Variance Request-Lot 21 Block 22VARIANCE REQUEST
CITY OF HOPKINS
Lot 21, Block 22
West Minneapolis Center
Planning Commission November 15, 1985
Report No. VN -1
PURPOSE
Recommend action on a variance request at 53 Monroe Avenue South.
BACKGROUND:
The following is a summary of the pertinent information in relation to this appli-
cation:
Name of Applicant: David A. Nygren
Address of Property: 53 Monroe Avenue South
Present Zoning: R -1 -A
Variance requested: Construction of an addition to a non - conforming
garage
Reason for Variance: Current garage has a vehicle entrance of 18 feet,
ordinance requires 20 feet.
Ordinance 427.06(9) states non- conforming uses shall not be expanded beyond the
building in which said use is located at the time this Ordinance becomes effective.
The applicant is proposing to construct a 9'x22' garage. The present garage has a
vehicle entrance of 18 feet. Ordinance 427.08(4) requires a 20 foot vehicle entrance.
The garage with the addition would meet maximum square footage requirements.
ANALYSIS:
The applicantssituation is not unique from many garages within Hopkins which were
built before the present Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has stated that most
garages on his block are old and are closer than 20 feet to the alley. However,
the applicant has failed to show any special condition or undue hardship which
would allow the Planning Commission and City Council to grant this variance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the absence of warrant for special conditions or hardship, staff recommends
denial of the variance.
114351A
Nanc nderson, Analyst
Community Development
4t2 '
3Y '
it
::30
- +7
78
27
7'
15
24
STREET
Zi
Z6
24
73
a 1l
t :
SOUTH
•STORE E T = strino=E H" —
_______'___
1
4-1
. 53 : � h
pa 2 7 1 31 '0a E
C *" 53
$
Trod ,4
60.02
N3 °00'30" N
v �
53 50.f n-/ 010/
1
/43,x Pt 17 }
GAi f &( 15 lS x zz' /vD i5
/- - 191cK tr` Fgam Attri
MO at fuoig1 -I 5i0C q
jPC C1✓Ti /Z6 /fir
Sioir /vvTTc ll *is 6"
•
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
on 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.
FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY
Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue
hardship:
TT ()Jo (A, o
NOT i " 4 Th CX7E / / 6, i t,VHtcN 5175
V IoLA-1 L= T7- Zo 50- iAkk
Conditions B.
What are the s ec1a1 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?
NOK= , fro5T o f TNT 6Ai AUeX a•-) in i ?Loc.IC AA
Oco ,11./ o hat- aoi 7t a)' ro i C A (,
(AT vw ro 11 v cv , o to
List of Homeowners
Contacted by Applicant C.
Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted.
J K / ° C`W/ 1f9 /►10,^'// G L!
Z. /• S d 5a r /"C o
/37/7_, ST
v,„„
J AC 0-0&)
RESOLUTION NO.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF HOPKINS
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING APPLICATION
FOR VARIANCE VN -1
WHEREAS, an application for a variance entitled VN -1 has been made by
David A. Nygren, 53 Monroe Avenue South, to construct a garage at less than
the minimum vehicle entrance.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN -1 was filed with the City
of Hopkins on November 4, 1985.
2. That the City of Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on November 26, 1985.
3. That the City of Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notices, held a public hearing on November 26, 1985;
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 VN -1:
1. The existing garage is situated on the property such that it creates
a non - conforming vehicle entrance setback.
2. That the Planning Commission and City Council have a policy of
eliminating or minimizing non- conforming uses throughout the
City whenever possible.
3. That the granting of this variance would not eliminate or
minimize non - conforming use but would, in fact, enlarge upon
an existing non - conformity.
4. That there does not exist a special condition or hardship that
would justify approval of this variance.
Adopted this day of 1985.
Ellen Lavin, Mayor