VII.2. Resolution Denying the Variance Request for the property located at 13 Harrison Avenue South; Howard
CITY OF HOPKINS
City Council Report 2023-053
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Mike Mornson, City Manager
From: Kurt Howard, Planner
Date: June 6, 2023
Subject: 13 Harrison Avenue South Attached Garage Variance
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION
MOTION TO Adopt Resolution 2023-020, denying the variance request for the
property located at 13 Harrison Avenue South.
OVERVIEW
Adam Price of Price Custom Homes, on behalf of property owners Brianna and John
Frederick, requests variances from the attached garage additional setback standard and
the allowed garage door location standard to construct a single unit home. The subject
property is located at 13 Harrison Avenue South which is zoned N3-B, Small Lot
Traditional Neighborhood. The Hopkins Development Code requires attached garages in
this zone to be set back a minimum of 30 feet behind the main building’s front façade
and for garage doors to be located on the rear, side, or side street façade in the N3-B
zone. The applicant requests variances from these standards to locate the garage 10.5
feet in front of the main building’s front façade and to locate the garage door on the front
façade. Based on the findings detailed below, staff finds the applicant has not
demonstrated a practical difficulty with meeting the City zoning requirements as required
by Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. As a result, staff recommends the
City deny the applicant’s request.
PRIMARY ISSUES TO CONSIDER
• Background
• Legal Authority
• Variance Review
• Alternatives
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
• Site Plan, Architectural Elevations, and Narrative
• Public Comment
• Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2023-03
• Proposed Resolution 2023-020
• Map of Properties in N3-B Zones With and Without an Adjacent Improved Alley
Planning and Economic
Development Department
BACKGROUND
The subject property was purchased by the applicant in March of 2022 and a building
permit application for the construction of a single unit home was submitted on March 22,
2023. Staff’s review of the plans determined that they deviate from the standards of the
code in that the garage is proposed to project in front of the main building’s front façade
by 10.5 feet and is required to be set back behind the front façade by 30 feet. The
garage door is also proposed to be located on the front façade but is only allowed to be
located on the rear, side, or street side façade.
The applicant has applied for variances from these two standards. The applicant
provides a basis for the variance request in the attached narrative, which cites the
recent adoption of the City’s updated zoning code, the similarity of the design of the
neighboring home to the proposed home, and argues that the attached garage
standards in N3-B zones are intended for home that are served by an improved alley
and the subject property is not served by an improved alley.
The City’s updated zoning code was adopted by the Hopkins City Council on July 19,
2022 and became effective on July 28, 2022, approximately eight months prior to the
submission of the building permit application. A residence was recently constructed on
the adjoining lot, addressed as 15 Harrison Ave S, which is similar in design to the
proposed home. However, the building permit for the neighboring home was applied for
and issued prior to the effective date of the zoning code update.
Variances must be decided on the five variance review criteria detailed below. All five
criteria must be met in order for a variance to be granted. One of the five criteria takes
into account the impact of the variance request on the essential character of the
surrounding area. The attached map of properties in N3-B zones with and without an
adjacent improved alley shows that the vast majority of properties in N3-B zones are in
fact served by an improved alley. Staff’s analysis of the issue finds that the absence of
an improved alley at the subject property does present design challenges associated
with the garage. To help address these challenges, a zoning code text amendment is
being proposed to offer commensurate relief to properties located in N3-B zones that are
not served by an improved alley, while still encouraging development to be human-
scaled and pedestrian oriented.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this item (Planning Application 2023-03)
during their May 23, 2023 meeting. During the meeting, the Commission heard
presentations from both staff and the applicant. There were no comments during the
public hearing. However, prior to the meeting staff received one public comment
(attached) which cites concerns with the requested variances’ potential impacts to
neighborhood character and pedestrian scale.
The Commission’s discussion recognized that the absence of an improved driveway
does present challenges associated with designing a garage under the circumstances
and also considered the tradeoffs between green space and the additional driveway
surface that would be required to connect to a garage that’s setback 30 feet behind the
front of the house. The Commission concluded that despite the associated design
challenges, the request ultimately falls short of meeting the criteria for granting a
variance. The Commission voted to adopt Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution
2023-03 recommending the City Council deny the variances requested, with six
members voting for the resolution and one member abstaining.
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. 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.
VARIANCE REVIEW
Staff has reviewed the variance requests against the standards detailed in Minnesota
State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6 and finds they do not demonstrate a practical
difficulty. As a result, staff recommends the City deny the applicants request. The
standards for reviewing a variance application and staffs findings for each are provided
below.
1. Is the variance request in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Finding: The requested variances are not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The purpose and intent of the additional setback for attached garages
and the allowed garage door location standard is to promote the use of the area directly
behind the front façade of any building for people and not the parking of vehicles.
