VII.1. Lot Size, Lot Width & Setback Variances at 501 7th Avenue South; Lindahl
July 16, 2019 City Council Report 2019-076
Lot Size, Lot Width & Setback Variances at 501 – 7th Avenue South
Proposed Action: Move to adopt Resolution 2019-057, approving minimum lot size, lot width
and setback variances for the property located at 501 – 7th Avenue South (25-117-22-13-0056).
Overview
The applicant, Ethan Ryan, requests minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances
to allow future subdivision of the existing single family lot located at 501 – 7th Avenue South.
This property is located in the Peaceful Valley neighborhood at the corner of 7th Avenue South
and 5th Street South.
The applicant requests minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances to subdivide
their existing 146’ wide by 128’ deep 18,827 square foot single family lot in to three separate
parcels. This design would retain the existing single family home on one lot and create two
additional single family lots for future development. While these variances are necessary from
the current R-1-B development standards, they would produce single family lots consistent with
the original plat and neighborhood’s existing development pattern.
Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommend approval of this request based
on the finding that the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty with meeting the City
zoning standards as required by the variance review standards detailed in Minnesota State Statute
462.357, Subdivision 6. This recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of and conformance with all requirements of an Administrative Subdivision.
2. Removal of a small addition on the south side of the existing house to allow a four (4) foot
side yard setback.
3. Garage, driveway or vehicle access to the two newly created lots (Lots 22 and 23) shall only
come from the rear alley. No garage, driveway or vehicle shall come from 7th Avenue South.
Primary Issues to Consider
• Background
• Variance Review
• Alternatives
Supporting Documents
• Resolution 2019-057
• Site Location Map
• E-mail Comments
• Applicant’s Narrative
• Existing Conditions Survey
• Proposed Lots Survey
• West Minneapolis Addition Plat
_____________________
Jason Lindahl, AICP
City Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________
Notes:
City Council Report 2019-076
Page 2
Background
The Background section covers action by the Planning & Zoning Commission, existing
neighborhood conditions, land use and zoning classifications and how the applicant intends to
subdivide the subject property should the City approve the proposed variances.
Planning & Zoning Commission Action. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public
hearing to review this item (Planning Application 2019-09-VAR) during its regular meeting on
June 25, 2019. During that meeting, the Commission heard a summary presentation from staff
and comments from the applicant. The applicant thanked staff but asked the Planning &
Zoning Commission to approve the variances without staff’s recommended condition that
garage, driveway or vehicle access to the two newly created lots (Lots 22 and 23) shall only come
from the rear alley. After some discussion, the Commission moved to recommend the City
Council approve the requested variances with staff recommended conditions.
Prior to the Public Hearing, staff received two e-mails with comments from surrounding
neighbors (see attached). Troy Gubbins of 537 – 7th Avenue south supports the lot size and lot
width variance but opposes the side yard setback variances. Melissa Wilcox of 521 - 6th Avenue
South originally opposed the variances and subdivision of the subject property into three lots
but would support subdivision into two lots. Ms. Wilcox followed up with staff by phone after
the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. During that conversation, staff explained the
proposed variances would allow subdivision of the subject property into three lots that would be
consistent with the surrounding existing development pattern. In this context, Ms. Wilcox
revised her position on the proposed variances from opposed to neutral.
Existing Conditions. The applicant’s property was originally platted in 1887 as Lots 22, 23,
and 24, Block 49 West Minneapolis Addition (see attached plat). This plat laid out property
from Mainstreet (then Excelsior Boulevard) to 7th Street South between Highway 169 (then 1st
Street South) and 13th Avenue. Originally, most of the lots in this plat were 50’ wide by
approximately 130’ deep (some lots were large while others were smaller). More specifically,
nearly all the lots on the surrounding blocks from 6th Avenue South to 11th Avenue South and
between 5th Street South and 7th Street South share these same dimensions.
Generally, houses were built in the West Minneapolis Addition between 1900 and 1975. Houses
on Block 49 (the subject property’s block) were built between 1904 and 1972. To the best of
staff knowledge, Lots 22, 23 and 24 appear to have operated as one property since the existing
single family home was built in 1914.
Land Use & Zoning. The Subject property is guided LDR – Low Density Residential by the
2030 Comprehensive Plan. According to the narrative for this land use classification, it allows
for single family detached residential dwelling at 1 to 7 units per acre. By comparison, the 2040
Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins guides this property as Traditional Urban,
which allows for moderate density residential neighborhoods and accessory uses such as parks
and neighborhood scaled public and institutional uses. Densities in this area typically range from
5-12 units per acre.
