Loading...
06-25-2013 JUNE JULY MEMBERS S M T W T F S S M T W T F S ��/NAEF � UZNIA -� 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 ✓FISHER �/�ATTA 2 6 7 8 9 9 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 �1ALLARD '✓ IRTH 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 �/KERSSEN �ANDERSON 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 30 AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 25, 2013 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ----------------------------------------------------- � ITEM: Approve and sign minutes of the May 28, 2013, regular meeting. COMMISSIONACTION: (�II 11'^� �,��1C� � � � � CASE NO. ZN13-1 ZONING AMENDMENTS - LOADING DOCKS Public Hearing COMMISSION ACTION: �� � � �1 ' ti � �.i / / / / CASE NO. VN13-2 REAR YARD SETBACK VAR,IANCE - 6 MANITOBA ROAD ' COMMISSION ACTION: `[ � � / / / / AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 --r CASE NO. ZN13-1 ZONING AMENDMENT - MASSAGE Public Public Hearing to consider adding definitions for massage Hearing ����,� �-�... � COMMISSION ACTION: continue / / / / ADJOURNMENT � a.Y C�� ���'.�,'C ��E', 7�3� � � U■ _���I���J� �� ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 28, 2013 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall. Present were Commission members Aaron Kuznia, Charles Firth, Andrew Fisher, Andrea Naef, Doug Datta, and Scott Kerssen. Jennifer Allard was absent. Also present was staff inember Nancy Anderson. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Kuznia called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Kuznia moved and Ms. Naef seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the April 30, 2013, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. ---. ITEM: VN13-1 FRONT YARD VARIANCE— 143 NINTH AVENUE NORTH Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed variance. Gregory Skowronek, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Skowronek explained that the variance will make the addition look like part of the home, not an addition, and give him two rooms. No one appeared regarding this item Mr. Kuznia moved and Ms. Naef seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ13-4, recommending approval of a variance at 143 9�'Avenue North. The motion was approved unanimously. ITEM: MASSAGE ORDINANCE ZN13-1 Ms. Anderson asked that item be continued. Mr. Kuznia moved and Ms. Naef seconded a motion to continue this item. The motion was approved unanimously. ITEM: REVIEW ZONING AMENDMENTS Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed amendments with the Commission. The Commission discussed the various amendments. ELECTION OF OFFICERS There was a consensus that Mr. Kuznia would remain chair and Ms. Naef would remain vice chair. "� ADJOURN Mr. Kuznia moved and Ms. Naef seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. U�IOFFI���� MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING MEETING, May 28, 2013 Page 2 MEMBERS � ATTEST: Aaron Kuznia, Chair �� �/ � June 17, 2013 � Plaiuling Report ZN13-1 ZONING AMENDMENTS—LOADING DOCKS Proposed Action Staff recoirunends the following motion: adopt Resolution RZ13-6, recommending adoption of Ordinance 13-1062, amendina the zonin�ordinance re�arding loading docks. Overview The redevelopment of Shady Oak Road presents some challenges with the existing zoning ordinance. There currently are loading docks on the west side of many of the existing buildings. When Shady Oak Road is reconstiucted, Syndicate Sales will move to the north into a building occupied by Snap Print. There currently is a loading dock on the back of this building; however, it needs to be modified. The ordinance requires loading docks to be 50 feet from a residential district. The modified loading dock will not satisfy the 50 feet requirement, nor does the existing loading dock. The intent of the existing ordinance setback ^ is to separate the residential homes from the coinmercial activity. In this case the actual homes are over 50 feet from the loading dock. The proposed ordinance will allow a modified loading dock on the existing building. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the existing zoning of the area? • What is the zoning of the surrounding area? • What does the existing ordinance require for loading docks? • What are the proposed amendments? Supporting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Resolution RZ13-6 • Ordinance 13-1062 �� � � . , Nancy Anderson, AICP City Pl er Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: -� Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: �� �1 �-� j ZN13-1 Page 2 � Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the existing of the area? The businesses on the west side of Shady Oak Road are zoned B-3, General Business • What is the zoning of the surrounding area? The surrounding area is coirunercial to the north, south and east. Minnetonka is to the west with wetlands and residential homes. • What does the existing ordinance require for loading docks? The existing ordinance requires a 50-foot setback from a residential zoning district and a 15- foot setback if not abutting a residential district. • What are the proposed amendments? 