Variance-Add. Within Rearyard Setback. April 17, 1984
Case No: 84 -12
Applicant: Jeffrey Kinney
Location: 1505 West Excelsior Avenue
Request: Variance to construct an addition within rear yard setback
STAFF FINDINGS & COMMENTS: Kerrigan
1. The subject site is zoned B -3 and presently contains the former Phillips 66
gas station which is now being used strictly ,for auto repair.
2. The applicant is proposing to construct 2400 sq. ft. addition along the north
wall of his existing structure. This building would be cement block con-
struction containing two service bays. The height would be the same as the
existing garage, approximately 13'6 ". It would seem appropriate that if ap-
proved at a minimum the east wall should be the same form of decorative block
as this would be the most visible side of the structure.
3. The subject property abuts an R -1 -A residential area to the north.. 427.35 of
the Zoning Ordinance requires all B -3 uses with a rear yard abutting an "R"
• District to have the same setback as the abutting "R" District which in this
situation would be 25 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce
the setback to 10 feet. A 10 foot setback would be required if the site did
not abut an alley or residential property. The rear of the site is presently
vacant and unimproved with miscellaneous outside storage.
4. The expansion should create no major negative impact for the northerly residence
as this property is separated from the subject site by an alley and is at a
higher elevation. Letters have been submitted from the neighbor directly to
the west and north expressing support for the project.
5. With the addition, the site would still comply with floor area requirements.
However, because of the more intense use of the site, it would be appropriate
that landscaping be provided to lessen the overall impact. The applicant is
proposing to provide some plantings along the north wall of the addition. A
fence is to be constructed starting at the northeast corner of the addition
to somewhere near the east property line. Also, the sodded area along Excelsior.
between the curb cuts is to be removed and replaced with rock and shrubs. As
no details of the landscaping have been provided, the applicant has been ad-
vised to provide a plan which at a minimum shows the following:
(1) size, material, and exact location of fence
(2) size and type of plantings to be provided.
This site would also be improved substantially if some landscaping improvements
were provided along 15th. I have talked with the applicant about possibly pro -
viding something like a 3' sodded area along his east property line. A 32'
• fence of suitable material on the inside of the green area (also could be
plantings of suitable size) could be provided in order to lessen any negative
impact from possibile additional parking in this area as a result of the ex-
pansion.
• Case 84 -12
Page 2
6. 427.45(24) of the ordinance requires that for auto repair use, four (4)
parking spaces plus one (1) for each eight hundred (800) sq. ft. of floor
area over the first 1000 sq. ft. be provided. In this situation, in-
cluding the addition, 12 spaces are required which the applicant can
provide. If approved the applicant should stripe the parking lot in
accordance with the requirements of 427.43 - 427.44 of the zoning ordinance,
and be permitted to only park cars in these approved marked spaces.
7. The zoning ordinance states that a variance shall only be granted - apply to
a specific piece of property because of undue hardship due to circumstances
peculiar and unique upon such parcel. The applicant has stated that he is
requesting the variance for the reasons stated in #8 of his application as
attached. He stated that he had looked at expanding to the east which would
not require a setback variance but that he felt the vandalism problem to the
rear of his building might increase as visability to this area would be less.
8. In conjunction with the variance request, it has been recommendated to the
applicant,that more detailed site and building plans be submitted.
9 - The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plans and found them acceptable. Any final
plans must be reviewed and approved by him.
u
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
14D
TO: Planning Commission of the City of Hopkins
Jeffrey S. Kinney ( "Applicant ") proposes to construct
an addition to his auto repair shop located at 1505 Excelsior
Avenue West, Hopkins. The zoning Ordinance of the City of
Hopkins requires a 25 foot rear yard setback for this property.
Applicant is requesting a variance from this rear yard setback
requirement in order to build the addition. The variance re-
quested is to reduce the rear yard setback to 10 feet.
1. Street Location of Property 1505 Excelsior Avenue
West, Hopkins, Minnesota.
2. Legal Description of Property Lots 10 and 11, and
the East 42 feet, front and rear, of Lot 12, Block & Gibb's First
Addition to West Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
3. Owner Jeffrey S. Kinney
Jeff's Auto Service
1505 Excelsior Avenue West
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Work Telephone: 935 -4559
Home Telephone: 934- 528 0
4. Applicant Same as Owner
5. Description of Request To reduce rear yard
setback requirement to approximately 10 feet in connection with
construction of an addition to existing building.