The subject property is zoned R-1-B. Development standards for this district are detailed in the
table below and compared with the typical existing conditions and those proposed by the
applicant.
City Council Report 2019-076
Page 3
501 – 7th Avenue South Variance Proposal
Category R-1-B
Standard
Typical Lot on
Surrounding Block
Proposed Variance from
R-1-B Standard
Lot Width 60’ 50’ Lots 22 & 23 = 50’
Lot 24 = 46.39’
Lots 22 & 23 = 10’
Lot 24 = 13.61’
Lot Area 8,000 6,450 Square Feet Lots 22 = 6,419
Lot23 = 6,409
Lot 24 = 5,951
Lots 22 = 1,581
Lot 23 = 1,591
Lot 24 = 2,049
Front Yard
Setback
30’ 20’ or less 30’ All 3 Lots None
Side Yard
Setback
8’* 5’ or less Lots 22 & 23 = 5’ & 5’
Lot 24 = 16’ & 4’ (south)
Lots 22 & 23 = 3’ & 3’
Lot 24 = +8’ & 4 (south)
Rear Yard
Setback
30’ Greater than 30’ 30’ All 3 Lots None
Building
Coverage
35% Less than 34% 35% All 3 Lots None
*While the R-1-B district requires a minimum 8’ side yard setback, it also allows additions to existing building with a minimum 5’
side yard setback.
Comparison of the existing zoning standards with the applicant’s development proposal results
in the following variances.
• Lots 22 - Minimum lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet, minimum lot size from 8,000 square
feet to 6,419 square feet and side yard setbacks from 8 feet to 5 feet.
• Lot 23 - Minimum lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet, minimum lot size from 8,000 square
feet to 6,409 square feet and side yard setbacks from 8 feet to 5 feet.
• Lot 24 - Minimum lot width from 60 feet to 46.39 feet, minimum lot size from 8,000 square
feet to 5,951 square feet and a south side yard setbacks from 8 feet to 4 feet.
Subdivision Proposal. Should the City approve these variances, the applicant could apply to
subdivide them through the Administrative Subdivision process that would not require
additional review by the Planning & Zoning Commission or City Council. The applicant
requests minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances detailed above to allow
subdivision of their existing 146’ wide by 128’ deep 18,827 square foot single family lot into
three separate parcels. This design would create two additional parcels for future development
on Lots 22 and 23 while retaining the existing single family home on Lot 24. While these
variances are necessary from the current R-1-B development standards, they would produce
single family lots consistent with the original West Minneapolis plat and surrounding
neighborhood development pattern.
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. Under the
law, economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In addition, the City
City Council Report 2019-076
Page 4
may choose to add conditions of approval that are directly related to and bear a rough
proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
Staff has reviewed the variance request against the standards detailed in Minnesota State Statute
462.357, Subdivision 6 and finds the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty. As a
result, staff recommends the City approve the applicant’s request. These review standards and
staff’s findings for each are provided below.
1. Is the variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Finding: The requested variances are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the R-1-B
district. The performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 530.05 –
Standards for the R Districts and the table above. These standards allow for single family
detached dwellings. The requested variances would allow creation of three single family lots that
would be consistent in size and dimension with the original West Minneapolis plat and
surrounding existing development pattern.
2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Finding: The requested variances are consistent with the goals and policies of both the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update –Cultivate Hopkins. Goals and
policies from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan supporting the requested variances include:
• Protect residential neighborhoods.
• Retain and enhance detached single-family homes.
• Take advantage of redevelopment opportunities to provide new housing choices for
the community.
• Encourage the development of owner-occupied housing.
• Continue to strive for a mix of housing that accommodates a balance of all housing needs.
While not formally adopted, it is worth noting that the requested variances would also be
consistent with the future land use category and goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive
Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins. If approved, that plan would designate the future land use
category for the subject property as Traditional Urban, which allows for moderate density
residential uses with densities from 5-12 units per acre.
Goals and policies from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that support this proposal include:
Built Environment – Land Use & Design
• Goal 4 - Support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and
appropriate infill. The supporting policy for this goal states the City should “preserve and
enhance the community’s detached single family housing stock, especially in the Estate
Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood future land use categories.”
• Goal 5 - Reinforce Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of community through high quality
urban design. This goal is supported by a policy to “Reinforce the distinctive characteristics
of Downtown and existing neighborhoods by encouraging developments that are compatible
in design and supportive within their context.”
City Council Report 2019-076
Page 5
• Goal 6 - Create appropriate transitions between areas of the city where there are potential
incompatibilities in land use or scale. This goal is supported by the policy to “Use urban
design elements, building massing, land use strategies, and public realm improvements to
provide appropriate transitions between developments – particularly those of different scale
and intensity.”
