Loading...
V. 2. 2020-18 210 7th Avenue North VarianceJuly 28 2020 Planning Application 2020-18 210 – 7th Avenue North Variance Request Proposed Action: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt the following motion: Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2020-05, recommending the City Council deny the variance request from Daniel Martin for the property located at 210 – 7th Avenue North (PID 24-117-22-13-0061). Overview The applicant, Daniel Martin, requests a variance from the two-family dwelling (duplex) minimum lot size standard in the R-1-A district. The subject property is located at 210 – 7th Avenue South in the Avenues neighborhood. Staff recommends denial of this request based on the finding that the applicant has not demonstrated a practical difficulty as required under Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. By denying this application, the City will uphold the goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and current zoning regulations for the R-1-A district as well as affirm the policy position of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins and the Zoning Regulations Update Working Group to continue to protect single family neighborhoods while also considering revisions to the City’s existing zoning standards for accessory dwelling units. Primary Issues to Consider • Background • Legal Authority • Variance Review Supporting Documents • Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2020-05 • Site Location Map • Applicant’s Narrative • Building Permit for 206 – 7th Avenue North • Building Permit for 211 – 12th Avenue North _____________________ Jason Lindahl, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2020-18 Page 2 BACKGROUND The applicant, Daniel Martin, requests variance from the Two-family dwelling (duplex) minimum lot size standard in the R-1-A district. The R-1-A district requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet for all properties and a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet (3,500 square feet/unit) for a two-family dwelling (duplex). According to Hennepin County’s property tax record, the applicant’s property is 6,497 square feet. As a result, the applicant’s lot exceeds the minimum lot size requirement for all properties by 497 square feet but falls below the two-family dwelling minimum lot size by 503 square feet. The applicant provides a basis for the variance request in the attached narrative. The narrative asserts the applicant has a practical difficulty with meeting the zoning regulations and therefore the City should grant his request (see attached). His narrative also makes the following points in support of his request. • My lot is already zoned for multifamily use. In my opinion, it would be a waste of Hopkins mass transit resources: bus line, biking trails, and soon to be light rail, to not capitalize on this opportunity to bring another family into this great community. • More tax dollars for the city of Hopkins. My property value will go up once construction is complete, hence bringing in more tax dollars to the city, and increasing the average home value in my neighborhood. • Bring more spendable money into Hopkins and its small businesses. More residents means more money that will be spent at Hopkins' small businesses. • Due to the covid-19 pandemic, there is a looming recession and housing crisis that has not yet hit, but is predicted later in 2020. More rentals will be needed due to people losing their jobs and homes. I am currently in the position to help provide one more family with quality housing at a fair price. • Since this will be an up/down duplex, and because the other duplexes listed in the compatibles section are mostly all side by side, I will have more usable lot space than the comparable listed. I currently have a one car garage and additional off street parking to accommodate 4+ vehicles. Almost all duplexes in Hopkins have fewer usable square footage and fewer parking spaces than the subject property. • This property has a new 6 foot privacy fence with 20 screening trees to provide plenty privacy for the surrounding neighbors. The applicant also provides five examples in his neighborhood of duplexes on properties that do not meet the minimum lot size requirement (see attached) for two-family dwelling in the R-1-A district. A search of City records for each of these properties finds all of the properties were constructed before the current zoning regulations for the R-1-A district were adopted in 1978. Two of the properties (202 – 7th Avenue North and 211 – 12th Avenue North) have original permits to allow a two-family dwelling in conformance with the zoning regulations in place at the time. However, the 3 other properties have no original permit information or permits showing a conversion from a single family dwelling to a two-family dwelling. Public Comments. Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and the related statewide emergency declaration, notice of the public hearing for this item directed all interested parties to make their comments to City Planner Jason Lindahl by mail, phone or e-mail before noon on Tuesday, July 28, 2020. As of the writing of this report, the City had received three comments opposed to the variance from Tim Snyder (213 – 8th Avenue North), Paolo Lovagnini (233 – 7th Avenue North) and Julie Boehmer (237 – 7th Avenue North). Staff will provided an update on all public comments received prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting during the Planning Application 2020-18 Page 3 public hearing. LEGAL AUTHORITY City review of variance applications is a Quasi-Judicial action. Generally, if the application meets the review standards, the variance should be approved. However, 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. The standards for reviewing variances are detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. In summary, variances may be granted when the applicant demonstrates there are "practical difficulties" in complying with the zoning regulations. Under this law, economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. Additionally, the City may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under the zoning ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. VARIANCE REVIEW Staff reviewed the variance request against the standards detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. Practical difficulties are determined through review of the five questions listed below. Staff recommends denial of the applicant’s variance request because the applicant is unable to demonstrate practical difficulty with complying with the zoning regulations. 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 R-1-A zoning district requires a 7,000 square foot minimum lot for two-family dwellings. The applicant’s property is 6,497 square feet or 503 square feet smaller than required. Granting the variance would allow a two-family dwelling on a lot smaller than allowed. 