P&Z Resolution 2023-05 - Resolution Recommending the City Council Approve the Variance Request for the Property Located at 250 18th Avenue NCITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2023-05
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE 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 variances from the required to construct a driveway that
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
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, 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 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 N3-13 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
2
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 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 271 day of June, 2023.
Nathan White, Chair
3