Built Environment – Housing
• Goal 4 - Maintain the quality, safety, and character of existing housing stock. This goal is
supported by the policy to “Ensure that new housing proposals address building massing,
parking locations, access, traffic impacts, landscaping, exterior architectural design, fencing,
trash handling, and parking ratios.” Based on this goal, staff recommends a condition of
approval for these variances require the garage and vehicle access to come from the alley
behind these properties.
3. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The proposal would put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The
requested minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances would allow the applicant
to subdivide their existing single family lot in to three separate parcels. This design would create
two additional parcels for future development on Lots 22 and 23 while retaining the existing
single family home on Lot 24. While the requested variances are necessary from the current R-
1-B development standards, they would produce single family lots consistent with the goals and
policies of the comprehensive plan, the original West Minneapolis plat and the surrounding
single family development pattern.
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. The original West Minneapolis plat created lots that were predominately 50’ wide by
130’ feet deep. This design is consistent with all of the other single family lots on the block on
which the subject property is located as well as the surrounding blocks from 6th Avenue South to
11th Avenue South and between 5th Street South and 7th Street South. As a result, expecting this
property to meet the current lot size, lot width and side yard setback standards of the R-1-B
district is impractical.
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. The requested variance would produce single family lots consistent with the
goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, the original West Minneapolis plat and the
surrounding single family development pattern.
Alternatives
1. Approve the requested variances. Voting to approve the request would allow the applicant
to subdivide the existing property into three separate parcels consistent with the original
West Minneapolis plat and surrounding neighborhood development pattern.
2. Deny the requested variances. Voting to deny the request would prevent future subdivision
of the subject property. Should the City Council consider this option, it must also identify
City Council Report 2019-076
Page 6
specific findings that support this alternative.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council concludes that further information is
needed, the items should be continued.
1
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2019-057
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE, LOT
WIDTH AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 501 - 7TH AVENUE SOUTH (25-117-22-13-0056)
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Ethan Ryan (the “Applicant”) is the fee owner 501 - 7th Avenue South legally
described below:
Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 049 West Minneapolis Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned R-1-B, Single-Family High Density residential; 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 530.05, of the City Code requires that single-family dwellings in the R-
1-B district be at least 60-feet wide and at least 8,000 square feet in size and have side yard setback
of at least 8 feet; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a
request to the City for the following minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances in
order to subdivide their existing 146 feet by 128 feet 18,827 square foot property into three separate
parcels
• Lots 22 - Minimum lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet, minimum lot size from 8,000
square feet to 6,419 square feet and side yard setbacks from 8 feet to 5 feet.
• Lot 23 - Minimum lot width from 60 feet to 50 feet, minimum lot size from 8,000
square feet to 6,409 square feet and side yard setbacks from 8 feet to 5 feet.
• Lot 24 - Minimum lot width from 60 feet to 46.39 feet, minimum lot size from 8,000
square feet to 5,951 square feet and a south side yard setbacks from 8 feet to 4 feet.
2
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 June 25, 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 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 vote 5-0 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 the variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Finding: The requested variances are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the R-1-B district. The
performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 530.05 – Standards for the R
Districts and the table above. These standards allow for single family detached dwellings. The requested
variances would allow creation of 3 single family lots that would be consistent in size and dimension with the
original West Minneapolis plat and surrounding existing development pattern.
2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Finding: The requested variances are consistent with the goals and policies of both the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update –Cultivate Hopkins. Goals and policies from the 2030
Comprehensive Plan supporting the requested variances include:
• Protect residential neighborhoods.
• Retain and enhance detached single-family homes.
• Take advantage of redevelopment opportunities to provide new housing choices for the
community.
• Encourage the development of owner-occupied housing.
• Continue to strive for a mix of housing that accommodates a balance of all housing needs.
3
While not formally adopted, it is worth noting that the requested variances would also be consistent with the
future land use category and goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate
Hopkins. If approved, that plan would designate the future land use category for the subject property as
Traditional Urban which allows for moderate density residential uses with densities from 5-12 units per acre.
Goals and policies from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that support this proposal include:
Built Environment – Land Use & Design
• Goal 4 - Support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and appropriate infill.
The supporting policy for this goal states the City should “preserve and enhance the community’s detached
single family housing stock, especially in the Estate Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood future land
use categories.”
• Goal 5 - Reinforce Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of community through high quality urban
design. This goal is supported by a policy to “Reinforce the distinctive characteristics of Downtown and
existing neighborhoods by encouraging developments that are compatible in design and supportive within their
context.”
