HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001.09.05 RESO 2001-0045CITY OF HUGO
WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2001- 45
APPROVING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR MARK AND JENNIFER
KOLL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4940 -128TH STREET
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Mark and Jennifer Koll that requests
approval of a front yard setback variance for a front porch addition on property located at
4940-128'' Street, as legally described as follows:
Lot S, Block 4, Woods of Bald Eagle Lake, Washington County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the Board 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 Mark and Jennifer Koll on property located at 4940-128'` Street, subject to
the following conditions:
1. A 28 -foot front yard setback variance is approved for an approximately 6 -foot x
41 -foot porch addition in accordance with the application and survey dated July
31, 2001.
2. A building permit shall be required prior to constructing the addition.
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 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.
The hardship is unique to the property because of the location of the home
currently under construction on the property, and for the fact that the property
is a corner lot. Comer lots typically have less "buildable" area because of the
two front yard setbacks.
Further, the draft ordinance currently under consideration by the Planning
Commission would allow a four -foot front yard encroachment for porches. It
is common for zoning ordinances to permit encroachments for such things as
bay windows, porches, decks, stoops, stairs, etc. In fact, prior to the ordinance
Resolution 2001- 45
Page 2
update in June of 1999, the City's zoning ordinance permitted front yard
encroachments of three feet for certain improvements.
c) The granting of the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of
the ordinance.
An unenclosed front porch at 28.45 would be in keeping with the spirit and
intent of the ordinance. The porch would only encroach 1.55 feet into the
required setback. Further, the reduced setback for the unenclosed porch would
not appear out of character with surrounding homes.
d) The property can not be put to reasonable use without the granting of the
variance.
The property is planned and zoned for residential use. The applicant is
proposing to add a front porch to the home currently under construction on the
property. It is common for residential homes to have front porches or other
entry features that extend from the front of the home. Further, as noted above,
the draft ordinance currently be considered by the Planning Commission
would permit the requested encroachment.
e) The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality
in which it would be located.
The proposed encroachment of 1.5 feet would not alter the essential character
of the home or neighborhood. If the applicant is unable to construct the porch,
the front of the home would consist of a large flat wall unrelieved with any
architectural detailing.
The variance, if granted shall not have the effect of allowing, in any district,
any use prohibited in the district.
Front porches are allowed in the residential zoning district.
g) The variance, if granted, shall not permit a lower degree of flood protection
than required by the ordinance.
The proposed addition 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 proposed addition would not require any improvements to the municipal
water and sewer systems that serve this property.
Resolution 2001- 45
Page 3
ADOPTED by the City Council on September 5, 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 September 5, 2001 with the original thereof on file in my office,
and the same is a correct transcription thereof.
WITNE S my hand offi ally as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this
.�'�'k day of 200/
City Clerk