Variance- 334 12th Ave NoMay 24, 1979
Case No: 79 -14
Applicant: Lee Mesna
Location: 334 12th Avenue North
Request: Request approval of a variance to permit a duplex on an undersize lot.
STAFF FINDINGS: J. W. Hawks
1. Affordable housing is a general metro goal but desired affordable housing is
a more important long term goal. Housing located in a neighborhood which is
acceptable and reflects an environment the residents want to retain is very
important. One of the intents of the Zoning Ordinance is to establish a frame-
work of standards on which the neighborhood can depend thus providing confidence.
The Planning Commission has had many public hearings relative to searching for
the wants of the citizens and each time the importance of maintaining and ex-
panding the number of single family detached homes was a major goal. In recog-
nition of this goal the Zoning Ordinance has established four single family
residential districts varying in lot size from 6000, 8000, 12,000 and 20,000
square feet. In addition, due to the many 40 foot wide lots platted during the
early days of Hopkins, we have a provision permitting a single family home on
5000 square foot lots. Another special provision relates to the R -1 -A (6000 sq.
ft) district which for many years permitted double family lots provided the lot
has 7000 square feet. We have retained that provision in the present zoning
ordinance.
2. The present request is for a variance to build two doubles on two lots in the
R -1 -A zone which do not have the required square footage. The lots are level,
have no trees interfering with building location, have no unusual soil conditions
and as far as I know no conditions to support a variance.
The question as I see it is "does the zoning ordinance reflect the singe family
intent of the neighborhoods and the comprehensive plan or do we really mean
something else?
Filing Requirements
The Ordinance requires a statement of exceptional conditions of the lot and
the peculiar and practical difficulties claimed as basis for a variance.
Not filed.
April 19, 1979
Case No: 79 -14
Applicant: Lee Mesna
Location: 334 12th Avenue North
Request: Approval of a variance to permit a duplex on undersized lot.
STAFF FINDINGS: J. W. Hawks
1. The two lots In question are vacant except for a small block garage to the
rear. The area is zoned R -1 -A which is a single family detached home area
requiring minimum lot size of 50 foot width and 6000 square feet. Should
the parcel be 7000 square feet or larger, this zone also permits a double
bungalo.
2. The developed structure of this neighborhood is single family with a two
family now and then where the lot size was appropriate.
3. Hopkins housing supply as of November 1978 was 36% single family, 54% multi-
ple, 7% duplex, 3% miscellaneous. How to maintain or increase the single
family dwelling inventory is a major task for Hopkins and important to keep
the character of Hopkins.
4. The lots in question are similar in size, area, access, soil characteristics,
available utilities as the abutting lots utilized for single family homes.
No unique or hardship factors were stated by the applicant or discovered.
,-;11111 el n r e ry D
ii64-044J—; r41411 1 010 FIRST STREET SOUTH PHONE: 0354474
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
Hopkins City Council
Hopkins City Hall
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343
Gentlemen:
December 17, 1973
Pursuant to your request for an Opinion on the application of Mr. Ray–
mond C. Hemza of 334 12th Avenue North, Hopkins, for a Variance in connection
with a proposed sale by him of Lot 4 and the South 2 feet of Lot 3, Block 96,
West Minneapolis Second Division, I have been informed of the following infor–
mation in connection therewith:
A. Mr. Hemza is the owner of the South 2 feet of Lot 3 and all of
Lots 4 and 5, Block 96, West Minneapolis Second Division, which properties have
been in his ownership, and prior to him in his parents' ownership, for a great
number of years. Lot 5 is vacant, but on Lot 4 there has existed from a time
"whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" a dwelling which was
the home of Mr. Hemza's parents. At a later date, after the death of Mr. Hemza
(father), Raymond converted the second floor of the dwelling to some kind of
an apartment in which his mother lived until her death. She died two or more
years ago and the apartment has been vacant ever since.
B. All of the above premises are zoned R2. Each lot has dimensions
of 50 feet by 123 feet.
C. Mr. Hemza seeks to secure a Variance in connection with Lot 4
and the South 2 feet of Lot 3 so that he can sell these premises to be used as
a duplex, thereby enabling him to sell the premises at a higher price. It is
my understanding that he sites no other hardship and there are no circumstances
peculiar or unique about the individual premises which could be sited as a
hardship.
D. The present Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 6,000 square
feet with a minimum frontage of 60 feet for any kind of residential use; except
that in any subdivision filed prior to the adoption of the Ordinance, lots
platted with a width of 50 feet and containing 6,000 square feet may be used
for a single family dwelling. (Ordinance 131, Section 5.3A)
A lot of record existing upon the effective date of the Ordinance
in any R District that does not meet the minimum requirements with the area or
width may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes provided
the area and width of such lots are not less than two thirds of such minimum
requirements. (269.07(1))
Re: Hemza request for Variance
saf
December 17, 1973 page 2
No required yard or open space allocated to a structure or lot shall
be used to satisfy yard, other open spaces, or minimum lot area requirements for
any other structure or lot.
2 69.34 (4) requires that the minimum lot area for two families shall
be 7500 square feet.
The Zoning Ordinance as well as the State Statutes (MSA 4
provides that requests for Variances from the literal provisions of the Ordinance
in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because
of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, to
grant such Variance only when it is demonstrated that such actions would be in
keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.
Assuming that the above constitutes the various facts and regulations,
it is my opinion that neither the Zoning and Planning Commission nor the Council
can make the appropriate Findings of Fact necessary for the issuance of a
Variance, and therefore, the application must be denied.
/Yours very truly,
I.
Vl C
t (1 L v
VESE.LY, OTTO, MILLER and KEEFE
Joseph C. Vesely