CR 2013-062 Rear Yard Setback Variance - 6 Manitoba RoadJune 28, 2013 Council Report 13-62
REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE — 6 MANITOBA ROAD
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: adopt Resolution 13-34A, denying a rear yard
setback variance at 6 Manitoba Road.
At the Zoning and Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Kerssen moved and Mr. Kuznia
seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ13-5, recommending approval of a rear yard
setback variance at 6 Manitoba Road. The motion was approved on a 4-2 vote. Mr. Fisher
and Ms. Naef voted nay. If the City Council votes to approve the rear yard variance, the
action is to adopt Resolution 13-34B approving a rear yard setback variance at 6 Manitoba
Road to construct a screened porch.
Overview
Jane and David Kirshbaum, the applicants, are proposing to construct a 14' x 16' porch
addition to the rear of their home at 6 Manitoba Road. The rear yard setback in the R -1-E
zoning district is 40 feet. The existing home is set back on the lot from the street a
considerable distance, and because of this the existing home does not have the 40 -foot rear
yard setback. A 16.9' variance is being requested. The rear yard setback with the proposed
porch would be 23.1'.
Primary Issues to Consider
• What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
• What does the ordinance require?
• What are the specifics of the applicants' request?
• What practical difficulties does the property have?
• What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supporting Documents
• Analysis of Issues
• Site plans
• Resolution 13-34
Nancy '. Anderson, AICP
City Panner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
CR13-62
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider
• What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
The subject property is zoned R -1-E, Single Family Low Density. The Comprehensive Plan
has designated the site as Low Density Residential. The proposed use complies with both
documents. The site is surrounded by single family homes.
• What does the ordinance require?
The R -1-E district requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet.
• What are the specifics of the applicants' request?
The applicant is requesting a 16.9' variance to construct the porch. The proposed porch
would be 23.1' from the rear lot line.
• What practical difficulties does the property have?
The new state statute requires three standards for the granting of a variance. The three
requirements are:
1. Practical difficulties cited in connection with the granting of a variance means
that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner
not permitted by an official control;
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property,
not created by the landowner; and
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
The applicants' property does not meet the three requirements to grant a variance. The R -1-E
district has a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., the largest in Hopkins, and large setback
requirements. In the map provided by the applicants purporting to identify five homes in the
R -1-E neighborhood that do not meet the 40 -foot rear yard setback, two of the properties (3
& 7 St. Albans) show misidentified rear yards. The other three properties do not meet the
rear yard setback requirement, but the owners are not asking for variances.
The applicants state that the proposed addition does not adversely affect any neighbors. Staff
has talked to a neighbor who is very concerned about this addition.
• What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the variance with the Commission. The Commission discussed the
variance.
Jane and David Kirshbaum, the applicants, appeared before the Commission. The
Kirshbaums spoke about wanting to build a screened porch.
CR13-62
Page 3
Sandy Racek of 11 St. Albans appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Racek spoke about
being a good neighbor, good steward of property and the character of the neighborhood.
Sid Levin, the general contractor for the Kirshbaums, appeared before the Commission. Mr.
Levin spoke about practical difficulties.
Debbie Stillman appeared before the Commission.
The Commission discussed practical difficulties at great length. The Commission also
discussed the proposed location of the porch,
the neighborhood and the large lots.
Alternatives
if it could be constructed in another location,
1. Approve the rear yard variance. By approving the rear yard variance, the applicants will
be able to construct the porch as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative,
findings will have to be identified that support this alternative.
2. Deny the rear yard variance. By denying of the rear yard variance, the applicants will not
be able to construct the porch as proposed.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 13-34A
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING
A 16.9' REAR YARD VARIANCE AT 6 MANITOBA ROAD
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN13-2 has been made by Jane and David
Kirshbaum, and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN13-2 was made by Jane and David
Kirshbaum on May 23, 2013;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
June 25, 2013: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered;
and,
4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
Lot 12 Block 2 Bellgrove
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN13-2 to reduce the rear yard
setback from 40 feet to 23.1' for the proposed addition is hereby denied based on the following
Findings of Fact:
1. That the applicants do not have a circumstance peculiar and unique to the
parcel.
2. That the existing rear yard setback is not the required setback of 40 feet.
3. That there are no practical difficulties with the proposed porch.
4. That the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, since
there are large lots and setbacks.
BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the City Council of the City of
Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement of the 40 -foot rear yard
setback in the R -1-E zoning district would not cause practical difficulties because of
circumstances unique to the subject property, that granting of the requested variance to the extent
necessary to construct the addition is not in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code,
and that the variance of 16.9' is not reasonable.
