VII.3. Resolution Approving the Variance Request for the property located at 238 15th Avenue North; Howard
CITY OF HOPKINS
City Council Report 2023-079
To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
Mike Mornson, City Manager
From: Kurt Howard, Planner
Date: August 8, 2023
Subject: 238 – 15th Avenue North Lot Width Variance
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDED ACTION
MOTION TO Adopt Resolution 2023-027, approving 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
• Owner’s Application and Plans
• Public Comments
• Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 2023-08
Planning & Development
• Proposed Resolution 2023-027
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. No members of the public spoke during the
public hearing. To date, the City has received three written comments on this item which
are attached. Staff will provide an update to the Council on all public comments received
during the public hearing.
The Planning and Zoning Commission inquired about the underlying plat for the
property, anticipated tree removal impacts, and whether approving the variance for a lot
split would necessitate a variance when a building permit application ultimately comes
forward. 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.
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 makes 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.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approval of the requested variance. By approving the application, the existing lot
would be allowed to be split into two lots.
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.
From:mike opitz
To:Kurt Howard; Michael Opitz
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Proposed variance application at 238 15th Ave No
Date:Friday, July 21, 2023 8:15:16 AM
Good day...
As my wife and I will be out of town during this upcoming public hearing, please allow us to express our
opinion at this time.
We have lived in Hopkins since the late 1950's, have lived at our current address of 245 16th Ave No,
since 1982, and knew the Stepanek family as good neighbors. We are very familiar with the complex
traffic pattern issues surrounding this particular intersection(s) whereby 15th Ave North and South meet
both sides of 3rd St No, as well as an alleyway entrance, the current Moldenhauer-Strachota driveway,
and then the regional dirt trail, for which we have noticed an increase in pedestrian and bicycle useage,
but also an increase in total disregard for the posted traffic signs. Adding another driveway to this area
will further the complexity of traffic patterns, and could lead to some serious accidents in this
neighborhood. Not knowing what sort of plans have been drawn up for this proposed variance, we believe
that the limited space for another driveway would clearly add to the complexity of these intersecting roads
and alley.
Therefore, on the basis of safety for all involved, we would be OPPOSED to this variance at this time.
Thank you
Respectfully submitted
Mike and Joan Opitz
245 16th Ave No
Hopkins, MN 55343
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
1
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2023-027
RESOLUTION APPROVING 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 , following its public hearing, the Commission adopted Planning & Zoning
Commission Resolution 2020-08, 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, and after careful consideration of all other written and verbal comments
concerning the requested variance, the City Council 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
3
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
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 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
approves the Applicant’s requested variance for the property at 238 15th Avenue North.
Adopted this 8th day of August, 2023.
By:___________________________
Patrick Hanlon, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Amy Domeier, City Clerk