Loading...
VII.2. Side Yard Setback Variance for Harley Hopkins Family Resource Center; Lindahl April 2, 2019 City Council Report 2019-035 Side Yard Setback Variance for Harley Hopkins Family Resource Center (125 Monroe Avenue PID 19-117-21-34-0140) Proposed Action: • Move to adopt Resolution 2019-029, approving a four (4) foot east side yard setback variance for an accessory building at the Harley Hopkins Family Resource Center located at 125 Monroe Avenue South (PID 19-117-21-34-0140). Overview The applicant, Hopkins Public School 270, requests a four (4) foot side yard setback variance to allow placement of an accessory building. The Institutional District requires 35 foot front, side and rear yard setbacks for both principal and accessory structures. In this case, the applicant proposes to locate a 16’ by 20’ (320 square feet) accessory structure with only a 31 foot east side yard setback. This position is necessary to accommodate the site’s dimensions and topography. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review this item during their March 26, 2019 meeting and found the applicant had demonstrated a practical difficulty with meeting the City zoning standards as required by Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. As a result, both the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommend the City Council approve this application. Primary Issues to Consider • Background • Variance Review • Alternatives Supporting Documents • Resolution 2019-029 • Site Location Map • Site Plan • Topographic Map _____________________ Jason Lindahl, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: City Council Report 2019-035 Page 2 Background According to Sue Chovan, Coordinator of Early Childhood and Parent Education Programs, Harley Hopkins Family Resource Center is the hub of the school district’s early childhood program serving more than 500 families each semester. The building houses offices for the district’s staff, Kaleidoscope preschool, early childhood family education classes and events and kindergarten screening program. It is also home to Hopkins Early Learning Center, a non-profit childcare center. In January, the applicant was before the Planning & Zoning Commission with a request to amend their existing conditional use permit to allow site and building improvements to the Harley Hopkins Family Resource Center located at 125 Monroe Avenue South. The City Council approved that request in February. During that review, it was determined that the proposed location for an accessory building did not meet the 35 foot minimum side yard setback. Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council expressed general support for a side yard setback variance to address this issue; however, the City could not take action on a variance as part of the original conditional use permit amendment application because it was not identified earlier enough in the process to be included in the public notice for that item. As a result, the applicant has followed up with this variance application. Planning & Zoning Commission Action. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review this item (Planning Application 2019-04-VAR) during their meeting on March 26, 2019. During the meeting, the Commission heard a summary presentation from staff and comments from one resident during the public hearing. Eric Anondson of 53 Jackson Avenue South asked questions about how the proposed project would impact access to and amenities at Harley Hopkins Park. City Planner Jason Lindahl responded that the project would have no impact on either access to or amenities at the park. Mr. Anondson also stated that he would like for there to be better access through the fence around the park and for the City to improve the amenities at the park. Mr. Lindahl stated that he could relay these concerns to Public Works Director Steve Stadler and the Park Board. After some general discussion, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend the City Council approve this application. Variance Review 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. Both staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission have reviewed the variance request against the standards detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6 and found the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty. As a result, both staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the City Council approve the applicant’s request. The standards for reviewing a variance application and staff’s findings for each are provided below. 1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? City Council Report 2019-035 Page 3 Finding: The requested variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Institutional district. The performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 542 – Institutional District. These standards allow for “schools and all structures, facilities and physical improvements incidental or accessory there to” as conditional uses, subject to a 35 foot setback. Given that the abutting property to the east is a city park primary used as open space, there will be no visible evidence of a lesser setback or impact to the neighbors on the east side of the park. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The proposed accessory building is consistent with both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as Institutional. According to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Institutional land use category is intended to capture public and semi- public uses such as schools, churches, government buildings and other civic. These uses include related accessory buildings like the proposed shed. By comparison, the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as Open and Social Space. This district is intended to provide a wide range of public and private uses where the community may gather for education, social and recreation activities. Uses in this district may include community centers, conservation areas, colleges or universities, libraries, parks, public or private schools, regional trails or recreational facilities. These areas are intended to retain their existing boundaries and character but may improve to meet the changing educational, social and recreational needs of the community. 3. Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: The proposal would put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The proposed variance would allow placement of an accessory building 31 feet from the subject property’s eastern property line. Staff finds this is reasonable given the abutting property to the east is a city park primarily used for open space. As a result, there will be no visible or noticeable impact on either the park or the residential property along the east side of the park. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: There are unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner. In this case, both lot design and topography necessitate the need for the requested variance. Overall, the subject property is approximately 550 feet long and 250 feet deep. However, the northern end of the property narrows to 227 feet in depth creating a “pinch point” right next to the proposed location of the accessory building. In addition, there is an eight (8) foot topographic drop in this same location, which limits the applicant’s ability to reposition or change the dimensions of the proposed accessory building to eliminate the need for a variance. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. As mentioned above, use of the site for an accessory building to a community City Council Report 2019-035 Page 4 center/school use is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and Institutional zoning classification. Additionally, with the reduced setback located abutting a city park primarily used as open space there will be no visible or noticeable impact to the adjacent properties. Alternatives 1. Approve the 4 foot variance application. By approving the variance application, the applicant will be allowed to construct an accessory building with a 31 foot east side yard setback. 2. Deny the 4 foot variance application. By denying the variance application, the applicant will be required to redesign their project to meet the 35 east side yard setback requirement. Should the City Council consider this option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. This item should be continued if the City Council finds that further information is needed. 1 CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2019-029 RESOLUTION APPROVING A FOUR (4) FOOT EAST SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 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 School 270 (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 east 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 2 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 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 his submissions, the written staff report, and after careful consideration of all other written and oral comments concerning the requested variances, the Commission voted 4-0 to recommend the City Council approve the requested variances; and WHEREAS, based on a review of the Applicant’s request and their submissions, the written staff report, the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation and after careful consideration of all other written and oral comments concerning the requested variances, the Hopkins City Council 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 requested variances is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Institutional district. The performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 542 – Institutional District. These standards allow for “schools and all structures, facilities and physical improvements incidental or accessory there to” as conditional uses, subject to a 35 foot setback. Given that the abutting property to the east is a city park primary used as open space, there will be no visible evidence of a lesser setback or impact to the neighbors on the east side of the park. 2.Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The proposed accessory building is consistent with both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as Institutional. According to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Institutional land use category is intended to capture public and semi-public uses such as schools, churches, government buildings and other civic. These uses include related accessory buildings like the proposed shed. By comparison, the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as Open and Social Space. This district is intended to provide a wide range of public and private uses where the community may gather for education, social and recreation activities. Uses in this district may include community centers, conservation areas, colleges or universities, libraries, parks, public or private schools, regional trails or recreational facilities. These areas are intended to retain their existing boundaries and character but may improve to meet the changing educational, social and recreational needs of the community. 3.Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? 3 Finding: The proposal would put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The proposed variance would allow placement of an accessory building 31 feet from the subject property’s eastern property line. Staff finds this is reasonable given the abutting property to the east is a city park primarily used for open space. As a result, there will be no visible or noticeable impact on either the park or the residential property along the east side of the park. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: There are unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner. In this case, both lot design and topography necessitate the need for the requested variance. Overall, the subject property is approximately 550 feet long and 250 feet deep. However, the northern end of the property narrows to 227 feet in depth creating a “pinch point” right next to the proposed location of the accessory building. In addition, there is an eight (8) foot topographic drop in this same location, which limits the applicant’s ability to reposition or change the dimensions of the proposed accessory building to eliminate the need for a variance. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. As mentioned above, use of the site for an accessory building to a community center/school use is consistent with both the comprehensive plan and Institutional zoning classification. Additionally, with the reduced setback located abutting a city park primarily used as open space there will be no visible or noticeable impact to the adjacent properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council 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 City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins that based on the findings of fact contained herein, the City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby approves the Applicant’s requested variance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 2nd day of April 2019. ATTEST: ______________________ _______________________ Amy D omeier, City Clerk Jason Gadd, Mayor Site Location Map – Harley Hopkins Family Resource Center Subject Property Harley Hopkins Family Resource Center Topographic Map Proposed Accessory Building Location