Loading...
VII.1. Resolution Approving the Driveway Location Variance at 250 18th Avenue North; Krzos CITY OF HOPKINS City Council Report 2023-071 To: Honorable Mayor and Council Member Mike Mornson, City Manager From: Ryan Krzos, City Planner Date: July 11, 2023 Subject: 250 – 18th Avenue North Driveway Variance _____________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION MOTION TO Adopt Resolution 2023-022, approving the driveway location 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 request variance from this standard would allow 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. At their June 27th meeting, following a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the variance request. 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 • Resolution 2023-022 • Owner’s Application and Exhibits • Public Comments 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 an 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 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. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION The required public hearing for this variance request was conducted on June 27, 2023. The City published notice of the 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. No members of the public spoke during the public hearing. To date the City has received four comments on this item. Three 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 Council on all public comments received during the meeting. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the challenges associated with the topography of the site, and the applicant’s future intention to construct a detached garage in the rear of the property. The Commission also inquired about rules regarding the number of vehicles that may be parked outside, and the owner’s exterior storage. The Commission conducted a public hearing, during which, no comments were made. The Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the variance request. 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 discretion 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. Approval of the requested variance. By approving the application, a proposed driveway would be allowed to be built with access from 18th Avenue. 2. Denial of the requested variance. Should the Council consider this option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. 1 CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2023-022 A RESOLUTION APPROVING 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 a variance from the requirement in order to construct a driveway 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, following its public hearing, the Commission adopted Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2023-05, which recommends that the City Council approve 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, the Commission’s recommendation, and after careful consideration of all other written and oral 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 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 3 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 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 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 Commission hereby approves the Applicant’s requested variance for the property located at 250 – 18th Avenue North. Adopted this 11th day of July 2023. By: ___________________________________ Patrick Hanlon, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk 1 Ryan Krzos From:Kathy Molzahn <> Sent:Saturday, June 17, 2023 3:08 PM To:Ryan Krzos Subject:[EXTERNAL] 250 18th Ave N Driveway Can't believe this resident has to go through all this to put in a driveway. Approve the variance. 211-18th Ave N Hello Ryan, We just wanted to follow up on recent communications, regarding the upcoming hearing about a request variance at 250 18th Ave N. I have already let you know that I (we) are going to be out of town on that day on business, and not able to attend the hearing. Therefore we request that you enter our positions, stated below, into the official record when this hearing is taking place. We have both been residents at 241 18th Ave N. for approximately the last 2 years. We would also like to state for the record that we have no personal ill will toward the resident who is asking for a variance. We do have a concern about certain actions which have been contrary to how we interpret Hopkins city codes regarding driving across the curb and front yard grass to one’s house. We would further like to request that we remain anonymous, as we don’t want to have any ill will on the part of the other party. We have some concerns about this request, many of which we have stated already in previous emails, but which will be repeated here so that they may be a part of the discussion in the upcoming hearing. According to Hopkins city codes, the applicant for this driveway has not met a number of the conditions required to submit an application for a permit. See below, city ordinance section 810: Hopkins City Code (Rev.1998) 810.01 Section 810 - Permits; Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter Driveways, Driveway Aprons, Parking Lots 810.01. Permits required. No persons shall construct, repair or rebuild any public driveway or driveway apron, private driveway, public sidewalk or carriage walk, curb or gutter over or upon public right-of- way, or a private parking lot for more than three vehicles without first obtaining a permit therefor from the engineer. 810.03. Application for permits. The permit application shall be in writing on a standard form supplied by the City and shall state the following: • a) the legal description, address, and owner's name of the premises involved; • b) the exact location, or locations, upon which it is proposed to construct, repair or rebuild any driveway, driveway apron, sidewalk, carriage walk, curb or gutter, or parking lot; • c) the size in square feet or square yards of such proposed construction, alteration or repair; • d) the date on which such improvement is proposed to be commenced; • e) the name and address of contractor who it is proposed will construct, alter or repair, remove or demolish such driveway, driveway apron, sidewalk, carriage walk, curb or gutter, or parking lot. 810.07. Specifications. Subdivision 1. Materials and design. Curbs or gutters or driveway aprons shall be of concrete construction; sidewalks or carriage walks shall be of concrete or flagstone construction; driveways and parking lots shall be of bituminous or concrete construction or other suitable hard surface impervious material - all in conformity with the specifications for such construction and design approved by the engineer and on file in the engineer's office This raises several concerns for us. First: it seems likely, based on the hand drawn sketch of a proposed driveway, that the owner has not even contacted a contractor to draw up plans for the proposed project. Such a project, if done according to city codes, could easily cost $10,000 if done correctly, with concrete curbing reconstruction, grading of the surface, sub-pavement construction, and paving with concrete or asphalt. Please refer to Hopkins city code: “Standard Details: Residential Driveway.” According to this document, none of the things described above are shown in the drawing submitted. Currently, the owner has two cars and a construction trailer parked by the alley in the back. Please note that there is a paved parking pad at that location off the alley. Hopkins city codes also state that if the designated parking area is changed from the alley to a front driveway, then the owner can no longer use the alley as a designated parking area.Therefore, all three cars AND a commercial construction trailer will have to be parked on the new front driveway. Please see attached photos below. Second: we are concerned the owner has stated the reason for this variance is a concern about “topographic conditions.” In fact, the proposed driveway would have to be constructed going up a hill, therefore there is also a topographic issue in constructing this front driveway. Third: it seems very reasonable to see that Hopkins residents do not consider it appropriate to drive across one’s front lawn, much less to park there, in order to move goods to and from the house. In our many walks in this and other neighborhoods in Hopkins we have not seen a single other home where residents have done this. It is clear that it is not considered appropriate. In fact, when we moved into this house, we had heavy furniture and dozens of boxes, but we never drove our car across the front lawn. Instead we parked on the street or in the garage by the alley, and moved everything manually from those places to our home. Certainly the resident in question could also do this. Based on the above, we oppose this application for a variance for the property located at 250 18th Av N, Hopkins. Edwin Worrell Linda Linehan 241 18th Ave N Hopkins 1 Ryan Krzos From:Jon Hagen Sent:Wednesday, June 28, 2023 7:01 PM To:Ryan Krzos Subject:[EXTERNAL] 250 18Th Ave N Ryan,    PID 23‐117‐22‐14‐0092      By all means allow this family to do a front access driveway.    The lot has issues with a rear driveway.        Jon W. Hagen  216 18Th Ave N  Systems Test Engineer