Loading...
V. 5. Planning Application 2018-11-VA Gambucci Setback Variances July 24, 2018 Planning Application 2018-11-VA Gambucci Lot Variance for PID 23-177-22-14-0053 Proposed Action: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt the following motion: Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2018-09, recommending the City Council deny the variance requests from Troy Gambucci the unaddressed parcel on 21st Avenue North with Property Identification Number (PID) 23-117-22-14-0053 Overview The applicant, Troy Gambucci, requests lot width and side yard setback variance to allow st construction of a single family home on the property located at the southeast corner of 21 th Avenue North and 4 Street North. These variances include a lot width variance from 35 feet to 33.3 feet and a south side yard setback variance from 8 feet to 5 feet. Based on the findings detailed below, staff concludes the applicant has not demonstrated a practical difficulty with meeting the City zoning requirements as required by Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. As a result, staff recommends the City deny the applicant’s request. Primary Issues to Consider Background Legal Authority Variance Review Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2018-09 Applicant’s Narrative Site Location Map st Picture of 349 21 Avenue North from 1960 rd West Minneapolis 3 Division Plat Plans and Building Elevations _____________________ Jason Lindahl, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/ABudgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2018-11-VA Page 2 rd Background. The subject property was platted as Lot 30, Block 4, West Minneapolis 3 Division in 1888. In 1951, Stalla Wynkoop purchased the subject property and the four contagious lots to the south (Lots 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30). That same year Ms. Wynkoop built a st house at 349 21Avenue North(Lots 29 & 28) leaving Lot 30 to the north (the subject property)and Lots 26 & 27 to the south vacant. In 1999 Stella Wynkoop conveyed all 5 properties to Kurtis Wynkoop. City records seem to indicate that all five lots were in common ownership by the Wynkoop family and functioned as one property from 1951 until 2002. In 2002 Kurtis Wynkoop conveyedall 5 properties to a real estate company owned by the applicant’s family, Once Land Development Company. st That same year, One Land Development Companyconveyed the original house at 349 21 Avenue North and the subject property to the applicant’s mother, Pamela Karaholios,and sold the 2 remaining vacant lots to the south (Lots 26 & 27) to a builder who constructed a new st single family home on it in 2012. In 2013, Ms. Karaholios sold the original house 349 21 Avenue North to Peter J Anderson Sr. Trustee which continues to operate as a rental property. In 2014, Ms. Karaholios sold the subject property to the current applicant(her son), Troy Gambucci. Based on this timeline, the subject property has been owned by the applicant’s family since 1999. Legal Authority. City review of variance applications is a Quasi-Judicial action. Generally, if the application meets the review standards, the variance should be approved. The standards for reviewing variances are detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. In Summary, variances may be granted when the applicant establishes there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the zoning regulations. A practical difficulty is defined by the four questions listed below. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In addition, under the statute, the City may choose to add conditions of approval that are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Variance Review. Staff has reviewed the variance requests against the standards detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6 and finds they do not demonstrate a practical difficulty. As a result, staff recommends the City deny the applicants request. The standards for reviewing a variance application and staffs findings for each are provided below. 1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: The requested variances arenot in harmony with the purpose and intent of theR-1-A district.The performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 530.05 – Standards for the R Districts. According to this table, parcels in the R-1-A district must be a minimum of 50’ wide and 6,000 square feet in size. By comparison, the subject property is 33.3’ wide and 4,395 square feet in size.These dimensions are only 66% of the minimum required width and 73% of the required size.In addition to the typical minimum standards, Section 520.05 provides specific exceptions for lots in the R-1-A district that are between 35’ and 40’ wide. Since this lot is only 33.3’ wide, these exceptionsdo not apply. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The requested variances are inconsistent with thecomprehensive plan. The Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as LDR – Low Density Residential. According to the narrative for this land use classification, it allows for single family detached residential dwelling at Planning Application 2018-11-VA Page 3 1 to 7 units per acre. According to Hennepin County, the subject property is 4,395 square feet in size. Development on lots at this size would produce a development pattern at 9.9 units per acre (43,560/4,395=9.9) and exceed the allowable density for the LRD - Low Density Residential category. Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use and Development details the rationale behind the City’s land use plan. This narrative supports the preservation and protection of the City’s existing residential neighborhoods. The requested variance would allow development inconsistent with the City’s land use plans. The Land Use and Development chapter states the City regards the preservation and protection of its existing residential neighborhoods as one of its most important priorities. The City will work to protect land use patterns that continue to support single family homes. A balanced supply of housing is important to Hopkins’ efforts to serve the needs of a broad range of residents. The land use plan identifies landuse patterns that will supportavarietyof residential uses including medium to high density uses, such as condos, townhomes and apartments. In order to address residential land use patterns, Hopkins will: Work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of its low-density residential neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effects of nearby commercial or industrial land through zoning, site plan reviews, and code enforcement. Ensure that the infilling of vacant parcels and the rehabilitation of existing developed land will be in accordance with uses specified in the Comprehensive Plan. Ensure that incompatible land uses will be improved or removed wherepossibleandthe landreusedinconformancewiththe Comprehensive Plan. Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods. Work to enhance a variety of residential land uses in the City. Work to balance the supply of multiple family residential uses within the City. 3. Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding:The proposal does not put the property to use in a reasonable manner. As detailed above, the requested variances are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the R-1-A district. Furthermore, the setback reduction is unreasonable considering that the parcel to the south has a front door and substantial windows that face north. One purpose of setbacks is to protect neighboring parcels and provide privacy and access to natural light and space. In this case, Mr. Gambucci is seeking to reduce a setback requirement that is already a relatively modest 8 feet. It would reduce the setback by approximately 33% and decrease the amount of space, light, and visibility provided to the property to the south. Therefore, the requested variance can be categorized as unreasonable in this respect. Planning Application 2018-11-VA Page 4 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: There are not unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner. Under this standard, the applicant must demonstrate the issues that prevent him from developing the subject property were caused by circumstances unique to the property that were not caused by him. While the R-1-A minimum lot size and setback standards prevent Mr. Gambucci from building a home without a variance, these requirements were in place when he purchased the property in 2014. Furthermore, the title history for the subject property suggests it has been owned by the applicant’s family since 1999. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume the applicant should have known the lot was unbuildable. In addition, the subject property’s assessment history and purchase price indicate it had little value and lend further support to the conclusion it was unbuildable. The applicant payed $15,000 for the property in 2014. And the appraised tax value has been around $12,000 for many years. Mr. Gambucci has only been paying a small amount in taxes each year (around $500/year). If this were a buildable lot in the city of Hopkins, it would be worth far more than $12,000 - 15,000 and taxes would be much higher. Based on all of this, it’s clear that the applicant knew (or at least should have known) that these limitations existed. Accordingly, the situation that he finds himself in today was caused by his own doing. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding. Granting the requested variance would alter the essential character of the surrounding area. This standard evaluates if the proposed variances would produce a development that is “out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area.” The subject property is located on a block that includes 12 properties. An analysis of those 12 properties finds they have an average width of 101’ and an average lot size of 15,172 square feet. Lots of this width and size allows for larger homes with wide frontages that includes both a house and an attached garage and relatively low building coverage. Granting the requested variances would allow the subject property to develop with a smaller house, lesser setbacks and denser lot coverage. This design would be inconsistent with both the development pattern ofthe overall R-1-A district as well asthe contiguous block and wouldalter the essential character of the surrounding area. Alternatives 1.Recommend approval of the variance application.By recommending approval of these applications, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval.Should the Planning & Zoning Commission considers this option, it must also identify specific options that support this alternative. 2.Recommend denial of the variance application. By recommending denial of the variance application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. 3.Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the items should be continued. CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-09 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM ST TROY GAMBUCCI FOR THE UNADDRESSED PARCEL ON 21 AVENUE NORTH WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PID) 23-117-22-14-0053 WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Troy Gambucci a vacant, unaddressed st parcel of real property located on 21 Avenue North and legally described below: Lot 30, Block 4, West Minneapolis Third Division, Hennepin County, Minnesota. ; and WHEREAS, the Property is zoned R-1-A, single- and two-family high density residential; and WHEREAS, the Applicant purchased the Property from his mother, Pamela Karahalios, in 2014 for approximately $15,000 and the Property has always appraised at less than that amount for purposes of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, until the Property was conveyed to the Applicant by his mother in 2014, it was predominantly