion into the front yard
than the existing building ". This finding is not a hardship. The
previous variance has been granted; that is not the issue now, but the
granting of this variance requires a hardship. The applicant does not
have a hardship to grant this variance request.
ALTERNATIVES.
1. Approve the variance. This alternative would allow the
applicant to construct with a zero front yard setback.
2. Deny the variance. This alternative would let the
applicant construct only the previously approved
addition.
3. Continue for further information. If the Commission fees
that additional information is needed the item should be
continued.
•
•
•
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin Count, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 88 -17
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN88 -1
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled
VN88 -1 has been made by LWM Partnership, 17 - 8th Avenue
South, to construct a new entrance with a zero setback.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application
is as follows:
1 That an application for Variance VN88 -1 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on February 2,
1988.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on February 24, 1988.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant
to mailed notices, held a public hearing on
February 24, 1988; all persons present at the
hearing were given an opportunity to be heard.
4. That the written comments and analysis of the
City Staff were considered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hopkins
City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect
to VN88 -1:
1. That there does not exist a unique circumstance
or hardship that would justify approval of the
variance.
2. That the granting of this variance would not
eliminate or minimize a non - conforming building
but would, in fact, enlarge upon an existing
non- conformity.
Adopted this 1st day of March, 1988.
No Az poitim
"►n frrQvfs± hAs
nrs ma dQ am appl,'ca
Donald Milbert, Mayor
J
1
//77/7/?
n
/71/1///////z
jII I11 /
i
rili111111
J
0 0
as
MAINSTREE7
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
•
•
NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when
the strict enforecment of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an undue hard-
ship to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property.
Har dship to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted
only in unusual situations which were not foreseen when the Zoning Ordin-
ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely
considered a valid hardship.
Hardship A.
Conditions B.
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue
hardship:
The variance has already been granted for part of the addition. This is
a request for an additional 18 feet to that variance. The previous variance
allowed an additional 90 seats. The new proposal calls for only approximately
24 additional seats since the majority of the area will be for pool tables.
What are the special conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic
conditions, etc.) of this request that are unique to this property and
do not apply generally to other properties in the district?
n/a
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted.
WAIF
■
LtLD1 M'LX
et gALYT(
J MAIL, (,R ?Pt L KC-t S 9D
0 0 0 0 0
P�r'L r JI\(C-f LAIDU'(
f.Xl11JL, 6AP.
Lb 0.1 VAllh
. y :cr.:.:r. »:s.- �.•. . *:- .�•_.�^v;.aas•.�e+m:' :: y a= sd,< nq ..�r,.- :.suva= reti.resar•Z�r
_ -
IBC 1itml A..■ M M
X rt*
fei0 49/0/
Ullktaett
`\• co
f;VIL� II 111 O / T - - - - F
/ I I
UArULE I
OLmR *""u4
titvkfto
PREVIOUS
0 0 0 O 0 0
REQUEST
LAS/ J?U.
E
_• . bi[16ulA6C•' •
• • • • • LAUD ) LlPiL1(.7
r.S(;ON ASSOCIA L;. x
634 MENDELSSOH
OOLa€M VALLEY, MN
MON
AUG 2 9 1986
N111\1111ft.`■ 1 \ II\
4
L
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 20, 1987
TO: Zoning and Planning Commission
FROM: Nancy S. Anderson .
SUBJECT: Proposed Language for Side Yards in Industrial
Districts
Because of the recent problems with the language of
eliminating one side yard in Industrial Districts, we are
suggesting new language.
The new language is as follows:
Two abutting buildings may have a zero side lot
line providing:
a) a 10 foot maintenance easement for that
portion of the buildings not abutting each
other
b) if both abutting structures are not
constructed at the same time a 10 foot
maintenance easement shall be obtained from
the abutting vacant lot until such time as
the lot is built upon
c) conformance to the Fire Code
d) the remaining side yard developed as a
vehicular access to the rear