550.07. Subd 6. Setback. The setback for a loading dock or rear yard may be reduced if the following conditions exist: ^ 1. The rear yard of a loading dock abuts a public right-of-way of 30 feet or greater in width; 2. The loading dock is 50 feet from a residential structure; 3. The loading dock ab municipal boundary or a public right-of-way that abuts a municipal boundary or, a,n� 4. A lot in a B district has a loading dock abutting the rear yard of a site, in which case the rear yard setback may be adjusted to accominodate the loading facilities. Alternatives 1. Reconunend approval of the amendments. By reconunending approval of the amendments,the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Reconunend denial of the amendments. By recominending denial of the proposed amendments, the City Council will consider a recoiruilendation of denial. If the Plaruung Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further infornlation. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. /� CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota � RESOLUTION NO: RZ13-6 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR LOADING DOCKS WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Amendment ZN13-1 has been initiated by the City of Hopkins; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for zoning amendment was initiated by the City of Hopkins; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on June 25, 2013: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered. � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Zoning Amendment ZN13-1 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the Zoning and Planning Commission reviewed the proposed • ordinance. 2. That the proposed amendments will allow for a modification of loading docks for the businesses on the west side of Shady Oak Road. Adopted this 25th day of June 2013. Aaron Kuznia, Chair \..i ^ CITY OF HOPHINS Hennepin County,Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2013-1062 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: That the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance No. 515-570 be, and the same and is hereby anlended by amending and adding the following sections: 550.07. Subd 6. Setback. The setback for a loadin� dock mav be reduced if the followin� conditions existin�: 1. The rear vard of a loading dock abuts a public right-of-way of 30 feet or greater in width; 2. The loadin�dock is 50 feet from a residential structure; 3. The loading dock abuts a municipal boundar�public right-of-wav that abuts a municipal boundary; or, 4. A lot in a B district has a loadin�dock abutting the rear vard of a site, in which case the rear yard setback mav be adjusted to accommodate the loading facilities. r First Reading: July 9, 2013 Second Reading: July 16, 2013 Date of Publication: July 25, 2013 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: July 25, 2013 Eugene J. M�well, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine Luedke, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: � City Attorney Signature ' Date --� June 18, 2013 � Planning Report VN13-2 REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE—6 MANITOBA ROAD Pronosed Action Staff recoiruiiends the following motion: adopt Resolution RZ13-5, recommending denial of a rear vard setback variance at 6 Manitoba Road. Overview Jane and David Kirshbaum, the applicants, are proposing to construct a 14' x 16' porch addition to the rear of their home at 6 Maiutoba Road. The rear yard setback in the R-1-E zoning district is 40 feet. The existing home is set back on the lot from the street a considerable distance, and because of this the existing home does not have the 40-foot rear yard setback. In the infonnation submitted, staff noticed an illegal fence on the property and inquired about it. The applicants stated that parts of the fence blew down a few years ago and they replaced � the fence with the type fencing that existed without obtaining a perniit. Ms. Kirshbaum did state that the fencing in the front is different than the fencing they replaced. The fence in the rear yard is solid, which is not allowed. Primary Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • What does the ordinance require? • What are the specifics of the applicants' request? • What practical difficulties does the property have? • What should be done with the illegal fence? Sunnorting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Site plans • Resolution RZ13-5 , ,,, � Nancy . Anderson, AICP City Pl er � Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): VN 13-2 —., Page 2 Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The subject property is zoned R-1-E, Single Family Low Density. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Low Density Residential. The proposed use complies with both documents. The site is surrounded by single family homes. • What does the ordinance require? The R-1-E district requires a minimum rear yard setback of 40 feet. • What are the specifics of the applicants' request? The applicant is requesting a 16.9' variance to construct the porch. The proposed porch will be 23.1' from the rear lot line. • What practical difficulties does the property have? The new state statute requires three standards for the granting of a variance. The three ^ requirements are: 1. That practical difficulties cited 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 an official control; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner; and 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicants' property does not meet the three requirements to grant a variance. The R-1-E district has a minimum lot size of 40,000 sq. ft., the largest in Hopkins, and large setback requirements. In the map provided by the applicants purporting to identify five homes in the R-1-E neighborhood that do not meet the 40-foot rear yard setback, two of the properties (3 & 7 St. Albans) show misidentified rear yards. The other three properties do not meet the rear yard setback