Loading...
Variance-215 6th Ave. N.• July 13, 1988 Issues to Consider. Supporting Documents. Detailed Background o Location Map. o Site Plan o Resolution VARIANCE REQUEST 215 - 6th Avenue North Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: That the request for a one foot sideyard variance is denied by Resolution No 88 -66. Denial of this variance will not allow the applicant to construct the garage as proposed. Overview. The applicants constructed a retaining wall last summer in their rear yard with the idea that a 22'x 22' garage would be constructed with a 2 foot sideyard setback which was the required sideyard setback at the time. Fill was brought in to make the yard level with the alley. The applicants were concerned about the filled area settling and therefore decided not to construct the garage until the summer of 1988. Last winter the sideyard setback for detached buildings vas changed from 2 feet to 3 feet. Does the previous setback apply in this situation? Does the subject parcel have a hardship? Nancy S Communi Analyst Anderson Development Planning Report: VN88 -7 • • VN88 -7 Page 2 Detailed Background. The subject lot is 65'x 134'. The proposed 22'x 22' garage is to be placed on the southeast corner of the lot. The retaining wall as constructed allows a 2 foot sideyard setback to . the south. This setback cannot be increased with the garage as proposed because steps have been constructed abutting the service door of the garage. If the garage was moved further north, the garage would be constructed on these steps. The ordinance was changed because the building code requires a 3 foot setback. In the past there were problems with residents inquiring about setbacks and getting different answers, one for zoning and another for building code. It was decided to make the building code and the zoning setback the same. The building code does allow a lesser setback if a fire wall is constructed. A building permit is valid for 180 days. If construction is not started within this time period another permit must be obtained. Analysis. - Does the previous setback apply to this situation? The ordinance was changed from 2 feet to 3 feet, but the applicants possess no vested interest in the old ordinance because of what they were planning on doing. If a building permit was obtained before the ordinance was changed and construction started within 180 days, the old ordinance would have applied. - Does the subject parcel have a hardship? The applicants constructed a retaining wall and filled an area with the intention that a 22'x 22' garage with a 2 foot sideyard setback would be constructed. The applicants are claiming that since the retaining wall is already built, and to conform with the 3 foot setback, it would take rebuilding of the retaining wall. The Ordinance requires that the property must have an undue hardship. The state statute states "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 the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, VN88 -7 Page 2 if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." The situation that the applicants are in was created by them. The applicants have a 65 foot wide lot, which would allow a larger garage with proper setback than what is proposed. There is nothing unique or special to this lot that would allow granting of the variance. The only reason the applicants have requested this variance is because it would be expensive moving the stairs. Economic considerations alone cannot constitute an undue hardship. The applicants do have the option of constructing a 22'x 21' garage without moving the stairs.. Alternatives. 