Loading...
V. 3. 2021-11 101 Interlachen Road Front Yard Setback Variance July 27, 2021 Planning Application 2021-11 101 Interlachen Road Side Front Setback Variance (PID 20-117-21-33-0001) Proposed Action: Staff recommends the the following motion: • Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2021-16, recommending the City Council approve a 3.5’ front porch setback variance for the property located at 101 Interlachen Road (PID 20-117-21-33-0001). Overview The applicant, Richard & Shannon Rosati, request a 3.5’ front (west) yard setback variance to allow expansion of their front existing porch which currently covers only a portion of the front elevation of their 1-unit dwelling located at 101 Interlachen Road. The subject property is zoned R-1-C which requires a twenty (20) foot front yard setback for front porches. In this case, the applicants request this setback variance to allow expansion of their existing front porch along the entire front side of the house consistent with a previous variance granted in 2002. Based on the findings detailed below, staff finds the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty with meeting the City zoning standards as required by Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6 and recommends approval of this request. Primary Issues to Consider • Background • Community Comments • Variance Review • Engineering Comments • Alternatives Supporting Documents • Site Location Map • Applicant’s Narrative • Survey Map and Plans • F.A. Savages Interlachen Park Addition Plat • Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2021-16 • Resolution 2002-48 Approving a 4.5’ Font Yard Setback Variance for the Property at 101 Interlachen Road. _____________________ Jason Lindahl, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2021-11 Page 2 BACKGROUND The subject property was originally platted in 1911 as Lots 1 & 2 and the north half of Lot 3, Block 5 of F.A. Savages Interlachen Park Addition (see attached plat). This plat created a 16- block subdivision with each block having dimensions of 600 feet wide by 264 feet deep. With this design, each block contained 30 lots with dimensions of 40 feet wide by 132 feet deep (with some minor deviations). The two and one-half original lots of the subject property are now considered one parcel with overall dimensions of 100’ wide by 132’ deep and totaling 13,197 square feet. According to the applicants’ narrative, the existing house was built in 1936 but has been remodeled over the years. The most recent renovation occurred in 2002 which expanded the main level, added an enclosed rear porch and an open front porch along a portion of the front elevation. The 2002 open front porch required a 4.5’ variance resulting in a 15.5’ front yard setback instead of the required 20 feet. By comparison, the proposed front porch addition will extend 5’ from the front of the house require a 3.5’ variance resulting in a 16.5’ front yard setback. While this design still requires a variance, its configuration results in a design that is 1’ closer to compliance with the 20’ front porch setback standard. According to the applicant, they would like to expand the upper level to provide more bedroom and living space. While redesigning the upper level, they discovered roof slope, structural and aesthetic challenges with maintaining the existing front porch as designed. Expanding the front porch along the entire front side of the house will hide an unsightly cantilever tying the front elevations together, making the home appear wider and fit better with the neighborhood and allow for a more functional sized front porch. COMMUNITY COMMENT Under state law, this variance application requires a public hearing. Accordingly, the City published notice of this request and public hearing in the Sun Sailor and mailed notice directly to all property owners within 350’ of the subject property. That notice directed all interest parties to send questions or comments to City Planner Jason Lindahl by mail, phone or email or to attend the public hearing where they could learn about the request, ask questions and provide feedback. As of the writing of this report, the City had received no comments or questions regarding this request. During the public hearing, staff will provide an update on all public comments received prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. 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 on 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. The standards for reviewing a variance application and staff’s findings for each are provided below. Planning Application 2021-11 Page 3 1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: The applicant seeks a 3.5’ front yard setback variance from 20’ to 16.5 feet. The purpose and intent of zoning setback standards is to maintain separation between properties for density, safety and esthetic reasons. The development standards in the R-1-C district are detailed in the table below. Lot & Building Standards for the R-1-C Single Family Medium Density District Standard Requirement Lot Area 12,000 square feet Lot Width 80 feet Front Setback (House) 30 foot Front Setback (Porch) 20’ Side Setback 1-Story = 10’, 2-Stories = 12’ and 3-Story = 14’ Rear Setback 40 feet Maximum Principal Building Height 35 feet (maximum) Maximum Building Coverage 35 percent Staff finds the proposed 3.5’ setback variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of the 20’ front porch setback is to encourage 1-unit dwellings to add front porches which are viewed as consistent with the pedestrian friendly and hometown character of Hopkins. Granting this variance request will allow the applicant to expand their existing front porch in such a way as to be closer to compliance with the 20’ front porch setback standard while also being less impactful than the 4.5’ front porch variance granted by the City in 2002. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The proposed 3.5’ front porch setback variance is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as Suburban Neighborhood. This land use category is characterized by low density (1-unit) dwellings and golf courses. Neighborhoods in this category are designed around a modified grid street network with good access to the surrounding transportation network. Properties in this category are relatively large for Hopkins, with most having ample private yards and attached garages. The 2040 plan calls for continuation of the low density single family land use pattern along with accessory uses such as parks and neighborhood scaled public and institutional uses. Granting the requested variance will allow for improvement of the existing 1-unit dwelling consistent with the character of the Suburban Neighborhood future land use category. 