held in common ownership with the parcel to the south, which contains a single-family residence; and WHEREAS, the single-family residence to the south faces north directly toward the Property and utilized the Property as a front yard and driveway in the past, though its driveway was eventually st reconfigured to provide access from 21 Avenue North; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a zoning ordinance and other official controls for reasons that include, but are not limited to, protecting the character of properties and areas within the community, promoting the proper use of land and structures, fixing reasonable standards to which buildings, structures and land must conform for the benefit of all, and prohibiting the use of buildings, structures and lands in a manner which is incompatible with the intended use or development of lands within the specified zones; and WHEREAS, the width of the Property is 33.36 feet and, although Section 530.05 of the City Code requires a minimum lot-width of 50 feet in the R-1-A district, the grandfather clause contained in Section 520.05, subd. 1 of the City Code relaxes that requirement to 35 feet for certain lots so long as all other ordinance requirements are met; and 1 WHEREAS, Section 530.03, subd. 2(c) of the City Code requires that single-family dwellings in the R-1-A district be at least 20-feet wide and contain side setbacks of at least eight feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a request to the City for a lot-width variance and a side setback variance in order to construct a single- family dwelling on the Property that meets the requirement that a single-family dwelling have a minimum width of 20 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subd. 6(2), ariances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used 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 the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constit and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2018, pursuant to the procedural requirements contained in Section 525.07 of the City Code, the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission held a opportunity to be heard. The Commission also took into consideration the written comments and analysis of City staff; and WHEREASrequest and his submissions, the written staff report, and after careful consideration of all other written and oral comments concerning the requested variances, the Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the aforementioned criteria provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subd. 6(2): 1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: The requested variances are not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the from established minimum lot standards. Additionally, the grandfather clause that the Applicant seeks to have applied to the Property expressly applies only to lots that otherwise meet all zoning requirements, a condition that the Property clearly fails to adhere to. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The requested variances are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The Property is guided long-term for low density residential and, accordingly, to allow development on lots of this nominal size would produce a development pattern that far exceeds the allowable density for that category. The requested variances would further fail to adhere to the goal of preserving and protecting the existing residential neighborhoods. 2 3. Does the proposal put the Property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: The proposal does not put the Property to use in a reasonable manner. The Applicant is seeking to utilize an already relaxed lot-width requirement and further requests relief from a modest eight foot setback requirement. The proposal would substantially reduce the setback by approximately 33% - and decrease the amount of space, light, and visibility provided to the surrounding properties, one of which directly faces the Property. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the Property not created by the Applicant? Finding: There are no unique circumstances to the Property that were not created by the Applicant. The applicable R-1-A standards were in place when the Applicant purchased the Property in 2014. The Property has always been taxed at a nominal rate that is far less than that of which would otherwise be owed on a buildable parcel in the City. Those facts, along with numerous other factors outlined in the staff report, indicate that the Applicant had ample reason to know that a single-family residence could not be constructed on the Property. Additionally, the Property and the adjacent parcel to the south have been controlled by the Applicant family for many years. By removing the Property from common ownership with the parcel to the south, the Applicant and his family unilaterally created what is now a standalone, unbuildable lot. 5. Will the variances, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance would alter the essential character of the surrounding area. would be inconsistent with both the development pattern of the overall R-1-A district as well as the contiguous blocks surrounding the Property, thus resulting in a dwelling that would be out of scale, out of place, and entirely inconsistent with the surrounding area. Moreover, it would result in the single-proposed structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins that the recitals set forth in this Resolution are incorporated into and made part of this Resolution, and more specifically, constitute the express findings of the Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins that based on the findings of fact contained herein and the failure of the Applicant to meet any of the five required criteria, the Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Hopkins deny . th Adopted this 24 day of July, 2018. ____________________________________ James Warden, Chair 3