Loading...
V. 1. 2023-06 238 - 15th Avenue North Lot Width Variance CITY OF HOPKINS Planning Application 2023-06 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Chair and Members of the Commission From: Kurt Howard, Planner Date: July 25, 2023 Subject: 238 – 15th Avenue North Lot Width Variance _____________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDED ACTION MOTION TO Adopt/Deny Planning & Zoning Resolution 2023-08, recommending the Hopkins City Council approve the variance request for the property located at 238 – 15th Avenue North. OVERVIEW Dale Moldenhauer requests a variance to the minimum lot width standard to subdivide an existing parcel into two lots. Section 102-260 (c) (2) of the Hopkins Development Code requires lots in the N3-B Traditional Neighborhood, Small Lot zone to be a minimum of 40 feet wide. Section 102-1620 (d) specifies the method for measuring lot width as the horizontal distance measured along the minimum front setback line between the side lot lines of a lot, measured along the minimum front setback line. Measured at the 25-foot minimum front street setback line for N3-B zones, the proposed lot subdivision yields a lot width of 32.5 feet, which is 7.5 feet short of the required minimum of 40 feet. The applicant requests a variance from this standard to subdivide the existing parcel into two lots. The applicant indicates that the irregular shape of the existing parcel makes compliance with the requirement impractical even though the proposed new lot exceeds the minimum lot area requirement and far exceeds the minimum lot width towards the rear of the lot. 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 2023-08 • Owner’s Application and Plans • Public Comments Planning & Development BACKGROUND The subject property is zoned N3-B, Small Lot Traditional Neighborhood. The existing parcel was originally platted as Lots 1 and 2 with the Gibbs First Addition to West Minneapolis in 1889 and the residential structure on the lot was built in 1936. The lot is 13,818 square feet in area with a width of approximately 82.5 feet by 125 feet in depth. The minimum lot area in N3-B zones is 5,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 40 feet. Measured at the 25-foot minimum front street setback line for N3-B zones, the proposed lot subdivision yields a lot width of 32.5 feet, which is 7.5 feet short of the required minimum of 40 feet The property owner submitted an application for a variance to enable subdivision of the existing parcel into two lots. It should be noted that the proposed new shared lot line running east/west through the existing parcel must be located at least 5 feet from the existing home on the parcel to meet the minimum side setback in N3-B zones. It should be further noted that at this time the City is just being asked to decide on the lot width variance, as no building permits have been submitted yet. 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 two comments on this item which are attached. 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. Although the width of the proposed new lot falls short of the minimum lot width standard of the code, the area of the proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot area and exceeds the minimum lot width of 40 feet throughout the lot as a whole. 2. Is the variance consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Finding: A stated goal of the Cultivate Hopkins 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and appropriate infill. One policy associated with this goal is to encourage the preservation and enhancement of the community’s detached single family housing stock. Granting the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by allowing appropriate infill that would enhance the community’s detached single family housing stock. 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 create an additional lot that exceeds the minimum lot area standard and exceeds the minimum lot width standard throughout the majority of the lot as a whole. This would result in an opportunity for the lot to be improved with a traditional house building type, which is a permitted use in this zoning district. 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 irregular shape of the lot created by the alignment of 3rd Street North make compliance with the lot width requirement impractical even though the proposed new lot would exceed the minimum lot area requirement and exceeds 40 feet in width towards the rear of the lot. This irregular lot shape is not a circumstance created by that landowner. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: The front setbacks of most of the homes on this block of 15th Avenue North maintain a consistent block face that could be interrupted with a house that is setback toward the wider rear portion of the proposed new lot. However, existing homes on nearby lots at the intersection between 15th Avenue North and 3rd Street North have irregular shapes and establish some precedent for a diversified block face that could be continued with a similar building siting on the proposed new lot. AL TERNATIVES 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 2023-08 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 238 - 15th 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 , Dale Moldenhauer (the “Applicant”), applied for a variance for the property that he owns located at 238 – 15th Avenue North (PID 