Loading...
2018-069 Denying the Variance Requests from Troy Gambucci for the Unaddressed Parcel on 21st Avenue North with Property Identification Number (PID) 23-117-22-14-0053 CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO: 2018-069 RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM TROY GAMBUCCI FOR THE UNADDRESSED PARCEL ON 21ST AVENUE NORTH WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER(PID) 23-117-22-14-0053 WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins (the "City") is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Troy Gambucci (the "Applicant") is the fee owner of a vacant, unaddressed parcel of real property located on 21'Avenue North and legally described below: Lot 30, Block 4,West Minneapolis Third Division, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (the"Property"); and WHEREAS, the Property is zoned R-1-A, single- and two-family high density residential; and WHEREAS, the Applicant purchased the Property from his mother, Pamela Karahalios, in 2014 for approximately $15,000 and the Property has always appraised at less than that amount for purposes of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, until the Property was conveyed to the Applicant by his mother in 2014, it was predominantly held in common ownership with the parcel to the south,which contains a single-family residence; and WHEREAS,the single-family residence to the south faces north directly toward the Property and utilized the Property as a front yard and driveway in the past,though its driveway was eventually reconfigured to provide access from 21St Avenue North; 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,the width of the Property is 33.36 feet and, although Section 530.05 of the City Code requires a minimum lot-width of 50 feet in the R-1-A district,the grandfather clause contained in Section 520.05, subd. 1 of the City Code relaxes that requirement to 35 feet for certain lots so long as all other ordinance requirements are met; and 1 WHEREAS, Section 530.03, subd. 2(c) of the City Code requires that single-family dwellings in the R-1-A district be at least 20-feet wide and contain side setbacks of at least eight feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a request to the City for a lot-width variance and a side setback variance in order to construct a single- family dwelling on the Property that meets the requirement that a single-family dwelling have a minimum width of 20 feet; 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 24, 2018,pursuant to the procedural requirements contained in Section 525.07 of the City Code, the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission (the"Commission") held a public hearing on the Applicant's requested variances 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 his submissions, the written staff report, and after careful consideration of all other written and oral comments concerning the requested variances, the Commission vote 6-0 to recommend the City Council deny the requested variances; and WHEREAS, based on a review of the Applicant's request and his submissions, the written staff report, and after careful consideration of all other written and oral comments concerning the requested variances, 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 the general purposes and intent of the City's zoning ordinance? Finding: The requested variances are not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City's zoning ordinance because the requested variances involve substantial deviations from established minimum lot standards. Additionally, the grandfather clause that the Applicant seeks to have applied to the Property expressly applies only to lots that otherwise meet all zoning requirements, a condition that the Property clearly fails to adhere to. 2. Is the variance consistent with the City's comprehensive plan? 2 Finding: The requested variances are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The Property is guided long-term for low density residential and, accordingly, to allow development on lots of this nominal size would produce a development pattern that far exceeds the allowable density for that category. The requested variances would further fail to adhere to the comprehensive plan's goal of preserving and protecting the existing residential neighborhoods. 3. Does the proposal put the Property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: The proposal does not put the Property to use in a reasonable manner. The Applicant is seeking to utilize an already relaxed lot-width requirement and further requests relief from a modest eight foot setback requirement. The proposal would substantially reduce the setback— by approximately 33% - and decrease the amount of space, light, and visibility provided to the surrounding properties, one of which directly faces the Property. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the Property not created by the Applicant? Finding: There are no unique circumstances to the Property that were not created by the Applicant. The applicable R-1-A standards were in place when the Applicant purchased the Property in 2014. The Property has always been taxed at a nominal rate that is far less than that of which would otherwise be owed on a buildable parcel in the City. Those facts, along with numerous other factors outlined in the staff report, indicate that the Applicant had ample reason to know that a single-family residence could not be constructed on the Property. Additionally, the Property and the adjacent parcel to the south have been controlled by the Applicant's family for many years. By removing the Property from common ownership with the parcel to the south, the Applicant and his family unilaterally created what is now a standalone, unbuildable lot. 5. Will the variances,if granted,alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance would alter the essential character of the surrounding area. The Applicant's proposal would be inconsistent with both the development pattern of the overall R-1-A district as well as the contiguous blocks surrounding the Property, thus resulting in a dwelling that would be out of scale, out of place, and entirely inconsistent with the surrounding area. Moreover, it would result in the single-family dwelling to the south directly facing the Applicant's proposed structure. 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 expressed 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 and the failure of the Applicant to meet any of the five required criteria,the City Council of the City of Hopkins herby denies the Applicant's requested variances. 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Hopkins this 21'day of August 2018. ATTEST: 01170A-a-PA (4J 17i4/t4A-&-tvi Amy Domeier, City Clerk MollyiCummings,Mayor 4