Variance-341 Herman TerraceAdoption of this motion will not allow the applicant to construct the
proposed addition.
April 15, 1988 Planning Report: VN88 -5
VARIANCE REQUEST - ROGER JEWETT
341 Herman Terrace
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: That the request for a 3'10"
sideyard variance is denied.
Overview.
The applicant is proposing to extend his existing home with a 4'6"
addition along the entire west side of his existing home. This
addition will enlarge two bedrooms and den. The ordinance requires a
10 foot sideyard setback for homes in R -1 -C districts. The sideyard
setback with the addition will be 6'2" in the front and 10'4" in the
rear.
Issues to Consider.
Does the applicant posses a hardship or unique
circumstane.e.to warrant a variance?
o Is the property put to a reasonable use without
variance?
Supporting Documents.
o Background
o Analysis
1 ITtL amkf fl
Nancyy S. Anderson
Community Development
,Analyst
•
Detailed Background.
Planning Report: VN88 -5
Page 2
Name of Applicant: Roger Jewett
Address of Property: 341 Herman Terrace
Present Zoning: R -1 -C
Reason for Request: Need more room because of age.
Nature of Request: A 3'10" westerly sideyard variance
The existing home was built when the zoning ordinance had different
setbacks. The existing home does not have the required sideyard
setback on the east and front yard setback. The east sideyard setback
is approximately 5 feet and the front yard is approximately 26 feet.
The current ordinance requires 10 feet for a sideyard setback and 30
feet for a front yard setback. The existing home is legal non-
conforming.
The existing home with the addition will have a building coverage of
18 %. The ordinance allows a building coverage of 35 %.
The applicants property is surrounded by single family homes. The
abutting home on the west is 9'8" from the applicants property line.
The applicant has contacted some of the surrounding neighbors.
Analysis.
The applicant has stated that they need more room in the bedrooms and
den because of their age. The ordinance states the Commission must
find that the literal enforcement of the provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance would cause an undue hardship because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration, and that the
granting of a variance to the extent necessary to compensate for said
hardship is in keeping with the intent of the code.
The lot is slightly pie shaped which causes the setback problem but
the applicant does have reasonable use of the property because a home
exists on the property. Needing more room in an existing home is not
a hardship for the granting of a variance.
Alternatives.
1. Grant the 3'19" westerly sideyard variance. By granting
the variance the Commission will have to identify
Findings of Fact to support the granting of the variance.
Planning Report: VN88 -5
Page 3
2. Deny the 3'10" westerly sideyard setback variance. By
denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to
construct the addition as proposed.
3. Continue for further information. If the Commission
feels that additional information is needed, the item
should be continued.
5D
(26) ` p
3
(15)
FARMDALE • RD
104 /08 //2 /16 204 208
(88) (89) x(90 95 10 11
A 8 C Q 3)
1(61) (94) (9:
M TURNG
1
2 ? 2(62) =ADD.'
M 3(63) 40I-0340!
CI.7.
2
4(64) 402 4C
229 k:
•
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
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.
Hardship 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.
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue
hardship: I
�� a e- We t✓r / need Yoo i ,'n Oa r^ d a-nd
dam. TAe- h a-{d s/t'p Of 5 Zovt,`h CO0 Id coYCe- L l se to kinoYe
aryt ot4r S oone'r thti/r1 5, 1 e c-d , T h e- O f -Csct from 10'D /, C--
h as Clia yz s, e we ha,'at* The, pro / acid o -n hr u 1,1 b e✓
Conditions 6. h , 5 a the We- re- Oa &€
I'll / ;r►1 ,'t s .// Wou,1c be- Sa fe
e< ;v a S be -droem W,`n d .d Wo ti / &I e.e -t e ee,SS Cede- '� ,z ma 5
What are the special conditions (shape of lot, exc topographic
conditions, etc.) of this request that are unique to this property and
do not apply generally to other properties in the district?
l ti�
/Of 5 a ( stia fe,d f -6S w, � - ire »t aY►d
X46 �ee,� 1 '1/ � ; b �vc� {\ , Th s Yrt c�. e< 1, e f-ror,1 of
fate house- Cf cse N th jot / nL t din th. b avK
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted.
Ba t /,h95 , �►nah C.ourt
Ld st►r 6 , 1'n s- 33-8 firrn - , 1 7 e-rr a tt-
4da4,4 so)" S - 33 6 /4 amt -re r rd, .e-
84r1 h►a,nn s 3 `f'5 / -{rna'n TeYraGe-
Lot use fkAii
StYc,e,
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 88 -32
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN88 -5
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled
VN88 -5 has been made by Roger Jewett, 341 Herman Terrace, to
construct an addition at less than the minimum sideyard
setback.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application
is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN88 -5 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on April 7,
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, 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 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 -5:
1. That there are no warrants presented by the
applicant in regard to hardship or unique
circumstance to justify the requested variance.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the
property with the existing home.
Adopted this 3rd day of May, 1988.
Donald J. Milbert, Mayor