V. 1. 2023-05 250 18th Avenue North Driveway Location Variance
CITY OF HOPKINS
Planning Application 2023-05
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Chair and Members of the Commission
From: Ryan Krzos, City Planner
Date: June 27, 2023
Subject: 250 – 18th Avenue North Driveway Variance
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION
MOTION TO Adopt/Deny Planning & Zoning Resolution 2023-05, recommending the
Hopkins City Council approve the variance request for the property located at 250 – 18th
Avenue North.
OVERVIEW
Andrey Pashkevich, requests a variance to the driveway access standards to construct
a new driveway off 18th Avenue North. The Hopkins Development Code requires
driveways to be located based on the characteristics of the lot. Specifically, Section
120-260(d) states that driveways are to be:
• Located off the alley;
• if no alley, off side street;
• if no side street, front street.
The subject lot has a rear alley; thus, driveway access is required to be from the alley.
The applicant requests a variance from this standard to locate the driveway off 18th
Avenue North instead of the rear alley. The applicant indicates that the topography in
the rear yard makes compliance with the requirement impractical.
The findings detailed in this report must demonstrate a practical difficulty with meeting
the City zoning requirements as required by Minnesota State Statute 462.357,
Subdivision 6.
PRIMARY ISSUES TO CONSIDER
• Background
• Legal Authority
• Variance Review
• Alternatives
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
• Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2023-05
• Owner’s Application and Exhibits
Planning & Development
BACKGROUND
The subject property is zoned N3-B, Small Lot Traditional Neighborhood. The lot is
7,383 square feet in area with a width of approximately 55 feet by 134 feet. The
residential structure on the lot was built in 1936. There are no records of a garage being
on the lot, and air photos dating back to the 1960s do not show a garage structure. Air
photos do appear to show, however, that vehicles have from time to time been parked
in the area immediately off the alley.
The property owner submitted plans to construct a driveway with access off 18th
Avenue North; and is pursuing a variance since access is required to be from the alley.
It should be noted that at this time the City is just being asked to decide on the general
location of the access, as opposed to the driveway as a whole. It should be further
noted, as part of driveway permit review process, additional plans and information will
be needed to verify drainage, pavement, and curb opening requirements are met.
PUBLIC COMMENT
This variance application requires a public hearing. The City published notice of this
public hearing in the local paper and mailed notices directly to those properties within
500 feet of the subject property. Signage informing the community of a development
proposal was also displayed on the site. As of the writing of this report, the City
received three comments on this item. Two emails are attached, and the City received a
phone call from Margie Olson, who indicated support for the variance to allow the
driveway. Staff will provide an update to the Planning & Zoning Commission on all
public comments received during the 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. 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 State
Statute. The standards and staff’s findings for each are provided below.
1. Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance?
Finding: The requested variance does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The purpose and intent of zoning ordinance is to carry out the vision
of the zoning ordinance and promote the orderly and beneficial development of the city.
As noted in variance review standard #2, if granted the variance would not directly
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the requested driveway with access
off the front is not expected to inhibit public or private improvements in the vicinity. The
proposed driveway, as an at-grade feature, would not have significant visual impact if
granted the front street access as opposed to something like a vertical building
encroachment into a setback.
2. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
Finding: 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. While granting the
variance would allow construction of a driveway that would bisect the property’s front
yard; the difficulty attributed to the topography would be within the scope of
discretionary application afforded in this policy.
3. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The proposal would put the property to use in a reasonable manner. The
variance would enable construction of a driveway, which is a customary accessory
feature for single-unit household dwellings, a use that is allowed in the N3-B zone.
4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner?
Finding: 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 applicant indicates that the topography on
the rear of the property makes it impractical to construct a driveway up towards the
house. Staff notes that there is indeed a distinct grade change between the alley and
the rear of the home. A significant amount of re-grading would be required to build a
driveway that would allow for parking a vehicle nearer to the home. This topography is
not a circumstance created by that landowner.
5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Finding: Most homes on this block have detached garages off their respective
alleyways. There are, however, a few properties that have driveways from the front to
rear or side garages: including the property immediately to the south. As noted in
variance review standard #1, the at-grade driveway would not likely have the significant
visual impact to be a detriment to the character of the block or neighborhood.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend approval of the proposed variance. By recommending approval, the
City Council will consider a recommendation of approval which may include
suggested conditions. Should the Planning & Zoning Commission consider this
option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative.
2. Recommend denial of the proposed variance. By recommending denial, 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. If the Planning Commission indicates that further
information is needed, the item should be continued.
1
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2023-05
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VARIANCE
REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 - 18th AVENUE NORTH
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Andrey Pashkevich (the “Applicant”), applied for a variance on behalf of
C4d Homes LLC, the owner of 250 – 18th Avenue North (PID 23-117-22-14-0092) legally
described below:
Lot 3 and the North 20 feet of Lot 4, Block 7, West Minneapolis Third Division,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is zoned N3-B, Small 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) (9)
requires driveways to be located off an alley; if no alley is present, then off the side street; if
no side street is present, then off the front street; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has
made a request to the City for variances from the required to construct a driveway that
access from 18th Avenue North, the property’s front street side; 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
2
WHEREAS, on June 27, 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 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 does not conflict with the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The purpose and intent of zoning ordinance is to carry out the vision
of the zoning ordinance and promote the orderly and beneficial development of the city.
As noted in variance review standard #2, if granted the variance would not directly
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, the requested driveway with access
off the front is not expected to inhibit public or private improvements in the vicinity. The
proposed driveway, as an at-grade feature, would not have significant visual impact if
granted the front street access as opposed to something like a vertical building
encroachment into a setback.
2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Finding: 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. While granting the
variance would allow construction of a driveway that would bisect the property’s front
yard; the difficulty attributed to the topography would be within the scope of
discretionary application afforded in this policy.
3. Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The proposal would put the property to use in a reasonable manner. The
variance would enable construction of a driveway, which is a customary accessory
feature for single-unit household dwellings, a use that is allowed in the N3-B zone.
4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the
landowner?
Finding: 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 applicant indicates that the topography on
3
the rear of the property makes it impractical to construct a driveway up towards the
house. Staff notes that there is indeed a distinct grade change between the alley and
the rear of the home. A significant amount of re-grading would be required to build a
driveway that would allow for parking a vehicle nearer to the home. This topography is
not a circumstance created by that landowner.
5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Finding: Most homes on this block have detached garages off their respective alleyways.
There are, however, a few properties have driveways from the front to rear or side
garages: including the property immediately to the south. As noted in variance review
standard #1, the at-grade driveway would not likely have the significant visual impact to be
a detriment to the character of the block or 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 approve the
Applicant’s requested variance.
Adopted this 27th day of June, 2023.
____________________________________
Nathan White, Chair