Variance-601 12th Ave. S.•
April 18, 1988
Overview.
II Issues to Consider.
- Supporting Information.
o Background /Analysis
o Alternatives
o Location Map
}iiro Oofur
Nancy ( Anderson
Commun ty Development
Analyst
O P
K
CHARLES ALBERTSON - VARIANCE
601 — 12th Avenue South
Planning Report: VN88 -
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: That the request for variances
to expand the existing building to allow a 10 foot side yard variance
and a F.A.R. of .6 is denied.
Adoption of this motion will not allow the applicant to construct the
proposed addition.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 36'xlt7' addition in the rear
of the building. This addition will follow the existing building line
on the north side. The existing building and addition will have a 10
foot side yard. The ordinance requires a 20 foot side yard. The
existing building has a F.A.R. of 50. With the addition the site will
have a F.A.R. of .64. The ordinance requires a maximum F.A.R. of .60.
o Should this site have more building than allowed?
o Is there a hardship to allow the variance?
o Future uses for the building.
o Site Plan
o Resolution
Planning Report: VN88 -2
Page 2
Background.
Name of Applicant: Charles Albertson
Address of Property: 601 - 12th Avenue South
Present Zoning: I -1
Reason for Request: Need additional production and storage space
Nature of Request: A 10 foot northerly side yard variance and to
exceed the maximum F.A.R. by .04.
The existing building was constructed in the early 60's. At that time
three variances were granted; a 15 foot front yard variance, a 5 foot
rear yard variance and a 10 foot east side variance. Since the
building was constructed the ordinance has been changed. The
ordinance now requires a 20 foot side yard. The existing building has
since received another front yard variance when an addition was
constructed along the front of the site.
The addition will give the site a F.A.R. of .64. The ordinance allows
a maximum F.A.R. of .60 in an I -1 district.
The site is surrounded by industrial uses on the west and south side,
Nine Mile Creek to the east and the creek and Little League Field to
the north.
Analysis.
The existing building is legal non - conforming. The existing building
could not be constructed today as is without any variances. If the
addition is constructed the site will be almost lot line to lot line
with building.
The future of the site should be considered. The applicant has stated
he does not have a parking problem. However, we must consider the
consequences with the parking if a new tenant moves into the building.
The only parking on -site will be the spaces in the rear of the
building. The applicant currently does not have the required parking
spaces. The area where the addition is to be constructed can be used
for parking.
The applicant plans to upgrade the site with other improvements. The
plans include: 1. pave the gravel areas around the building; 2.
provide parking for eight cars; 3. landscape the front of building
with trees, shrubs, lawn and; 4. paint the new addition to match
existing building. The addition will require the applicant to plant
two trees.
The applicant needs additional space, but in order for the applicant
to obtain a variance a hardship has to be proven. The ordinance
4111 requires a hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual
property under consideration. The applicant posses no unique
circumstance or hardship that would allow the granting of a variance.
The existing building does not have the required parking now or the
proper setbacks. It does not seem logical to intensify the non-
conformity of a site and building.
Planning Report: VN887 -2
Page 3
One solution to this problem would be to have the addition meet the 20
foot setback. The applicant would have to jog the side in, but no
variances would be needed. The F.A.R. with the 47'x 26' addition is
.60. With a 20 foot setback there could be additional parking on the
west side.
Alternatives.
1. Grant the 10 foot side yard variance and F.A.R. variance.
By granting the variances the applicant would be able to
construct the proposed addition. The Commission would
then have to formulation Findings of Fact to support this
alternative.
2. Deny the variances. By denying the variances the
applicant will not be able to construct the addition as
proposed. The applicant would have the ability to revise
the plans to meet the ordinance. A 47'x26' addition
could be constructed.
3. Continue for, further information. If the Commission feels
that further information is needed, the item should be
continued.
1
2
(22) 3 _
/40/
132/
15(57)
14(56)
13(55)
23
- -(42
22
21(63)
2 •
19 (60
18(60)
■59)
16(58)
i6)
ts
p
13 05 - 1315
(8)
24Z J } i 17 i i /202, 1
2301 I 2 1 } 16 1.4 2
2 i a3 I 15 1 (4) - 1
i1
11 5 1
I 6
1 I }
1
�11II 9 } I
0I 1
I
LOT 3
1110 //06 //02
(1)
LOT 6
-S-TREET Sp
2
3
4
12 "-/ / - \V So.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 88 -30
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN88 -2
WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled
VN88 -2 has been made by Charles Albertson, 601 12th Avenue
South, to construct an addition with less than the minimum
sideyard setback.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application
is as follows:
1 . That an application for Variance VN88 -2 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on March 30,
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 and May 31, 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 Commissions were
considered.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hopkins
City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect
to VN88 -2:
1. That there are no circumstances presented by
the applicant in regard to hardship or unique
circumstances to justifyd the requested
variances
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the
property.
Adopted this 7th day of June, 1988.
Donald J. Milbert, Mayor