P&Z Resolution 2020-05 - Recommending the City Council Deny the Variance Request from Daniel Martin for the Property Located at 210 7th Avenue N (PID 24-117-22-13-0061)1
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2020-05
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE VARIANCE
REQUEST FROM DANIEL MARTIN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 210 – 7TH
AVENUE NORTH (PID 24-117-22-13-0061)
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Daniel Martin (the “Applicants”) is the fee owner 210 – 7th Avenue North legally
described below:
Lot 010, Block 086 West Minneapolis 2nd DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Properties are zoned R-1-A, Single and Two Family High Density; 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 V, Section 102-160 requires two-family
dwelling to have a minimum lot size of at least 7,000 square feet (3,500/unit); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a request
to the City for a minimum lot size variance in order to rehabilitate his existing one-family dwelling into a
two-family dwelling; 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
WHEREAS, on July 28, 2020, pursuant to the procedural requirements contained in Article III,
Section 102-91 of the City Code, the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission (the “Commission”)
2
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 is not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The R-1-A zoning district requires a 7,000 square foot minimum lot
for two-family dwellings. The applicant’s property is 6,497 square feet or 503 square
feet smaller than required. Granting the variance would allow a two-family dwelling on
a lot smaller than allowed.
2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan?
Finding: The requested variances is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The
2030 Comprehensive Plan’s Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as
LDR – Low Density Residential. The Land Use and Development chapter cites the
preservation and protection of existing residential neighborhoods as one of the city’s
most important priorities.
Goal - The City will work to protect land use patterns that continue to support single
family homes. Policies supporting this goal include:
• Work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of its low-density residential
neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effects of nearby
commercial or industrial land through zoning, site plan reviews, and code
enforcement.
• Ensure that the infilling of vacant parcels and the rehabilitation of existing
developed land will be in accordance with uses specified in the Comprehensive
Plan.
• Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods.
It should be noted that accessory dwelling unit (ADU’s) were discussed by the
comprehensive plan advisory committee and City Council during development of the
2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. As a result, the 2040 plan includes
goals and policies that maintains the goal to protect single family neighborhoods
while also considering revisions to the City’s existing zoning standards for ADU’s.
This policy positions was confirmed by the members of the Zoning Regulations
Update Advisory Working Group.
3. Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner?
Finding: The proposal does not put the property to use in a reasonable manner.
3
The applicant has a property that meets the minimum lot size standards for the R-1-
A district and allows reasonable use as a single family dwelling. Granting the
variance would allow the applicant additional property rights not afforded other
property owners in the same district.
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 that support granting the requested variance. Under this standard, the
applicant must demonstrate the issues that prevent them from using the subject
property as a two-family dwelling were caused by circumstances unique to the property
and were not caused by the owner. Staff finds there are no unique circumstances to this
property that prevent it from meeting the minimum lots size requirement. Other
properties in this same zoning district were platted or have added area to meet the
zoning standards for a two-family dwelling and any other property of this size in this
same zoning district would also be prohibited from redeveloping as a two-family
dwelling.
5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality?
Finding. Granting the requested variance would alter the essential character of the
surrounding area. The zoning standards for the R-1-A district specifically prohibit
properties of this size from developing as a two-family dwelling. Granting the
requested variance would allow this property to redevelop into a two-family dwelling on
a property smaller than allowed in the R-1-A district.
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 deny the Applicant’s requested variance.
Adopted this 28th day of July, 2020.
Gerard Balan, Chair