VII.2. R-1-C Minimum Lot Size Concept Plan Review; Lindahl
August 21, 2018 City Council Report 2018-92
R-1-C Minimum Lot Size Concept Plan Review
Proposed Action: As a concept review, this application does not require formal action. Rather,
the applicant requests feedback on the proposals so they can work toward preparing a future,
formal submittal. Any comments shall be for guidance only and shall not be considered binding
upon the City regarding any future, formal application.
Overview
The applicant, David and Karen Engelbert, requests concept plan review of their proposal to
split their existing 160’ wide by 132’ deep single family lot into two 80’ wide by 132’ deep single
family lots. This design would produce two single family lots that meet the minimum 80’ lot
width standards but would be approximately 1,440 square feet smaller than the 12,000 square
feet minimum lot size required by the R-1-C zoning district.
The subject property is located at 137 Maple Hill Road in the Interlachen Park neighborhood
south of Excelsior Boulevard, north of Hopkins’ border with Edina, west of the Meadowbrook
Golf Course and east of Blake Road. As a concept review, this application does not require
formal action. Rather, the applicant requests feedback on the proposals so they can work
toward preparing a future, formal submittal. Any comments shall be for guidance only and shall
not be considered binding upon the City regarding any future, formal application. This report
summarizes the concept proposal, details various land use and zoning standards to consider,
compares existing surrounding conditions and outlines a likely approval process for the
application. After reviewing this application, the Planning & Zoning Commission was generally
supportive of the proposed lot split but divided as to the best way to process this request.
Primary Issues to Consider
• Concept Plan Summary
• Background
• Land Use and Zoning Standards
• Existing Conditions
• Approval Process
Supporting Documents
• Site Location Map
• R-1-C Zoning District Analysis Map
• Applicant’s Narrative
_____________________
Jason Lindahl, AICP
City Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________
Notes:
Planning Application 2018-08-CON
Page 2
Planning & Zoning Commission Action. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public
hearing to review this item (Planning Application 2018-08-CON) during their regular meeting on
July 24, 2018. During the meeting, the Commission heard a summary presentation from staff
and comments from the applicant but no comments from the public. After some general
questions of the applicant and staff, the Commission expressed their support for the applicant’s
proposal to subdivide their property. The Commission then discussed the best process for the
subdivision. Chairperson Warden favored a zoning code amendment to change the minimum
lot size in the R-1-C district stating it would be a more comprehensive solution. However, the
consensus of the other 5 Commissioners was that the applicant should pursue a lot size variance
that would be specific to their property and not change the minimum lot size for the entire R-1-
C district.
Prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission, staff received 5 calls with questions and comments
about this application. Of the 5 calls, 4 asked questions and chose not to provide a
recommendation. Once one caller expressed opposition to the project. During the meeting, the
applicant stated they have only heard comments of support from their neighbors.
Concept Plan Summary. The concept plan is to subdivide the existing 160’ wide by 132’ deep
21,125 square foot property into two single family lots. Those lots would be 80’ wide by 132’
deep and approximately 10,560 square feet in size. The northern lot would retain the applicants’
existing single family home but require the relocation of their existing detached garage on the
newly created lot. The new southern lot would contain a new single family home. While the
newly created lots would meet the minimum lot width standard, they would fail to meet the
minimum lot size requirements (see land use and zoning standards below).
Background. According to the applicants, they purchased their home in 1985 and have
remodeled over the year to meet their needs. Their home has 3 levels and the Engelbert’s have
reach a point in their lives when they would prefer single level living. The ability to divide their
property would provide funds to either remodel their existing home to include a master
bedroom and bath on the main level or build a new single level home to meet their needs on the
newly create lot. According to the Engleberts, their preference is to remain in Hopkins, but feel
if they are not permitted to divide their property they would most likely sell it and purchase a
different home in an adjacent community.
Land Use and Zoning Standards. The subject property is guide LDR – Low Density
Residential by the Future Land Use map in the 2030 Comprehensive. According to the narrative
for this land use classification, it allows for single family detached residential dwelling at 1 to 7
units per acre. According to Hennepin County, the subject property is 21,125 square feet in size.
These lots would be 10,560 square feet in size and produce a development pattern at just over 4
units per acre (43,560/10,560 = 4.12). Development at this density is within the allowable range
for the LRD - Low Density Residential category. Goals and policies from the 2030
Comprehensive Plan that would align with this concept proposal include:
• Protect residential neighborhoods.
• Retain and enhance detached single-family homes.
• Encourage the development of owner-occupied housing.
• Continue to strive for a mix of housing that accommodates a balance of all housing
needs
Planning Application 2018-08-CON
Page 3
The subject property is also zoned R-1-C, Single Family Medium Density. This district allows
single family residential uses with a minimum lot width of 80’ and minimum lot size of 12,000
square feet. The table below compares the zoning requirements and existing conditions on the
subject property with the new lots proposed by the applicant. It finds the new lots would
conform to the single family use and lot width requirements but not meet the lot size standard.