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 LDR – Low Density Residential. The Land Use and Development chapter cites the preservation and protection of existing residential neighborhoods as one of the city’s most important priorities. Goal - The City will work to protect land use patterns that continue to support single family homes. Policies supporting this goal include: • 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. • Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods. It should be noted that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) were discussed by the comprehensive plan advisory committee and City Council during development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. As a result, the 2040 plan includes goals and policies that maintains the goal to protect single family neighborhoods while also considering revisions to the City’s existing zoning standards for ADU’s. This policy positions was confirmed by the members of the Planning Application 2020-18 Page 4 Zoning Regulations Update Advisory Working Group. 3. Does proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: The proposal does not put the property to use in a reasonable manner. The applicant has a property that meets the minimum lot size standards for the R-1-A district and allows reasonable use as a single family dwelling. Granting the variance would allow the applicant additional property rights not afforded other property owners in the same district. 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 two-family dwelling were caused by circumstances unique to the property and were not caused by the owner. Staff finds there are no unique circumstances to this property that prevent it from meeting the minimum lots size requirement. Other properties in this same zoning district were platted or have added area to meet the zoning standards for a two-family dwelling and any other property of this size in this same zoning district would also be prohibited from redeveloping as a two-family dwelling. 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. The zoning standards for the R-1-A district specifically prohibit properties of this size from developing as a two-family dwelling. Granting the requested variance would allow this property to redevelop into a two-family dwelling on a property smaller than allowed in the R-1- A district. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of the requested variance. By recommending approval of the application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. Should the Planning & Zoning Commission consider this option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative. 2. Recommend denial of the requested variance as recommended by staff. By recommending denial of the variance application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. 3. Continue for further information. This item should be continued if the Planning & Zoning Commission finds that further information is needed. 1 CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2020-05 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST FROM DANIEL MARTIN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 210 – 7TH AVENUE NORTH (PID 24-117-22-13-0061) WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Daniel Martin (the “Applicants”) is the fee owner 210 – 7th Avenue North legally described below: Lot 010, Block 086 West Minneapolis 2nd DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Properties are zoned R-1-A, Single and Two Family High Density; 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, City Code Part III, Chapter 102, Article V, Section 102-160 requires two-family dwelling to have a minimum lot size of at least 7,000 square feet (3,500/unit); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a request to the City for a minimum lot size variance in order to rehabilitate his existing one-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling; and 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 July 28, 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”) 2 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 variance, 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 R-1-A zoning district requires a 7,000 square foot minimum lot for two-family dwellings. The applicant’s property is 6,497 square feet or 503 square feet smaller than required. Granting the variance would allow a two-family dwelling on a lot smaller than allowed. 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 LDR – Low Density Residential. The Land Use and Development chapter cites the preservation and protection of existing residential neighborhoods as one of the city’s most important priorities. Goal - The City will work to protect land use patterns that continue to support single family homes. Policies supporting this goal include: • 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. • Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods. It should be noted that accessory dwelling unit (ADU’s) were discussed by the comprehensive plan advisory committee and City Council during development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. As a result, the 2040 plan includes goals and policies that maintains the goal to protect single family neighborhoods while also considering revisions to the City’s existing zoning standards for ADU’s. This policy positions was confirmed by the members of the Zoning Regulations Update Advisory Working Group. 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. 3 The applicant has a property that meets the minimum lot size standards for the R-1- A district and allows reasonable use as a single family dwelling. Granting the variance would allow the applicant additional property rights not afforded other property owners in the same district. 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 two-family dwelling were caused by circumstances unique to the property and were not caused by the owner. Staff finds there are no unique circumstances to this property that prevent it from meeting the minimum lots size requirement. Other properties in this same zoning district were platted or have added area to meet the zoning standards for a two-family dwelling and any other property of this size in this same zoning district would also be prohibited from redeveloping as a two-family dwelling. 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. The zoning standards for the R-1-A district specifically prohibit properties of this size from developing as a two-family dwelling. Granting the requested variance would allow this property to redevelop into a two-family dwelling on a property smaller than allowed in the R-1-A district. 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 28th day of July, 2020. ____________________________________ Gerard Balan, Chair Site Location Map for 210 – 7th Avenue North Subject Property