Variance-Lots 5 & 6, Block 5, Hobby Acres4 1/ 1
April 19, 1988
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: That a 15 foot front yard
variance is approved.
Adoption of this motion will allow the applicant to construct a single
family home with a 20 foot front yard setback
Overview.
The subject property was purchased by the applicant from the County.
It was a vacant lot remaining following the Highway 18 construction.
The applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on the
lot. Because of the shape of the lot and utility /drainage easement on
the lot, construction of a home is difficult. The ordinance requires
a 35 foot front yard variance The applicant is requesting a 19 foot
front yard variance.
Issues to Consider.
o Does the drainage and utility easement
placement of the proposed home?
o Does the shape of the lot present
placement of the proposed home?
Supporting Documents
o Background /Analysis
o Alternatives
\af
Nancy. Anderson
Community Development
Analyst
P
0
Planning Report: VN88 -
VARIANCE REQUEST - DAN LAPHAM
Lots 5 & 6, Block' 5, Hobby Acres
•
•
Planning Report: VN88 -4
Page 2
Detailed Background.
Name of Applicant: Dan & Kathy Lapham
Address of Property: End of Wayside Road
Present Zoning: R -1 -D
Nature of Request: A 19 foot front yard variance
Reason for Request: The topography, drainage, sewage and access
require less than minimum setback from the abandoned section of
Wayside Road.
The applicant is proposing a 1,872 square foot home with a 990 sq. ft.
garage. The applicant has a handicapped daughter so all the living
area will be on one level.
Analysis.
The applicant purchased the subject lot from Hennepin County for the
purpose of constructing a single family dwelling. This lot presents
building problems because of the following:
- the shape of the lot
- the 40' drainage/utility easement
- the topography
III There is a 40' drainage /utility easement on the east side of the
property. The area cannot be built on, so the only buildable area is
on the west side of the lot.
The shape of the lot presents a problem on the west side. The lot is
the narrowest on this side. The lot is the widest on the east side
where the easement is.
The east and south sections of the lot a're low which presents drainage
problems when constructing a home.
A home has to be constructed north /south on the lot to take advantage
of the buildable area.
The proposed home will appear to be setback further than it really
will be. The actual paved road stops and the right -of -way area has
grown over with grass. The Director of Engineering has stated that
the cul -de -sac will probably never be moved further south towards the
applicants property.
The applicant is proposing a 39'x78' home. The garage will be
33'x30', which makes this structure 990 square feet. Garages are
usually 22'x24' or 528 square feet. the applicant does have a
handicapped van which needs more width than a normal garage, but the
width is not the problem in setbacks.
The site is difficult to construct a home on but a very adequate home
and garage can be built on the site with a larger front yard setback.
Planning Report: VN88 -4
Page 3
Alternatives.
1. Grant the 19 foot variance. By granting the variance the
applicant will be able to construct the home as proposed.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance the applicant
would have to make the proposed home smaller by 19 feet.
3. Grant a 15 foot variance. By granting this variance the
applicant would have to shorten the garage by 4 feet.
4. Continue for further information. If the Commission
feels further information is needed, the item should be
continued for a month.
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a ro
the strict enforecment of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an u
sh�� to the property p pertY owner when
Hard Hardshi to the applicant y owner or deny reasonable use of ndue hard -
hi In unusual c is the c test. the property.
foreseen whenethe ZoniinggOrdin-
ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely
considered a valid hardship.
Hardship A.
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause
undue
hardship:
... C ondtons . 8.
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?
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted. /d!o kti9rS/D�
36 LC2Xle / i'/-/r
Trji5 15 71) 1 ivowi - occutoIC Nom 6f)/ oD c P : .
1087446t-C-/2- S YL 1 u� /1167/1/6 S77) /5/50./(-/ Gui,D wwt�
, 9714 face&5 1>>1-/71
�2- uS� r-. MaTS ate' c oTS �iriD 7
E � /2 p ✓ /-14//127)/(.1 cam/ � a"04/ ,)
co/,, -? /lo/V 1 /8,
4C-C- rn �
/z i9i/u/,✓G ,AD/ /.95 u tr 5j347
D wig rrs 6Z_
D fL otim-iv'0v6 Ac�5. 77 5O�/.T7� elitO /S U. A 9 c/
j ii 5 MD 56C- t- 5 of 5-*2 • ui9T8,2 /971-4 5
747 si7
p oev ot=" vu9`r5 /D� 2.Dr /26/4-/ vt4,146H 777-5- __s-7.1319eir
l�i9s lS���v
0`}/21�i�9 !S B6/4/6 pEQtf�� � 6/245.5)-- / 1724,57.9
/ �i5/ !7A}O J /T fl/l J5 I �
5 GL - , * ? C [ .ff /S
'&1)6727-Y o it// LL >26/0e l9
30 Pneeti p2/(701.1.6 cam
?� leveV .e)19
40/ 5c 55/o/v 0 G 17Y' 5 l7 �f}
P0551 /j/tt7`r O � ival� 7�3fhv /yJN //111 "yo, � Off'
/R61-e rugvie t-(77-1-c---77-- &I-J(2 6g4:5s; /Pa& /5 it.&9/2/0
riftd55/6Lr 01(6 To T/fi Pm-c/I7N6 / z-09 Ate/) 711
p6 D1 w/w- L /92
vv6 /264'u -1- T T coin L
VI G -lv sal J r Tv 66 1=Roe i PielvEV CQ6t e 7
en/ /313/ .t.G9 got i2 6 7-7 OWL- f -
/ V1 (r 111002. ►// RICH // /t f 57-/ 5 A/ L
,nlO5T //t/f1 7175 /r -¢cf�
fro cr
/947(9`-7779-771i-'
/4,
( 2 7 )
DIVISION
•
- (26)
STATE
- - - 6.4n.
4
Abe
Ib /p '
' f .
f
pro o 1r
Diavrasir
v
•
4 .
(16)
1
•
1
•
•
•
•
HWY
•
•
•
1
•
". 1 1,11 k 101)
a HOLLOW
ooc •W$4
.•1«
.1
(li)
.pRa ��.
p •
.P%
•
•
•
1
•
(17)
•
- \' •
•
•
•
♦
♦
♦ ti.
♦ �. -
F
t - - - - -
1 •
f
1
•
1
(ro) 1
0/X# it"
• •J v
•
Y
N07
•
SCALE 1 inch* 50 feet
*cotes • it/4 ism* cooped if•* piled
1•
• 7
3
Found iron Mon:....
4
'
N83 °59•
{_3
/
Ira=
R
/
n l -ry :v 7 .. S ��
/1 2
• 1 f 4 ".
r -> i 5 ' /
1
ti ... .+#. =«e•
/ SCALE finch =300feet
/
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 88 -29
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN88 -
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled
VN88 -4 has been made by Dan & Kathy Lapham to construct a
single family home on part of Lots 6 & 7, Block 5, Hobby
Acres, with less than the minimum front yard setback.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application
is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN88 -4 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on April 5,
1988.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on April 26, 1988.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant
to mailed notices, held a public hearing on
April 26, 198; 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 the Hopkins
City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect
to VN88 -4:
�[ 1. A unique circumstance is present due to a 40'
drainage and utility easement on the east side
of the property.
r 2. That a hardship exists due to the easement and
the shape of the lot.
5 3. The negative impact of the variance will be
minimized due to the fact the lot in question
is located on an undeveloped right -of -way,
thereby reducing the visual impact of the front
yard setback.
Adopted this 3rd day of May, 1988.
Donald J. Milbert, Mayor