requirement, but the owners are not asking for variances. The applicants state that the proposed addition does not adversely affect any neighbors. Staff has talked to a neighbor who is very concerned about this addition. • What should be done with the illegal fence? Staff is recommending that whether the variance is approved or denied, the applicants be � required to alter the fence to meet the zoning requirements. The applicants do have the option of applying for a conditional use permit for a special purpose fence. VN13-2 Page 3 � Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the rear yard variance. By recommending approval of the rear yard variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 2. Recommend denial of the rear yard variance. By recommending denial of the rear yard variance, 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 item should be continued. � � CITY OF HOPKINS ^ Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ13-5 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A 16.9' REAR YARD VARIANCE AT 6 MANITOBA ROAD WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN13-2 has been made by Jane and David Kirshbaum, and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN13-2 was made by Jane and David Kirshbaum on May 23, 2013; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on June 25, 2013: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered; and, 4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows: Lot 12 Block 2 Bellgrove � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN13-2 to reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 23.1' for the proposed addition is hereby recommended for denial based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the applicants do not have a circumstance peculiar and unique to the parcel. 2. That the existing rear yard setback is not the required setback of 40 feet. 3. That there no practical difficulties with the proposed porch. 4. That the variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood, since there are large lots and setbacks. BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby deternunes that the literal enforcement of the 40-foot rear yard setback in the R-1-E zoning district would not cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the subject property, that granting of the requested variance to the extent necessary to construct the addition is not in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, and that the variance of 16.9 is not reasonable. Adopted this 25th day of June 2013. � Aaron Kuznia, Chair May 23, 2013 � Ms. Nancy Anderson,City Planner Planning and Development Department City of Hopkins 10101st Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Supplemental Letter in reference to the Application for Variance at 6 Manitoba Road Dear Ms.Anderson, Please consider the following information and commentary in reference to our application for a variance from section 530.05 of the Hopkins Zoning Code ordinance regarding setback requirements from structural improvements to the rear property line. REQUESTED VARIATION FROM THE ORDINANCE We live at 6 Manitoba Road,which falls in the R-1-E Zoning District. Section 530.05 requires a 40 foot setback from structural improvements in the rear yard. We would like to build an addition off the living area of our home to provide a private screened porch in our back yard. Our home does not sit parallel to the back property line, but the living area of the home ranges from 34.8'to 39.0'feet from the rear property line. We would like to build a comfortable 14'x 16' porch in the space between the home and the rear property line. This would require a variance from the ordinance,as the near corner of the addition would then sit approximately 23.1'from the rear property line. Therefore,this application is in � reference and support of a 16.9'variance from the 40'ordinance. OUR OPINION The strict enforcement of the aforementioned ordinance creates Practical Difficulties and denies us the reasonable use of our property.When our home was originally built in 1946 [before the rear setback ordinance was effectuated]the house structure was placed disproportionately towards the rear of the property, similarly to some other homes in our neighborhood, including the neighboring houses on both sides of our property. It is our opinion that because the ordinance was created after the fact of the siting of our home on our property, it causes an undue hardship as it relates to the future use of our home. The R-1-E zoning district in which we reside has a low density of housing stock and we understand the implication and intention of the zoning ordinance to prevent an overcrowding on the property because of this spaciousness; however, it is practically difficult to enjoy the natural benefits that come with this same spaciousness if we cannot add this screened porch in the area where we would like to do so. Minnesota has, as we have most recently experienced this year, a very short period of time to enjoy our natural surroundings before the elements make that nearly impossible.The addition of a screened porch to a single-family home is not at all a novel idea as we share the common opinion of many Minnesotans and specifically citizens of Hopkins that relish an ability to connect with nature and enjoy the land that Hopkins has to offer.The "back porch" is as necessary in our world today as Mark Twain once remarked nearly 100 years ago: ^ "1 like to dine in the air on the back porch in summer, &so I would not be without this portable net for anything;when you have got it