• Goal 6 - Create appropriate transitions between areas of the city where there are potential
incompatibilities in land use or scale. This goal is supported by the policy to “Use urban design elements,
building massing, land use strategies, and public realm improvements to provide appropriate transitions
between developments – particularly those of different scale and intensity.”
Built Environment – Housing
• Goal 4 - Maintain the quality, safety, and character of existing housing stock. This goal is supported
by the policy to “Ensure that new housing proposals address building massing, parking locations, access,
traffic impacts, landscaping, exterior architectural design, fencing, trash handling, and parking ratios.”
Based on this goal, staff recommends a condition of approval for these variances require the garage and vehicle
access to come from the alley behind these properties.
3. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The proposal would put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The requested
minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances would allow the applicant to subdivide their
existing single family lot in to three separate parcels. This design would create two additional parcels for
future development on Lots 22 and 23 while retaining the existing single family home on Lot 24. While the
requested variance are necessary from the current R-1-B development standards, they would produce single
family lots consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, the original West Minneapolis
plat and the surrounding single family development pattern.
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. The
original West Minneapolis plat created lots that were predominately 50’ wide by 130’ feet deep. This design
is consistent with all of the other single family lots on the block on which the subject property is located as well
as the surrounding blocks from 6th Avenue South to 11th Avenue South and between 5th Street South and
4
7th Street South. As a result, expecting this property to meet the current lot size, lot width and side yard
setback standards of the R-1-B district is impractical.
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.
The requested variance would produce single family lots consistent with the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan, the original West Minneapolis plat and the surrounding single family development
pattern.
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, subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of and conformance with all requirements of an Administrative Subdivision.
2. Removal of a small addition on the south side of the existing house to allow a four (4)
foot side yard setback.
3. Garage, driveway or vehicle access to the two newly created lots (Lots 22 and 23) shall
only come from the rear alley. No garage, driveway or vehicle shall come from 7th
Avenue South.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 16th day of July 2019.
ATTEST:
______________________ _______________________
Amy Domeier, City Clerk Jason Gadd, Mayor
Site Location Map for 501 – 7th Avenue South
Subject
Property
From:Gubbins, Troy
To:Jason Lindahl
Subject:[EXTERNAL] RE: Public Hearing Notice - 501 7th Ave S
Date:Wednesday, June 19, 2019 9:34:26 AM
Attachments:SBizhub19061816130.pdf
Hello Jim,
I am a resident on the 500 block of 7th Ave S. I will not be able attend the public hearing but would like to
provide some input. The attached letter did not address to what extent the lot size and side yard setback
variance is requesting. Without those exact details I’d like to provide a general input. The neighborhood
consists of small single family homes, with mostly detached garages, and lots of mature trees.
I am not opposing subdividing the 501 property into three separate parcels. I do oppose the side yard
variance request. I believe altering this standard would compromise the aesthetic of the neighborhood
entirely, especially because it would be in prominent view for vehicles traveling on 5th street. New builds
on this property should showcase the variety of small single family homes that have been developed over
a 50+ year period and not be misrepresentative with new builds that could potentially look like row
houses.
Best regards
Troy Gubbins
Prior to visiting ZEISS please watch this brief visitor orientation video.
__________
Troy Gubbins
Facilities and Safety Manager, RSO
ZEISS Industrial Quality Solutions
Carl Zeiss Industrial Metrology, LLC
6250 Sycamore Lane N
Maple Grove, MN 55369
Mobile: +1 763-203-4267
Phone: +1 763-744-2548
Fax: +1 763-744-2419
troy.gubbins@zeiss.com
www.zeiss.com
From: Scanner, X
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 4:13 PM
To: Gubbins, Troy <troy.gubbins@zeiss.com>
Subject: Message from Bizhub
From:Melissa Wilcox
To:Jason Lindahl
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Public hearing notice (property sub division)
Date:Monday, June 24, 2019 10:08:12 PM
I am emailing on my and my husbands behalf about the property located at 501 7th ave south. I wanted
to let you know our feelings as residents and tax payers near by about dividing the property into 3. We
live at 521 6th ave south near by. We feel that dividing this piece of land into 3 is ridiculous and does not
support the nature of our neighborhood. I would support dividing it into 2 as it seems to be a double lot.
3 homes on that small of an area would not match the surrounding homes. I think it would be a mistake
and we are very much against squeezing that many homes in to make a buck. I can certainly see why he
would want to do so with homes selling as they do but please hold the line at 2.
Melissa Wilcox
612-735-7756
521 6th Ave South
Hopkins, MN 55343
I am sorry I am not able to attend the meeting. I work overnights and would not have childcare