Granting the variance would be counter to these purposes.
2. Is the variance request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
Finding: The requested variances are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A
stated goal of the Cultivate Hopkins 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to encourage all public
and private developments to be well-designed, durable, human-scaled, and pedestrian-
oriented. One policy associated with this goal is to reduce parking between buildings
and the street as much as possible. Granting the variance to allow vehicle storage
between the building and the street would emphasize the automotive uses of the
property and detract from the human-scaled, pedestrian-oriented uses of the property.
3. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The proposal does put the property to use in a reasonable manner. Single unit
household living is an allowed principal use in the N3-B zone and the scale of the
development fits within the density range prescribed by the comprehensive plan.
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. Under this standard, the applicant must demonstrate the issues that
prevent them from developing the subject property were caused by circumstances
unique to the property that were not caused by them. The lot is a regular shape with no
constraints on development in terms of topography or wetlands. The lot meets the
minimum lot area and lot width standards for the N3-B zone which could feasibly
accommodate development of a single unit household under the requirements of the
zoning code.
5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Finding: Granting the variance would alter the essential character of the surrounding
area. The vast majority of the homes in the surrounding area have garages that are set
back behind the main building’s front façade in ways that would meet the current
requirements of the code. Only one other recently constructed home has a garage
designed in a similar manner to the proposed home, suggesting that granting the
variance would continue a trend that alters the existing character of the locality.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the requested variances. By approving of the application, the proposed
home would be allowed to be constructed with the attached garage 10.5 feet in front
of the main building’s front façade. Should the City Council consider this option, it
must also identify specific findings that support this alternative and should direct staff
to prepare an approval resolution to be brought back at the City Council’s next
meeting.
2. Deny the requested variances as recommended by the Planning & Zoning
Commission and staff. By denying this application, the design of the proposed home
would need to be revised to meet the standards of the code. As noted above, staff is
preparing a zoning text amendment that would make building an attached garage
more practical for N3-B properties not abutting an improved alley.
3. Continue for further information. This item should be continued if the City Council
finds that further information is needed.
21Harrison Ave. S.
To Who it May Concern:
Property Address : 13 Harrison Ave S, Hopkins, MN 55343
Lot 2 Block 1 East Hopkins Add.
The Variance is to be able to have a front load garage same as the neighbors, A new
ordinance went into effect during the purchase of the property that the buyers or sellers
did not know about. The requirement for a side or rear facing garage was intended for
homes with a back alley. This lot does not have a back alley. The plan proposed is
similar to the neighbors style.
Thank You,
Adam Price
Owner
P C H
1
Ryan Krzos
From:Eric Anondson <xeoth@icloud.com>
Sent:Friday, May 19, 2023 11:36 AM
To:Ryan Krzos
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Regarding 13 Harrison
Hello,
My name is Eric Anondson and I live at 53 Jackson Ave. I wanted to share my thoughts about the proposal for 13
Harrison.
One great feature of this neighborhood is that the scale of homes are with front yards as yards, not parking spaces. It
has been concerning to me that the east side of Harrison in recent years has added new houses with garage‐face homes
instead of matching the existing scale of houses with parking and garages in back. This is clearly because new
construction has moved away from building detached garages, like the N3‐B zone guides for. The east side of Harrison is
filled with existing homes, with no alley access, on narrower lots than 13 Harrison. Those majority of houses are just not
modern homes with attached garages.
I appreciate that this style of house is the popular standard for house construction built in new developments in green
field neighborhoods of the metro area. However, I believe front yards as parking spaces detracts from the pedestrian
scale of the N3‐B neighborhoods. I believe that the more recent new construction has already done this to the
neighborhood as more of these yards are wide driveway car storage (because the garages quickly become storage units)
instead of yards of gardens and lawn.
Plus, the short, wide driveway in the front means wider curb cuts, reducing the amount of on‐street parking available for
the neighborhood’s use because you cannot park in front of a driveway. Obviously since there is no alley it means a new
house must have a driveway. But requiring the parking to be further from the street allows a narrowed curb cut that
doesn’t shrink public on‐street parking.
To offer an example of a hazard, the wide front yard wide driveway of 15 Harrison has an unfortunate steep slope (likely
for stormwater) that has an incline that makes the double‐wide front yard driveway good for little but storing vehicles.
While kids playing in driveways is common, as a play space the driveway is sloped steep enough to role toys right into
the street. Because Excelsior Blvd has a break in the median at Harrison it means there is a high amount of drivers
turning off Excelsior Blvd to get through to neighborhoods further south. And because Excelsior was reconstructed like a
wide highway drivers are commonly turning to Harrison at excessive speeds with little to slow them down but the
turning. Multiplying the number of wide front yard parking, directly next to the high speed corner, will detract from the
property, and make future residents feel unsafe to be in their front yard since it will be good for little but storing cars.