hoisted, the flies have to wait for the second table. We sha/l see the summer day come when we shall all sit under our nets in church&slumber peacefully, while the discomfited flies dub together& toke it out of the minister. There are heaps of ways of getting priceless enjoyment out of these charming things, if I had time to point them out&diloted on them o little." - Mark Twain, 1917 One of the reasons we fell in love with and purchased our home in Hopkins was due to our ability to enjoy nature in our own way—the house was sited back from the street and afforded us a very private backyard.The screen porch will allow us to enjoy our home and our property in a way that is very common in our neighborhood and throughout our state;the problem only has arisen due to the advent of an ordinance that post-dates the original construction of our home. RELATIVE COMMENTARY Referring to the Site Plan provided, you can see the various areas of the layout of our home and how our home is sited on the property. The clear skew of the structure being well to the back of the property takes what would normally be a very easily improvable lot and changes it to a more difficult condition. As the garage adjoins the side yard to the west and the bedroom wing of the home adjoins the eastern side yard, it makes it practically difficult to put the screen porch addition to either side of the home and use it affectively. Similarly,the entire idea and use of the back porch as a private space to sit and relax with family and friends, share a conversation or break bread together, all in the privacy of our property, becomes practically impossible if it were to be built to face the street. Thus the only logical and useful location for this improvement is off the public areas of the home. Our decision to site the back porch off � the rear end of the great room provides us with the best use of the home and similarly allows light, air and egress to maintain itself along the dining room and bedroom areas of our home. It is truly the only reasonable location to place the addition. Referring to the two additional pages of renderings of our proposed back porch addition (interior and exterior) along with a photo of the existing back side of the house and two panoramic views demonstrate that the size of the porch and its effect on the rear yard will not alter the essential character of our property nor the neighborhood. • The porch architecture is appropriately understated, and the hip roof aspect of the addition will make sure that the roofline will be low at the farthest expanse of the porch • The interior provides for a comfortable but not overly gregarious use of space to enjoy a meal and conversation and enjoy the expanse of our back yard • The panoramic views taken from where the porch is proposed to be sited demonstrate the very private back yard and while we can barely see our neighbors on the other side of the fence,they similarly will not see our porch. The porch is understated,comfortable, and adds to the usefulness of our home in a way many neighbors already enjoy. Again,this is only a 224 square foot addition on a property of nearly 48,000 square feet. This is less than one half of one percent of the property and will not adversely affect the property in any way as we likely imagine the intention of the ordinance was created. Finally, within 500 feet of our home,there are five homes(nearly half of the properties within that same radius)that also have non-conforming features in their rear yards.The information below regarding our --.. neighborhood was gleaned from the Property Interactive Map online at the Hennepin Country GIS Website: • The house structure at 7 St. Albans Drive is 20.0'from the rear yard (this house is only 160 feet from ours) • The house structure at 15 Manitoba Road, nearly across the street, is 21.0'from the rear �' property line • Kitty corner from this house at 6 St.Albans Road,the house there sits 36.0'from the rear property line • Additionally,the house at 10700 Minnetonka Boulevard sits 29.0'from the rear yard, and • The house at 3 St. Albans Road East sits only 16 feet from the rear property line CONCLUSION Thus, we would conclude that we are not asking for an improvement that is an unreasonable use of the property, it does not adversely affect any neighbors nor the character of our yard nor our neighborhood, and finally,there are several homes within steps of our own that similarly infringe upon this setback created by the ordinance. It is our opinion that the granting of a variance for us to build this back porch in the location we deem appropriate would be consistent with the neighborhood, not provide any unique benefits to our property,and is simply a situation where the unique siting of our home on the property in its position prior to the ordinance date creates the practical difficulty required to allow for such a variance. We respectfully submit for your opinion this application and additional information and look forward to answering any further questions or concerns you may have at the Planning Commission meeting in June. Respectfully Submitted, /� _ �� � G���� lane K. Kirshbaum and David B. Kirshbaum 6 Manitoba Road Hopkins, MN 55305 � PRO..uNE w OUSTING TREES TREES FENCE 0 o H al � 8 �"y F 7FMEN,, TING T m P . PROPOSED SCREEN CE m? O rm b.o .,r 'r PORCH ADDITION EXISTING — FENCES � — • %VIEW A VIEW' Bl \ OFRCE Bm MUD/ \ \ \ LAUNDRY DINING.... BATES FMOM 6 MANITOBA ROAD GARAGEBED EXISTING HOUSE EovER o • • WR:HEN \ �• \BEDG EXISTING DRIVEWAY ,$ ,z m 6 kA PROPEL RTY LINE --,--- .. s Site Plan NI SCALE: V=25'-0° M '9 a. 13 3 Ns 7P