2020-040 A Resolution Denying the Variance Request from Daniel Martin for the Property Located at 210-7th Avenue North (PID 24-117-22-13-0061) CITY OF HOPKiNS
HENNEPIN COUNTY,MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2020-040
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FROM
DANIEL MARTIN FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
210—7TH AVENUE NORTH (PID 24-117-22-13-0061)
WHEREAS,the Cit��of Hopkins (the"Cit��")is a municipal corporarion,organized and e�:isung
under the laws of the State of Minnesota;and
WHEREAS,Daniel Martin (the"Applicants'� is the fee owner 2l 0—7`�'Avenue North legally
described below:
Lot 010,Block 086 West Minneapolis 2°d DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
(the"Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Propert}'is zoned R-1-A,Single and Two Famil}�High Density;and
WHEREAS,the Ciry 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 communiry,
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 de��elopment of lands within the
specified zones;and
WHEREAS, Cit�� Code Part III, Chapter 102, Article V, Secuon 102-160 requires two-family
dwelling to have a minimum lot size of at least 3,500/unit (or 7,000 square feet);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 exisdng one-famil3�dwelling into a
t�vo-famil��dwelling;and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,section 462.357,subd. 6(2),"[v]ariances shall only
be permitted when they are in harmon5�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 �irith the granring of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the propert}�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 essenrial character of the localit�T.Economic considerarions alone
do not constitute practical difficulties.";and
WHEREAS,on July 28,2020,pursuant to the procedural requirements contained in Article III,
Secrion 102-91 of the City Code, the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission (the "Commission")
1
held a public hearing on the Applicant's requested variance and all persons present were given an
opportunit�� to be heard. The Commission also took into considerarion the written comments and
analysis of City� staff;and
WHEREAS, following its public hearing, the Commission adopted Planning & `Loning
Commission Resoluaon 2020-05,which recommends that the Cit��Council deny 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 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 clistrict requires two-familp dwelling to have
a minimum lot size of at least 3,500/unit (or 7,000 square feet). 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 propert��
as LDR—Low Densiry Residential. The Land Use and Development chapter cites
the preservation and protection of existing residential neighborhoods as one of the
ciry'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 viabilit}�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-maintairied neighborhoods.
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. The applicant has a properry 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.
2
4. Are there unique circumstances to the propert}�not created b�� the landowner?
Finding: There are not unique citcumstances to the property that were not
created by the landownet that support granting the requested variance. Under
this standard, the applicant must demonstrate the issues that prevent them from using
the subject propert}'as a two-famil}'dwelling were caused b}'circumstances unique to
the property and were not caused b}�the owner. Staff finds there are no unique
circumstances to this properry that prevent it from meering 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 localit��?
Finding. Granting the requested variance would alter the essential character of
the surrounding area. 'The zoning standards for the R-1-A district specificall��
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 Cit��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 Cit}�of
Hopkins that based on the findings of fact contained herein, the City Council hereby denies the
Applicant's requested variance for the real property located at 210—7`h Avenue North (PID 24-117-22-
13-0061).
Adopted this 4`" day of Au�nist,2020.
,
Am}�Domeier,Ciry Clerk ason Gadd,Mayor -
3