P&Z Resolution 2020-03 - Recommending the City Council Deny the Variance Request from Robin Franks with Pawn America, LLC for the Properties Located at 1409 (PID 24-117-22-32-0099) and 1413 Mainstreet (PID 24-117-22-32-0100)CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2020-03
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE VARIANCE
REQUEST FROM ROBIN FRANKS WITH PAWN AMERICA, LLC
FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1409 (PID 24-117-22-32-0099) AND 1413
MAINSTREET (PID 24-117-22-32-0100)
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the "City') is a municipal corporation, organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Robin Franke with Pawn America, LLC (the "Applicants") was authorized by the
fee owner to apply for this application for the properties at 1409 & 1413 Mainstreet legally described
below:
Lots 12, Block 73 of West Minneapolis 2nd Division, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And
Lots 13 & the East '/z of Lot 14, Block 73 of West Minneapolis 2"d Division, Hennepin County,
Minnesota. (Together the "Properties"); and
WHEREAS, the Properties are zoned B-3, General Business District; 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, Ordinance 2017-1125 details the zoning regulations for Pawnshops; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a request
to the City for a variance from Ordinance 2017-1125;
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 23, 2020, pursuant to the procedural requirements contained in Article III,
Section 102-91 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 requested variance is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the zoning ordinance. The City's Supplemental Data for Variance form asks applicants
to specify the section of the ordinance from which a variance is sought. In response
to this question, the applicant listed the entire Ordinance No. 2017-1125, which
includes all of the specific conditional use permit standards for pawnshops. As
stated above, two particular standards contained in the City's zoning ordinance
expressly prohibit this use in the location requested. Ignoring these standards has
the practical effect of eliminating these standards and changing pawnshops from a
conditional to a permitted use circumventing the City zoning authority to determine
the appropriate location and development regulations for this type of use in
Hopkins.
2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Finding: The requested variances is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The
2030 Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as
Commercial. Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan details the City's land use
plan and includes a set of overall goals that provide a framework for land use
initiatives in Hopkins. Of these goals, the most applicable to this variance request is:
Maintain appropriate transitions between land uses. Hopkins is a fully developed
community and will likely see new development through redevelopment initiatives. The City will
work to ensure appropriate transitional uses and buffering betaveen neav and existing land uses.
One of the ways the City's zoning regulations seeks to implement this goal in relation
to pawnshops is by requiring minimum separation distances between pawnshops and
other uses such as other pawnshops, residential or institutional uses or districts and
off -sale liquor. Granting the requested variance and allowing a pawnshop use at the
subject property would violate the minimum separation standards from the single
family residential zone to the north just across the alley and the institutional use to
the southeast across Mainstreet (Chesterton Academy).
The Land Use and Development chapter goes on to state the City regards the
preservation and protection of its existing residential neighborhoods as one of its
most important priorities. The City will work to protect land use patterns that
2
continue to support single family homes. In order to address residential land use
patterns, the comprehensive plan provides the following implementation strategies,
all of which support staff's recommendation to deny the requested variance.
• Work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of its low-density residential
neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effects of nearby
commercial or industrial land through zoning, site plan reviews, and code
enforcement.
• Ensure that the infilling of vacant parcels and the rehabilitation of existing
developed land will be in accordance with uses specified in the Comprehensive
Plan.
• Ensure that incompatible land uses will be improved or removed where possible
and the land reused in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods.
3. Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The proposal does not put the property to use in a reasonable manner. As
detailed in the Background section above, in 2017 the City Council enacted a
moratorium on pawnshops, currency exchanges and coin dealers to give City staff
sufficient time to study these uses and evaluate various options for regulation. The
result of this review was adoption of Ordinance 2017-1125 which established
pawnshops as a conditional use in the B-3 and B-4 district, subject to certain
standards. Approving the applicant's variance request would have the practical effect
of waiving these standards and using the property in an unreasonable manner.
4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
Finding: There are not unique circumstances to the property that were not created
by the landowner that support granting the requested variance. Under this standard,
the applicant must demonstrate the issues that prevent them from using the subject
property as a pawnshop were caused by circumstances unique to the property and
were not caused by them. The applicant does not provide, and staff cannot find, any
evidence supporting a position that there are unique circumstances to the subject
property not created by the landowner that prevent them from meeting the zoning
regulations for pawnshops.
5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Finding. Granting the requested variance would alter the essential character of the
surrounding area. Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan provides more
detailed land use planning in 8 planning districts. The subject properties are located
in Planning District 8 — Downtown Hopkins. The residential neighborhood directly
north of the subject properties is located Planning District 2 — Central Hopkins.
The Narrative for Planning District 2 states this district needs to be protected from
outside intrusions that might threaten the integrity of the existing low density
neighborhoods. Potential intrusions are most likely to occur on the common
boundary between Planning District #8 and Planning District #2. Staff fords
granting the requested variance would be inconsistent with this portion of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and alter the essential character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
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 deny the Applicant's requested variance.
Adopted this 23' day of June, 2020.
Gerard Balan, Chair
L,