P&Z Resolution 2018-09 - Recommending Denial of Variance Requests from Troy Gambucci for the Unaddressed Parcel on 21st Avenue N with PID 23-117-22-14-0053CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-09
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM
TROY GAMBUCCI FOR THE UNADDRESSED PARCEL ON 21sT AVENUE NORTH
WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PID) 23-117-22-14-0053
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Troy Gambucci (the "Applicant") is the fee owner of a vacant, unaddressed
parcel of real property located on 21 ' Avenue North and legally described below:
Lot 30, Block 4, West Minneapolis Third Division, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(the "Property"); 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
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
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), "[v]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 constitute practical difficulties."; 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 (the "Commission") held a
public hearing on the Applicant's requested variances and all persons present were given an
opportunity to be heard. The Commission also took into consideration the written comments and
analysis of City staff, and
WHEREAS, based on a review of the Applicant's request 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 City's zoning
ordinance?
Finding: The requested variances are not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
City's zoning ordinance because the requested variances involve substantial deviations
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 City's 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 comprehensive plan's 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's family for many years. By removing the
Properly, 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. The Applicant's proposal 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-family dwelling to the south directly facing the Applicant's 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 the Applicant's requested variances.
Adopted this 24' day of July, 2018.
J�
)Anes Warden, Chair