Loading...
Variance-Leadens InvestigationsDecember 13, 1988 Issues to Consider. o Is the property variance? o Is there a hardship Supporting Documents o Staff Analysis o Site Plan o Resolution Nancy( . Anderson Commun ty Development Analyst Overview. In addition to the rezoning and th requesting setback variances for setbacks are 10 feet for the s These setbacks are required beea residential district. Mr. Leade setback and a 10 foot rear yard se VARIANCE LEADENS INVESTIGATIONS The denial of these variances will construct the addition as proposed. Staff is recommending denial of the variance property does not have a hardship to warrant property has a reasonable use put to a reasonable to allow the variance? Planning Report: VN88 -9 Proposed 'Action: Staff recommends the following motion: "Move that the 6 foot side yard and 25 foot rear yard setback variance is denied. not allow the applicant e waiver of plat, the proposed addi ide yard and 35 use Mr. Leadens ns is requesting tback. Mr. Leaden is also tion. The required feet for rear Yard. property butts a a 4 4 foot side yard request because a variance and use without the the the Staff Analysis. - Is the property put to a reasonable use without the variance? The property without the addition has a reasonable use. It is used as an office building and will continue to be used as an office building with or without an addition. The applicant has submitted a site plan with an addition that complies with the setback requirements. - Is there a hardship to allow the variance? 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 of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to this property not created by the landowner, and the variance 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 subject property does not have a hardship. There is nothing unique about this property that would justify the granting of the variance. I checked several other cities zoning ordinances to see if they had a large setback when a business district abutts a residential district. All the cities had a large setback when a residential district abutts a business district. Alternatives. . Approve the variances as requested. By granting the variances, the applicant will be able to construct the addition as proposed. If the variances are approved, the Commission will have to make Findings of Fact to support their decision. 2. Deny the variances. By denying the variances the applicant will have to move the addition to comply with the setbacks. 3. Continue for further information. If the Commission feels that additional information is needed, the item should be continued. : r N KODET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, LTD. 15 GROVELAND TERRACE MPL.S., MIN14. 55403 377 -2737 _. NOV. 2 3 1988 REMOVE 000 FENCE STING - rise.: -_- z �.s .lSs =awe= _ xv r ING PROpERrY LINE PROPOSE MITUMINOUS PAVING -" 1 =pu5TrNG PROPERTY LINE • EXISTIN0 CONCRETE PAVING 200 5F DECREASE TO MAKE ADDITION ROOT cOMPATIISLE W E) I STI NG INJILDING EXISTING MITUMINOUS PAVING PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE EXISTING 1 y2 ` STORY W000 FRAME- SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE / /iii /ice / /// 133.0 - SITE LIMITATIONS DIAGRAM SITE PLAN to= 20!ou // EXISTING CONCRGTE PAVING EXISTING ONE STORY CONCRETE IbLOCK/13RICK BUILDING I625.G 5P I PROIa05ED DtJiLDrt4G 11 A 9so 5F / /(//// PROPOSED PENCE TO MATCH EXISTING f�CISTING / ///// ►.d Q E XI5TING p , GARAGE ON PROPERTY PROPOSED WOOD FENCE: TO MATCH EXISTING Q tn m KODET ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, LTD. GROVELAND TERRACE MPL: MINA. 55403 377-2737 iri f 200 SF DECREASE TO AAAI(E AUDITION ROOF OOMPATi I LE W _ EXISTING ©UULp1NG �,,..... -- - REMOVE Ex15r,NC3 WOOD FENC E = :-Srt -ass - EXISTING PROC'E rY SINE PROPOSE° I C-- 15111M WOOS PAVING // /7:7 ur . i / EXISTING3 I 2 y STORY � � `t' f WOCO FRAME SINGLE / f FAMILY RESIDENCE //////////(/ EXISTING ONE STORY coHCRETE 15LOCK/gRICK BUILDING 1 SF PROPOSED ::FENC E WOOD TO MATCH EXISTING CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 89 -3 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN:89 -9 WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN88 -9 made by William Leadens, 1202 East Excelsior Avenue, to allow a four foot side yard setback and a ten foot rear yard setback for an addition to the existing building is denied. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1 That an application for Variance VN88 -9 was filed with the City of Hopkins on December 9, 1988. 2 That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviwed such application on December 27, 1988. 3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a public hearing on December 27, 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 application for Variance VN88 -9 is hereby denied subject to the following Findings of Fact: 1. The property can be put to a reasonable use. 2. The applicant does not have a circumstance unique to his property to warrant a variance. Adopted this 3rd day of January, 1989. Donald J. Milbert, Mayor