I appreciate the front yard parking on sloped driveways is a common choice, but it is also one the N3‐B zone guided to
avoid. Front yard parking is not one that improves the pedestrian experience of the immediate neighborhood, and it is
unfortunate at 15 Harrison couldn’t be improved to not have front yard parking with the sloped wide driveway. The risk
of that steepened driveway design was a risky choice.
I was pleased the N3‐B zoning established this neighborhood of narrow lots to set in the code that parking is set back
from the street. For decades, the east side of Harrison has had homes that conformed, even though it meant detached
garages. Morningside in Edina’s redevelopment confirms that narrow lots can have modern houses with parking to the
rear. The builder just needs to find a different plan from their shelf.
2
If the zoning for N3‐B is to be changed for properties without alley access, I recommend that lots at the corner of the
street with access to build parking from the side street be excluded from building front yard parking with garages in the
front. Those properties are not burdened and should build parking to the side.
Also, because of the very common tradition of using driveways as play spaces, such front yard parking in N3‐B properties
without alley access should not be permitted to have a slope that easily sends child toys rolling fast into the street. A
shallower slope that still allows water runoff.
Lastly, do not permit N3‐B to be changed for front yard parking to have wide curb cuts that diminish on‐street parking
unreasonably. There is no burden that requires a double‐wide curb cut. A curb cut that is single‐car wide is sufficient.
Eric Anondson
53 Jackson Ave South
1
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-020
RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 13 HARRISON AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS , Adam Price of Price Custom Homes (the “Applicant”), applied for
variances on behalf of Brianna Frederick, the fee owner of 13 Harrison Avenue South (PID
19-117-21-34-0153) legally described below:
Lot 2, Block 1, East Hopkins Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Property”);
and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned N3-B, Sma ll Lot Traditional Neighborhood; 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 II, Section 102-260 (d) (10)
requires attached garages in N3-B zones to be set back a minimum of 30 feet from the main
principal building’s front facade; and
WHEREAS, City Code Part III, Chapter 102, Article II, Section 102-260 (d) (11) only
allows garage doors in the N3-B zone to be located on the rear, side, and street side
facades; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has
made a request to the City for variances from the attached garage setback and garage door
location requirements to construct a single unit home; 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 gener al 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 ordinanc e. "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
2
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 May 23, 2023, pursuant to the procedural requirements contained in
Article III, Section 102-13130 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 , following its public hearing, the Commission adopted Planning & Zoning
Commission Resolution 2020-03, which recommends that the City Council deny the
Applicant’s request for a variance and makes specific findings regarding said request; 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 verbal comments
concerning the requested variance, the City Council of the City of Hopkins 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 request in harmony with purposes and intent of the
ordinance?
Finding: The requested variances are not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The purpose and intent of the additional setback for attached garages
and the allowed garage door location standard is to promote the use of the area directly
behind the front façade of any building for people and not the parking of vehicles.
Granting the variance would be counter to these purposes.
2. Is the variance request consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Finding: The requested variances are not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A
stated goal of the Cultivate Hopkins 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to encourage all
public and private developments to be well-designed, durable, human-scaled, and
pedestrian-oriented. One policy associated with this goal is to reduce parking between
buildings and the street as much as possible. Granting the variance to allow vehicle
storage between the building and the street would emphasize the automotive uses of
the property and detract from the human-scaled, pedestrian-oriented uses of the
property.
3. Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The proposal does put the property to use in a reasonable manner. Single unit
household living is an allowed principal use in the N3-B zone and the scale of the
development fits within the density range prescribed by the comprehensive plan.
3
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. Under this standard, the applicant must demonstrate the issues that
prevent them from developing the subject property were caused by circumstances
unique to the property that were not caused by them. The lot is a regular shape with no
constraints on development in terms of topography or wetlands. The lot meets the
minimum lot area and lot width standards for the N3-B zone which could feasibly
accommodate development of a single unit household under the requirements of the
zoning code.
5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Finding: Granting the variance would alter the essential character of the surrounding area.
The vast majority of the homes in the surrounding area have garages that are set back
behind the main building’s front façade in ways that would meet the current requirements
of the code. Only one other recently constructed home has a garage designed in a similar
manner to the proposed home, suggesting that granting the variance would continue a
trend that alters the existing character of the locality.
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 hereby
denies the Applicant’s requested variances for the property located at 13 Harrison Avenue
South.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 6th day of June, 2023.
By:___________________________
Brian Hunke, Mayor Pro Tempore
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Amy Domeier, City Clerk