1. Approve the variance as requested. By. granting the variance the applicant will be able to construct the garage as proposed. If the variance is approved the Commission will have to make findings of fact to support their decision. 2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance the applicant will either have to move the stairs or reduce the size of the garage. 3. Continue for further information. If the Commission feels that additional information is needed, the item should be continued. 6 (132) 5 (130 4030) 3029) 2028) 10 025 7 C74) 1(73) 172) (70 (69) 38) 57) i6) 5) 4) 2/C 3 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: A)L %6 N dZ1ko 0 u) 1 -91P4‘ 9 -ag/yoD f�iX C t4 4C-gcn 5'C c.X RGGI t.t 1P- MCV i*) #H(o ITV f0rz A gCiathl:rtee, kiac-c 17,1,';R-ct4t =-r7 40 i - » v 14 c-S,,0 - ruRti 1 D 14,;30 !A i-- PO4 Ay, 'T RE4uI2 M,Erv'; `, (g 03-17A(.4.413 lfrt T) Conditions 6. 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? 14 / 1 6 4 W(2 Old L ( ( to `) 3 r e r r ogc � Fi cr A /4. LA Y , L th e YU iQc' Tt/ C'O/Z/V, :i- IL O F ce—r w 4 1 1�/Lry eta p ing(, N Co r'ptr? r vt t.) i vi7 rz,> 7 - 0,9 ice List of Homeowners Contacted by Applicant C. Submit a list of names r rl� 5 EA) and addresses of neighbors contacted. "02-Lt ," f ai. i 1Nkras :-.205 'h1 ilk" r'A/A ou' 57r4 Ah/e . 1lc700 ?- 4. w fq s ►:Jo6.0.1 ,tv 14- T1 t 6 1 & R pro' rr ®P P/ 4- t- i g Ta Ai " - -04c i/ A re 1> LAG vcL L4, m r t-f )4 e 4P ezie? �� igi ft 0 .a0 C ► OZ 17 -re e- 0 s ; r2 u AA?, J✓ to VA' LC is st7D f/t c 774 S r+r, By r` - rr-t 4S. x-7— r Owl: coil) f f$ R 0 2.4 a, / t4 ra p 4 i i, i 2 © r ' - I g *". ,Jo r d A , 2 , n i n – 4.41-5 !2 sp u i r2 / r ? #Q/ eel •bv LJ63 S'a .va {( _ rT At, S PC4 LS o Atfl- TA.; &o)2 c, fltl Al .s- o 1W Pgrz► r-r 4 n)a 0.) Pk 6 S f v ' ► ' r te E A n) o C A ? k J . S P f l t o rsC- 0 1 5 3 1 – r Tl LLD w i.e> • T To S s rr C 13t4,1 i-47/ - $ f c i ,Era ;re K s To L 7' ;- : 3 6 Tij "Ca G tc frvb nom: r -7E PPo Pr: f2TY' 4- of > -,,e/17 r3 00rt1 C rum. 6 firDE 5 fv C-7'q r .nT r rv` c k? ro c e- HAS r<3 »c' h,i F 6t4 r tT IJ —► t-'t 6,9'1 1 i J r f) a'L r x 6,o ppa, I TH 82 fs1mT s r' ' i4C 1C )L X T/z et/s t r co-e2 ©t= T / - l f z 1 2 T 7 4 i +'t1 t ni co i J ,Q- « � 1� Sege- t ,3 Le- r 0-r T.tl - >4n 4 JF THrz j `7'►Pif fL s •r G l i n/ T1-4 NAME ADDRESS Z /5 (IP A klE )\-/b JZT 4-I CITY IdoP KLNc NANA . 1 1 [ • Q ( Neighborhood Building & Remodeling 933 -7673 � DATE ✓ c T (`._, 2-i4 "Mtc 5 1' F•I f A D E� � `''� /6,1)( 7 D. I-}. D. 21 ;( 8 S'rr. SEF�IIGE �po� 22 Zr ' /r', 5 24' PHONE G1 E_ NO VERBAL AGREEMENTS RECOGNIZED / By Purchaser Pv Co- Purchaser • - _ oftweimm O •'3 _ Ln L 6 " 111.1011.10r • 0 let / S ovt Z L5 Nv ,1?-,,,ks e ,,8 /{ / . He efi tee 0-0/ or / e ncl I h 3o cp/ ior a.. alockg4 .2/70/ • CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 88 -66 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE 88 -7 WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN88 -7 has been made by Larry and Sharon Smoots, 215 - 6th Avenue North, to construct a garage at less than the minimum sideyard setback is denied. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN88 -7 was filed with the City of Hopkins on July 8, 1988 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on July 26, 1988. 3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a public hearing on July 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. Adopted this 2nd day of August, 1988. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hopkins City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to VN88 -7: 1. That the circumstance of the requested variance was created by the landowner. 2. The applicant does not have a circumstance unique to his property to warrant a variance. 3. The property can be put to a reasonable use. Donald J. Milbert, Mayor