P&Z Resolution 2019-05 - Recommending the City Council Approve a 4 Foot Side Yard Setback Variance for the Harley Hopkins Family Resource Center Located at 125 Monroe Avenue S (PID 19-117-21-34-0140) CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2019-05
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A FOUR(4)
FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE HARLEY HOPKINS FAMILY
RESOURCE CENTER LOCATED AT 125 MONROE AVENUE SOUTH
(PID 19-117-21-34-0140)
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS,Hopkins Public Schoo1270(the"Applicant")are the fee owners of 125 Monroe
Avenue South legally described below:
Lots 13 To 24 Incl And That Part Of Lots 1 To 12 Incl Lying Wly Of A Line Desc As Com
At Se Cor Of Lot 13 Blk 35 Th On An Assumed Bearing Of S 87 Deg 34 Min 17 Sec W Along S
Line Of Said Lot 13 And Its Wly Extension 213.14 Ft To Actual Pt Of Beg Th N 0 Deg 22 Min 04
Sec W Par To E Line Of Lots 13 To 24 Incl Blk 35 Dis 382 Ft Th S 89 Deg 37 Min 56 Sec W 20 Ft
Th N 0 Deg 22 Min 04 Sec @ 178.05 Ft To N Line Of Blk 34 And There Terminating Incl Adj Vac
Alley, West Minneapolis Center Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota(the"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned Institutional; 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, Section 542—Institutional District, of the City Code allows for schools and all
structures, facilities and physical improvements incidental or accessory thereto as conditional uses,
subject to a 35 foot setback; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a
request to the City for a four(4) foot side yard setback variance to allow placement of an accessory
building;
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
1
zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner; and the variance, if ganted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties."; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, 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 variance 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 their 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 variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Finding.• The reqrse�ted varianc•e.c i.r in harmony zvith the purf�o.re and intent of�the In��titutional distric•t.
The�er�formance�tandards for thi��di.rtrict ure detailed in City Code Section 542—In.rtitutional Di��tri�•t.
The.re��tundard.r alloaa�for ".rchool.r and all.rinrctu�s,facilitie.r and�ihy.ric•al im�rovement.r inciderrtal or
acce.r.rory the�to"a��conditional u.re�;.rubject to a 35 foot.retback. Given that the aGrrtting property to the
ea.rt i.r a city par,�primary used a.r open.rpace, the�z u�ill be no�i.rible evidence of a le.r.rer.retback or impac•t to
the neighbor��on the ea.rt.ride o f the pur�.
2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Finding.• The prn�o.red acc•e.rsory 6uilding i��con�z.rtent avith 6oth the 2030 Com�irehen.rive 1'lan and the
Draft 2040 C,'om�rehensive Plan— Cultivule t�opkin.r. The 2030 Comp�hen.rive 1'lan Future Llrnd U.re
Maf�garides the.rubject prnperly a.r In.rtitutional �cc•ording to the 2030 Compreben.rive Plan, the
In,rtitutional land ure category i.r intended to capturz public and.remi public u,re.r.rueh a.r school.r, churche.r,
government b�silding.r and other ciinc. The.re u.re.r irrc•lude related acce.r.rory Guilding.r like thepropo.red.rhed.
By c•ompari.ron, the Draft 20�0 Comp�zhen�zve Plan—Cultivate Hopkin,r Futur�I�nd U.re Ma�guide��
the.rubjec•t pro�erly a.r Open and Social Spuce. Thi.r di.rtrict is intended to p�7ride a�ande range of public and
private u.re��zvhe�the community maygather for edr.rcation, .rociul and recreation acti�ntie.r U.re.r in thi.r
di.rtric•t may inc•lude community center.r, con.reroution area.r, college.r or univer.ritie��, librarie.r,par�.r,pu�lic or
privute.rchool�; r�gional truil.r or recyeational faczlitie�: The.re a�a.r are intended to retain their e.��z.rting
boundarie.r and character�ut may improve to meet the changing educ•ational, .roczal and�zereational neede�o f
the c•ommunity.
3. Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The propo.ral 2vould put the�ubje�t prn�erty to u.re in a�za.ronable manner. The propo.red varianc•e
zvould allozv plucement of an acce.r.rory building 31 feet fynm the.rubjec•t p�perty's eastern property line. Sta�
find.r thi��i.r reu��onablegiven the abutting properly to the east is a czty park�rimarily u.red for open.rpace.
�.r a re.rult, tberp avill be no in.ri/�le or notic•eable impact on eitber the park or the re.ridential�ynperly along
the ea.rt.ride of�the�ark.
2
4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created b}�the landowner?
Fi�7dz'ng: 77�e�are unig»e czrezrm.rtances to 1/�e proper7y that sver�not c�ated Gy the landoivner. In this
c•a.re, both lot de,rign and tof�ogrcrp/y nec•e��.ritute the need for the r�que.rted��ariance. Overall, the.rul ject
prn�erty i��cr��roximately 550 feet long and 250 feet deep. Hoavever, the northern end of the��n�erty
narrozv�-to 227 feet in depth creuting a `pinc•l�j�oint"right next to tbe prn�io.red location of the acce.r.rory
building. Irt addition, ther�i��un eight(8)foot topogrcrphic drop in thi.r�ame location, av/�ic%linlite�the
applicant'.c aGility to n�osition or change the dimen.rion.r of the propo.red acc•e.rsory building to eliminate the
need for a variane•e.
5. Will the variance,if granted,alter the essential character of the locality?
Finding: Granti�ag the�que.rted variance zvould not alter the es.rential character of the.rurrounding a�a.
�.r menlioned al�oz�e, u.re of the.rite for ar1 acc•e.c.rory�uilding to a c•ommunity c•erzter/.rchool u.re i.r eonsistent
tvith botb tl�e c•ompr�hen.rive plarr and In.rtitutional tioning c•la.r�ification. �dditionally, zvitb the red�ced
.ret6ac�,�located abl.rtting a city park primari/y u.red a�open space the�ivill be no visi6le or noticea6le impact
to the adjacent��nperties:
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, the
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Hopkins approve the
Applicant's requested variance.
Adopted this 26'�'day of March, 2019.
.7
.� ��
I
� /�-
J es Warden, Chair
3