Adopted this 9th day of July 2013.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 13-34B
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
OF A 16.9' REAR YARD VARIANCE AT 6 MANITOBA ROAD
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN13-2 has been made by Jane and David
Kirshbaum, and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN13-2 was made by Jane and David
Kirshbaum on May 23, 2013;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
June 25, 2013: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered;
and,
4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
Lot 12 Block 2 Bellgrove
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN13-2 to reduce the rear yard
setback from 40 feet to 23.1' for the proposed addition is hereby approved based on the
following Findings of Fact:
1. That the applicants do have a circumstance peculiar and unique to the parcel.
2. That the existing rear yard setback is not the required setback of 40 feet.
3. That there are practical difficulties with the proposed porch.
4. That the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the City Council of the City of
Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement of the 40 -foot rear yard
setback in the R -1-E zoning district would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances
unique to the subject property, that granting of the requested variance to the extent necessary to
compensate for such practical difficulties is in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code,
and that the variance of 16.9' is reasonable.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for variance VN13-2 is hereby approved
based on the following condition:
1. That the screened porch is never converted to an addition with windows,
insulation and heat.
Adopted this 9th day of July 2013.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk
May 23, 2013
Ms. Nancy Anderson, City Planner
Planning and Development Department
City of Hopkins
10101st Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Re: Supplemental Letter in reference to the Application for Variance at 6 Manitoba Road
Dear Ms. Anderson,
Please consider the following information and commentary in reference to our application for a variance
from section 530.05 of the Hopkins Zoning Code ordinance regarding setback requirements from
structural improvements to the rear property line.
REQUESTED VARIATION FROM THE ORDINANCE
We live at 6 Manitoba Road, which falls in the R -1-E Zoning District. Section 530.05 requires a 40 foot
setback from structural improvements in the rear yard. We would like to build an addition off the living
area of our home to provide a private screened porch in our back yard. Our home does not sit parallel to
the back property line, but the living area of the home ranges from 34.8' to 39.0' feet from the rear
property line. We would like to build a comfortable 14'x 16' porch in the space between the home and
the rear property line. This would require a variance from the ordinance, as the near corner of the
addition would then sit approximately 23.1' from the rear property line. Therefore, this application is in
reference and support of a 16.9' variance from the 40' ordinance.
OUR OPINION
The strict enforcement of the aforementioned ordinance creates Practical Difficulties and denies us the
reasonable use of our property. When our home was originally built in 1946 [before the rear setback
ordinance was effectuated] the house structure was placed disproportionately towards the rear of the
property, similarly to some other homes in our neighborhood, including the neighboring houses on both
sides of our property. It is our opinion that because the ordinance was created after the fact of the siting
of our home on our property, it causes an undue hardship as it relates to the future use of our home.
The R -1-E zoning district in which we reside has a low density of housing stock and we understand the
implication and intention of the zoning ordinance to prevent an overcrowding on the property because
of this spaciousness; however, it is practically difficult to enjoy the natural benefits that come with this
same spaciousness if we cannot add this screened porch in the area where we would like to do so.
Minnesota has, as we have most recently experienced this year, a very short period of time to enjoy our
natural surroundings before the elements make that nearly impossible. The addition of a screened porch
to a single-family home is not at all a novel idea as we share the common opinion of many Minnesotans
and specifically citizens of Hopkins that relish an ability to connect with nature and enjoy the land that
Hopkins has to offer. The "back porch" is as necessary in our world today as Mark Twain once remarked
nearly 100 years ago:
"7 like to dine in the air on the back porch in summer, & so I would not be without this portable
net for anything; when you have got it hoisted, the flies have to wait for the second table. We
shall see the summer day come when we shall all sit under our nets in church & slumber
peacefully, while the discomfited flies club together & take it out of the minister. There are heaps
of ways of getting priceless enjoyment out of these charming things, if 1 had time to point them
out & dilated on them a little." - Mark Twain, 1917
One of the reasons we fell in love with and purchased our home in Hopkins was due to our ability to
enjoy nature in our own way — the house was sited back from the street and afforded us a very private
backyard. The screen porch will allow us to enjoy our home and our property in a way that is very
common in our neighborhood and throughout our state; the problem only has arisen due to the advent
of an ordinance that post-dates the original construction of our home.
RELATIVE COMMENTARY
Referring to the Site Plan provided, you can see the various areas of the layout of our home and how our
home is sited on the property. The clear skew of the structure being well to the back of the property
takes what would normally be a very easily improvable lot and changes it to a more difficult condition.