6.' zoning District The property is currently zoned
B -3. There would be no change in the zoning.
7. Use The property is currently used as an auto
repair shop. There would be no change in the use.
0
8. Reason for Request Because of the existence of
• the retaining wall at the north end of the property, supporting
the hill on which the alley is constructed, an addition to the
existing building complying with a 25 foot rear yard setback
requirement would result in an unuseable 15 foot wide space
between the north wall of the addition and the retaining wall.
There
would be
no reasonable use
of this
space and past exper-
ience
indicates
this space would
become a
"hang -out" for juve-
niles
and property stored in the area would
be an easy target for
vandalism. The
granting of the
variance
to allow Applicant to
build
right up
to the retaining
wall would allow Applicant the
reasonable use
of his property.
In fact,
to deny.the variance
would
result in
a situation more
detrimental to the neighborhood
• than granting the variance .
Also, the fact that the property is on a corner is a
unique factor in favor of granting the variance. Applicant
basically has two front yards, one on 15th Avenue North and one
on Excelsior Avenue. The open areas in front of the building on
these two streets makes it reasonable to allow this variance to
Applicant in the rear yard setback. The retaining wall at the
north of the property is already in place and provides a natural
boundary for the addition. Between the retaining wall and the
alley is a blacktopped area. Applicant plans to add landscaping
to this blacktop area in an attempt to beautify the area (see
attached landscape plan).
The granting of this variance is in keeping with the
• character of the neighborhood and, in fact, the two adjoining
1
2
•
neighbors to the property, to the north and west, have both ap-
proved this request for variance (see attached letters).
Applicant has sufficient space on the remainder of the
property to provide whatever parking spaces are required by the
Zoning Ordinance.
9. Exhibits Submitted
Site plan drawn to scale
Proposed landscaping plan
Letters from neighbors
Required Variance Information
•
The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the
penalties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Hopkins
to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein
are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in ac-
cordance with the ordinances of the City of Hopkins and the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
Jeffrey S. Kinney
I*
TRKJ111
3
t
•
REQUIRED VARIANCE INFORMATION
A. Hardship Strict enforcement of the Zoning
Ordinance would cause undue hardship because it would not allow
Applicant to make reasonable use of his property. If Applicant
is not allowed to build the addition all the way to the retaining
wall on the north side of the
property, it
will
result in an
unuseable area of the property
between the
north
wall 'of the
addition and the retaining wall.
This area
would
be used as a
hang -out by juveniles and because it would be a hidden area any
automobiles or other property stored in the area would be subject
to a great risk of vandalism. It would be creating undesirable
"dead end" space.
• As indicated by the consents of the adjoining
neighbors, the neighbors would be concerned with this vacant
hidden space created between the north wall of the addition and
the retaining wall. It would be much better for all concerned to
allow the wall of the
addition
to extend
all the way to the
natural boundary of the
retaining
wall.
The granting
of the
variance
would not alter the
essential character of
the neighborhood.
In fact, there are
other buildings in the
immediate
area that
extend easily within
10 feet of the lot line.
This is exactly the kind of unusual situation that a
variance is supposed to address. The strict enforcement of the
Zoning Ordinance and insistence on a 25 foot setback would result
• in the creation of a hidden and unuseable space that would serve
J
only as a hang -out for juveniles. Extending the addition to the
• natural boundary of the retaining wall would result in the
elimination of this undesirable space and allow Applicant the
full use of his property.
B. Conditions The special and unique conditions
regarding this property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the area include the fact that the property is
located on the corner with essentially two "front yards" and the
fact that the north 10 feet of the property that abut the alley
consist essentially of a blacktopped hill bounded °by a retaining
wall. Applicant wishes to extend the addition to his building to
this retaining wall. To not allow the north wall of the addition
to extend to the retaining wall would create a unique dead space
on Applicant's property that could become a prime hang -out spot
for juveniles and an area of vandalism. The neighbors have ex-
pressed concern over this fact if Applicant is not allowed to
build all the way to the retaining wall.
C. List of Homeowners contacted by Applicant
Mr. George Steinmetz
1513 Excelsior Avenue West
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
Mr. Lee R. Kloos
10 15th Avenue North
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343
TRKJ112
•
�. �t — !
. s �'', s ` �'" _ . .. �' , C";.
.:+ F•. .:. ... � .. �.,; 4+,. ..7 . n'.... ... _ '�..
I