HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.05.07 RESO 2001-0014RESOLUTION 2001-14
APPROVING SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR JOHN AND ROBYN
UDSTUEN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15190 EVERTON AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by John and Robyn Udstuen that requests
approval of a side yard setback variance for a 1,200 square foot pole building on property
located at 15190 Everton Avenue North, as legally described as follows:
The south 330.72 feet of the north half of the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter,
according to U.S. Government Properotional Methods, of section 18, Township 31N,
Range 21 W, Washington County, Minnesota.
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
variance for John and Robyn Udstuen on property located at 15190 Everton Avenue,
subject to the following conditions:
1. A 20 -foot side yard setback varinance is approved for an approximately 1,200
square foot building in accordance with the application dated April 12, 2001.
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 bylaw.
The requested variance is from the dimensional 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 landowner.
The hardship is unique to the property because of the location of the existing
home and septic system. The location of these improvements limit the area in
which to construct the accessory building.
The applicant constructed the existing home approximately 159 feet from the
north property line with plans to construct an accessory building between the
home and the north property line. At the time the applicant constructed the
existing home, the side yard setback was 20 feet. In July of 1999, the City
increased the side yard setback from 20 feet to 40 feet. Therefore, the
hardship was not caused by the landowner; but rather, a change in the setback
requirement.
Resolution 2001- 14
Page 2
c) The granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the ordinance.
The applicant desires to have adequate separation between the pole building
and septic system in order to gain access to the pole building. The doors of
the pole building would face to the south. Therefore, the applicant needs
adequate space to construct the driveway and provide an appropriate turning
radius in order to back trailers and vehicles into the pole building.
d) The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the
variance.
The property is 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 large lot residential properties.
e) The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the
locality in which it would be located.
The agricultural pole barn would be 20 feet from the north property line.
While the current side yard setback is 40 feet, prior to 1999 the setback had
been 20 feet. Therefore, there are numerous locations where buildings are
located closer than 40 feet from a side lot line. Additionally, the property
directly to the north has two pole buildings at approximately 20 feet from the
property. As such, the reduced setback would not alter the character of this
agricultural area
The variance, if granted shall not have the effect of allowing, in any
district, any use prohibited in the district.
The proposed accessory building is a permitted 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 proposed building would not be within a designated floodplain.
h) The sewage treatment system and water system of the subject property is
in compliance with city and state codes.
The new building would not require any improvements to the on-site sewage
treatment or water systems found on the property.
Resolution 2001- 14
Page 3
ADOPTED by the City Council on May 7, 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 May 7, 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
V -a day of 200
City Clerk