Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.04.02 RESO 2001-0012CITY OF HUGO WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2001-12 APPROVING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR JOHN D. TOMNITZ FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7180 -177TH STREET NORTH WHEREAS, an application has been filed by John D. Tomnitz that requests approval of a front yard setback variance for a 1,600 square foot pole building on property located at 7180-177' Street North, as legally described as follows: Insert Legal Description. WHEREAS, the Boad of Zoning Appeals and Adjustments has reviewed said variance at a duly called public meeting and recommends approval of the variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the site plan for John Tomnitz on property located at 7180-177' Street N. subject to the following conditions: 1. A 12 -foot front yard setback varinance is approved for a 1,600 square foot building in accordance with the application dated December 19, 2000. 2. A building permit shall be required prior to constructing the building. 3. The variance is approved based on the following findings: a. The variance as requested is permissible by law. The requested variance is from the setback requirements of the ordinance and is permissible by law. b. The strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property not caused by the land owner. The hardship is unique to the property because the setback of the home far exceeds the 40 -foot minimum front yard setback of the ordinance. The increase setback of the home and the zoning ordinance requirement for the pole building to be no closer to the road than is the home creates a unique hardship. Additionally, Resolution 2001- 12 Page 2 the applicant could not move the pole building farther from the road because of the location of an existing garage. Lastly, the applicant could not move the building to west side of the home because of the location of the septic drain field. C. The granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The 40 x 40 foot building would encroach into the required front yard setback by 12 feet. As such, the majority of the building would be setback behind the home. The location of the building along with the proposed 88 -foot setback from the front property line would be keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance, which is to prevent accessory buildings from being located between the home and road, and thereby, visually dominating the appearance of the property. d. The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the variance. The property is planned and zoned for agricultural use. Pole buildings and other similar accessory buildings are a common use in the agricultural zoning district and are often needed for storage of equipment, personal belongings, and other items consistent with a rural lifestyle. e. The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality in which it would be located. The proposed building would not alter the character of this agricultural area because pole buildings are common in agricultural areas, and the applicant would meet the spirit and intent of the ordinance which is to avoid having accessory buildings located in front of the primary residence. As indicated on the site plan, the pole building would be 40 feet east of the home and would only extend 12 feet into the required setback of 100 feet (the setback of the home). f. The variance, if granted shall not have the effect of allowing, in any district, any use prohibited in the district. The proposed pole building is an accessory use in the agricultural zoning district. g. The variance, if granted, shall not permit a lower degree of flood protection than required by the ordinance. The subject property is not within a floodplain. h. The sewage treatment system and water system of the subject property is in compliance with city and state codes. Resolution 2001- 12 Page 3 The subject property is served by an on-site septic system and private well, and is therefore in compliance with city and state codes. ADOPTED by the City Council on April 2, 2001. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Hugo, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Hugo City Council on April 2, 2001 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this of ,' - a2 0a / . City Clerk