HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.05.07 RESO 2001-0022CITY OF HUGO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2001- 22
APPROVING SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR MAX WILSON FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14880 HOMESTEAD AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Max Wilson that requests approval of a side
yard setback variance for a 3,600 square foot agricultural building on property located at
14880 Homestead Avenue North, as legally described as follows:
The south one-half of the north one-half of the northwest one-quarter of the northwest
one-quarter of section 22, Township 31 North, Range 21 west and the south one-half of
the north one-half of the northeast one-quarter of the northwest one-quarter of section
22, Township 31 North, Range 21 West, all in 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 Max Wilson on property located at 14880 Homestead Avenue, subject to the
following conditions:
1. A 20 -foot side yard setback varinance is approved for an approximately 3,600
square foot agricultural building in accordance with the application dated April 6,
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 land owner.
Resolution 2001- 22
Page 2
The hardship is unique to the property because of the location of existing
structures and wetlands. The location of the home, existing storage building,
and wetlands limits the area in which to construct the accessory building.
The applicant constructed the existing storage building at 95 feet from the
property line with plans to construct a larger agricultural building between the
storage building and the north property line. At the time the applicant
constructed the existing storage building and designed the site plan, 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.
c) The granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the ordinance.
The applicant has attempted to keep the proposed agricultural building as far
from the north property line as possible, while maintaining an adequate
setback from the existing storage building. Further, the applicant desires to
have adequate separation between the two buildings to provide the ability to
get equipment, animals, and vehicles around and into the buildings.
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. In order to enjoy a
reasonable use of the property, the applicant wishes to construct a reasonable
size agricultural building for the storage of hay, horse stalls, and personal
belongings.
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 25 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. As such, the reduced setback
would not alter the character of this agricultural area.
J) 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.
Resolution 2001- 22
Page 3
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 sewer
treatment or water systems found on the property.
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.
WITNEPS my hand o cially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this
of ,70 u
Clerk