24-117-22-23-0056) legally described below: Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Gibbs 1st Addition to West Minneapolis, 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 (c) (2) requires lots to be a minimum of 40 feet wide; and WHEREAS , pursuant to the aforementioned code provision, the Applicant has made a request to the City for a variance from the required minimum lot width to subdivide the property into two lots; 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 July 25, 2023, pursuant to the procedural requirements contained in Article XIII, 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 verbal 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 the 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. Although the width of the proposed new lot falls short of the minimum lot width standard of the code, the area of the proposed lot exceeds the minimum lot area and exceeds the minimum lot width of 40 feet throughout the majority of the lot as a whole. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: A stated goal of the Cultivate Hopkins 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and appropriate infill. One policy associated with this goal is to encourage the preservation and enhancement of the community’s detached single family housing stock. Granting the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan by allowing appropriate infill that would enhance the community’s detached single family housing stock. 3. Does the 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 create an additional lot that exceeds the minimum lot area standard and exceeds the minimum lot width standard throughout the majority of the lot as a whole. This would result in an opportunity for the lot to be improved with a traditional house building type, which is a permitted use in this zoning district. 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 irregular shape of the lot created by the alignment of 3rd Street North makes compliance with the lot width requirement impractical even though the proposed new lot would exceed the minimum lot 3 area requirement and exceeds 40 feet in width towards the rear of the lot. This irregular lot shape is not a circumstance created by that landowner. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: The front setbacks of most of the homes on this block of 15th Avenue North maintain a consistent block face that could be interrupted with a house that is setback to accommodate width toward the wider rear portion of the proposed new lot. However, existing homes on nearby lots at the intersection between 15th Avenue North and 3rd Street North have irregular shapes and establish some precedent for a diversified block face that could be continued with a similar building siting on the proposed new lot. 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 25th day of July, 2023. ____________________________________ Ben Goodlund, Acting Chair From:Kim Taylor To:Kurt Howard Subject:[EXTERNAL] Notice of Public Hearing Date:Monday, July 17, 2023 4:26:11 AM Hi Kurt, In reference to notice received regarding rezoning 238 15th avenue north, I will be out of town on the July 25. Here are my comments even with the minimum information received: Lot shape: Dividing the lot – due to the odd share of the lot and location, there is no street parking for an additional lot. Street parking: Typically on our street – 15th. We each have 2 outside parking spots in front of your respective homes. Neighbors are very respectful of this. Garage: is there even room for garage space? Adding a new property, and if household has a lot of vehicles, where would they park? Safety: Additional parking spots would add a blind spot to the bike trail. We have many speeding cars already and more cars that would need to park outside at this location would block the trail. Bike trail: The intersection is odd and often confuses motorists and pedestrians – adding a lot would add additional cars parked and therefore a safety concern Property value. Two smaller homes lowers the property value of my home and other homes. Previous owner: Let us as neighbors also agree that the previously owner did not wish for his lifelong home to be divided into 2 lots. Rental property: is the reason to split the lots for rental property? If so, lowers my home value. If you have additional info to share, I would appreciate that information. Who makes the final decision? If I have a note, I would vote no. Thank you Kim Randa – property owner at 222 15th Avenue north From:Barbara Miller To:Kurt Howard Subject:[EXTERNAL] 238 15th Ave N Hopkins MN Date:Tuesday, July 18, 2023 7:38:02 PM Mr. Howard, We have lived on 16th Ave N for 37 years, and Barbara moved to Hopkins with her family in 1955 We would like to see our neighborhood, and town, stay as single family homes and not become all rentals. We know there are rentals We want to see that lot where Jack Stepanek lived to stay as it is and not add another house to that property - please do not subdivide it People who own a home tend to stay in the community longer and take part in community activities more and they tend to take better care of their yard and garage/driveway areas much better It is sad enough that our theatre was destroyed and, for tax purposes, now a tall apartment building will be towering over our main street, taking away our small town atmosphere even more Thank you for any consideration Roger and Barbara Miller