Zoning Comparison for 137 Maple Hill Road
Standards R-1-C
Requirement
Existing
Conditions
Proposed
Conditions
Status
Use Single Family Single Family Single Family Conforming
No. of Lots N/A 1 2 N/A
Lot Width 160’ 160’ 80’ Conforming
Lot Depth N/A 132’ 132’ N/A
Lot Size 12,000 sq. ft. 21,125 sq. ft. 10,560 sq. ft. Non-Conforming
by 1,440 sq. ft.
Density 3.63 units/acre 2 units/acre 4.12 units/acre Non-Conforming
Existing Conditions. The R-1-C zoning district includes all of the Campbell, Park Ridge, and
Interlachen neighborhoods and a portion of the Avenues West and President’s North
Neighborhood (see attached map). It allows single family residential uses and requires a
minimum lot width of 80’ and minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. An analysis of the R-1-C
district finds the average lot size is 12,733 square feet but the median (the midpoint of all lots on
a list from smallest to largest) is 10,665 square feet. So the average lot is larger than the 12,000
square feet requirement but 50 percent of the lots are smaller than 10,665 square feet. The
applicant is proposing two 80’ wide by 132’ deep single family lots that would be 10,560 square
feet in size. This is 105 square feet smaller than the median lot size. The map appears to show
most of the lots that are smaller than the average are located in the Campbell, Park Ridge and
President’s North neighborhoods; however, there are also a substantial portion within
Interlachen Park.
Approval Process. Based on the applicant’s concept plan, staff anticipates one of two formal
review options –either a variance or an amendment to the minimum lot size standard for the R-
1-C district. While a variance would be limited to the subject property, the applicant may have
difficulty demonstrating they meet the “practical difficult” standards required for a variance. By
comparison, the applicant would likely have an easier time meeting the standards to amendment
the minimum lot size standard for the R-1-C district; however, this change would apply to all
properties in the R-1-C zoning district.
Variance Standards. 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 five 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.
1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance?
2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
3. Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Planning Application 2018-08-CON
Page 4
4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Zoning Text Amendment Standards. Zoning text amendment applications are considering
legislative actions. When considering legislative actions, the City is advancing health, safety, and
welfare by making rules that apply throughout the entire community. When acting legislatively,
the City has broad discretion and will be afforded considerable deference by any reviewing court.
Typical standards for the City to weigh when considering an amendment to the zoning code are
listed below.
1. Consistency with the comprehensive plan.
2. Compatibility with present and future land uses.
Based on staff’s analysis of the properties in the R-1-C district, approximately 11 lots would
become eligible to be subdivide if the City amended the minimum lot size to accommodate the
applicant’s needs. Of these 11, less than half have existing condition (vacant, small house,
position of the house to one side of the lot, and/or lot shape) that makes it economically likely
they would split. In addition, amending the zoning standard to accommodate the applicant
needs would also bring nearly half of the properties in the R-1-C district which are currently
non-conforming regarding minimum lot size back into compliance.
137 Maple Hill Road Site Location Map
+¡
GdWX
+¡
?«A@
?«A@
GdWX
GbWX
GbWX
GÇWX
GÓWX
MINNETONKA
ST. LOUIS PARK
EDINA
Hannan Lake
Sha dyOakLake
Minnehaha C r e ekMinnehah
a
Cree
k
Ninemile Creek
Ninemile Cre
e
kHopkins CrossroadMinnetonka Blvd
H i g h w a y 7
E x c e ls i o r B l v d15thAveN9thAveN
Milw aukeeSt2ndStN E
7thAveS3rd St S
Mainstre et
17thAveS5thAveS1st St N
11thAveS14thAveN6th St S
7th St S21stAveN10thAveN
8th St S8thAveN TylerAveN11thAveNJacksonAveN6thAveN17thAveN5th St S
1st St S
3rd St N
4th St N
13thAveN7thAveN12thAveS9thAveSOxford St
18thAveS13thAveSCambridge St
20thAveN16thAveN6thAveS8thAveSHill St
ManitobaRoad
Wood hill
Ct 12thAveNHighway169Oakridge Road2n d AveSL
oring Ro a d
18thAveN19thAveS19thAveNWestbrooke
W
a
yAtwater StRampBlake Road NMap Document: \\arcserver1\gis\HOPK\_Basemap\ESRI\Maps\2018\HOPK_R-1-C_ZoningMean_11x17L.mxd | Date Saved: 5/11/2018 10:30:01 AMLegend
City Limits
County Boundary
Lakes and Rivers
0 0.5MilesSource: City of Hop kins, MnG eo He nnep in Coun ty, MnDO T
!I
Service Layer Credits:
Hopkins ZoningHopkins, MN R-1-C Zoning (Single Family Medium Density)May 2018
R-1-C SplitableParcels
R-1-C Above MeanSize (12,733 Sq. Ft)
R-1-C (Single FamilyMedium Density)
R-1-C Zoning