As the garage adjoins the side yard to the west and the bedroom wing of the home adjoins the eastern
side yard, it makes it practically difficult to put the screen porch addition to either side of the home and
use it affectively. Similarly, the entire idea and use of the back porch as a private space to sit and relax
with family and friends, share a conversation or break bread together, all in the privacy of our property,
becomes practically impossible if it were to be built to face the street. Thus the only logical and useful
location for this improvement is off the public areas of the home. Our decision to site the back porch off
the rear end of the great room provides us with the best use of the home and similarly allows light, air
and egress to maintain itself along the dining room and bedroom areas of our home. It is truly the only
reasonable location to place the addition.
Referring to the two additional pages of renderings of our proposed back porch addition (interior and
exterior) along with a photo of the existing back side of the house and two panoramic views
demonstrate that the size of the porch and its effect on the rear yard will not alter the essential
character of our property nor the neighborhood.
• The porch architecture is appropriately understated, and the hip roof aspect of the addition will
make sure that the roofline will be low at the farthest expanse of the porch
• The interior provides for a comfortable but not overly gregarious use of space to enjoy a meal
and conversation and enjoy the expanse of our back yard
• The panoramic views taken from where the porch is proposed to be sited demonstrate the very
private back yard and while we can barely see our neighbors on the other side of the fence, they
similarly will not see our porch.
The porch is understated, comfortable, and adds to the usefulness of our home in a way many neighbors
already enjoy. Again, this is only a 224 square foot addition on a property of nearly 48,000 square feet.
This is less than one half of one percent of the property and will not adversely affect the property in any
way as we likely imagine the intention of the ordinance was created.
Finally, within 500 feet of our home, there are five homes (nearly half of the properties within that same
radius) that also have non -conforming features in their rear yards. The information below regarding our
neighborhood was gleaned from the Property Interactive Map online at the Hennepin Country GIS
Website:
• The house structure at 7 St. Albans Drive is 20.0' from the rear yard (this house is only 160 feet
from ours)
• The house structure at 15 Manitoba Road, nearly across the street, is 21.0' from the rear
property line
• Kitty corner from this house at 6 St. Albans Road, the house there sits 36.0' from the rear
property line
• Additionally, the house at 10700 Minnetonka Boulevard sits 29.0' from the rear yard, and
• The house at 3 St. Albans Road East sits only 16 feet from the rear property line
CONCLUSION
Thus, we would conclude that we are not asking for an improvement that is an unreasonable use of the
property, it does not adversely affect any neighbors nor the character of our yard nor our neighborhood,
and finally, there are several homes within steps of our own that similarly infringe upon this setback
created by the ordinance. It is our opinion that the granting of a variance for us to build this back porch
in the location we deem appropriate would be consistent with the neighborhood, not provide any
unique benefits to our property, and is simply a situation where the _unique_siti� of our home on the
property in its position prior to the ordinance date creates the practical difficulty of
to allow for
such a variance.
We respectfully submit for your opinion this application and additional information and look forward to
answering any further questions or concerns you may have at the Planning Commission meeting in June.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jane K. Kirshbaum and
6 Manitoba Road
Hopkins, MN 55305
David B. Kirshbaum
2Q5.O
LIE �
pRppER�N� EXISTING -
TREES FENCE
.fl r �/ o
° 009p]N
:::i0D�
m o N n l PROPOSED SCREEN
G
FENCE N Z mo i6.o �' PORCH ADDITION EXISTING
D m Z C; Z!%FENCE —
TJ p G1 T 5.4'
o �r VIEW'A'`-'--7
— _VIEW 'El' \ OFFICE ROOM \ BED \
V A MUD/ A A
LAUNDRY DINING BATHS \
6 MANITOBA ROAD ROOM BED \
GARAGE EXISTING HOUSE \
w
DRIVEWAY
L�—
PROPE_INE
_I„___= — . • �— — 2Qo a' SBA ROAD
6 MANIT
N Site Plan
SCALE: 1 "=25'-0”
FOYER
m
KITCHEN
\
\
BED `
r
, .
\
Z
\
m
N
$
EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
L�—
PROPE_INE
_I„___= — . • �— — 2Qo a' SBA ROAD
6 MANIT
N Site Plan
SCALE: 1 "=25'-0”
ASP
r
4jim JW,
fr LLU L�Llj
PEN -m -
TO,
A
I
'Ark-.
00
jj
vt
1"P
AM
TOO
7- 7
�'
im
It -ii '!N' '001
�'
im
N Neighborhood Aerial Photo - Existing Setback Analysis Existing setback information was gathered from the Hennepin County GIS Website.
NOT TO SCALE "Propertylnteractive Map." Hennepin County Property Interactive Map. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 May 2013.
LEGEND
�- 40'-0" SETBACK
STRUCTURE