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 3.5’ variance would allow expansion of the existing front porch along the entire front side of the house in such a way as to hide an unsightly cantilever while also allowing for a more functional sized front porch. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Planning Application 2021-11 Page 4 Finding: There are unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner. In this case, the subject property consists of 2 and a half of the original 40’ wide lots in the F.A. Savages Interlachen Park Addition plat. This results in a property that is 100’ wide while the majority of the lots in the neighborhood are 80’ wide. The additional 20’ in width allows for the visual impact of the reduced front porch setback granted by the variance to be more evenly distributed across a wider distance and lessen its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Granting the requested variance will allow expansion of the existing front porch resulting in a front elevation appearance that is more compatible with the neighborhood and overall pedestrian friendly and hometown character of the community. ENGINEERING COMMENTS The Engineering Department has review this application and find it avoids public utilities and remains outside of the public right-of-way for Interlachen Road. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval of a 3.5’ front porch setback variance. By recommending approval of the application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of a 3.5’ front porch setback variance. By recommending denial of the variance application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. Should the Planning & Zoning Commission 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 Planning & Zoning Commission finds that further information is needed. Site Location Map for 101 Interlachen Roac Subject Property 1 CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2021-16 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A 3.5’ FRONT PORCH SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 INTERLACHEN ROAD (PID 20-117-21-33-0001). WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Richard & Shannon Rosati (the “Applicants”) are the fee owner of 101 Interlachen Road legally described below: Lots 1 And 2 And The N 1/2 Of Lot 3, Block 5 of F.A. Savages Interlachen Park Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is zoned R-1-C, R-1-C) Single Family Medium 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, Article V, Section 102-160(4), of the City Code allows front porches to be constructed in the front yard setback with a minimum setback of 20 feet in all R-1 Districts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicants have made a request to the City for a front porch variance from twenty (20) feet to sixteen and one-half feet in order expand their existing front porch attached to their existing detached 1-unit 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 27, 2021, 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 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 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: Staff finds the proposed 3.5’ setback variance is harmony with the purpose and intend of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of the 20’ front porch setback is to encourage 1-unit dwellings to add front porches which are viewed as consistent with the pedestrian friendly and hometown character of Hopkins. Granting this variance request will allow the applicant to expand their existing front porch in such a way as to be closer to compliance with the 20’ front porch setback standard while also being less impactful than the 4.5’ front porch variance granted by the City in 2002. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The proposed 3.5’ front porch setback variance is consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as Suburban Neighborhood. This land use category is characterized by low density (1- unit) dwellings and golf courses. Neighborhoods in this category are designed around a modified grid street network with good access to the surrounding transportation network. Properties in this category are relatively large for Hopkins, with most having ample private yards and attached garages. The 2040 plan calls for continuation of the low density single family land use pattern along with accessory uses such as parks and neighborhood scaled public and institutional uses. Granting the requested variance will allow for improvement of the existing 1-unit dwelling consistent with the character of the Suburban Neighborhood future land use category. 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 3.5’ variance would allow expansion of the existing front porch along the entire front side of the house in such a way as to hide an unsightly cantilever while also allowing for a more functional sized front porch. 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, the subject property consists of 2 and a half of the original 40’ wide lots in the F.A. Savages Interlachen Park Addition plat. This results in a property that is 100’ wide while the majority of the lots in the neighborhood are 80’ wide. The additional 20’ in width allows for the visual impact of the reduced front porch setback granted by the variance to be more evenly distributed across a wider distance and lessen its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? 3 Finding: Granting the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood. Granting the requested variance will allow expansion of the existing front porch resulting in a front elevation appearance that is more compatible with the neighborhood and overall pedestrian friendly and hometown character of the community. 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 27th day of July, 2021. ____________________________________ Samuel Stiele, Chair