Planning and Zoning Commission

HOPKINS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, June 25, 2019 6:30 pm THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL THE START OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER II. ADOPT AGENDA III. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/CONCERNS IV. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of the May 28, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission V. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2019-09-VA Ryan Variance VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Election of Planning & Zoning Commission Officers for 2019/2020 VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. May Planning Commission Items IX. ADJOURN DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, May 28, 2019 – Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES May 28, 2019 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on May 28, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. in the Training Room at Hopkins Fire Station. Present were Commission Members James Warden, Samuel Stiele, Elizabeth Goeman, Gerard Balan, Emily Wallace-Jackson, Kristin Hanneman and Laura Daly. Also present was City Planner Jason Lindahl. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Warden called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Goeman moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adopt the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/ CONCERNS – None. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Wallace-Jackson moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to approve the minutes of the April 23, 2019 regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2019-07-AMD Accessory Building Standards Text Amendment Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of this item stating that the applicant, Robb Stephens, is requesting a zoning code text amendment related to accessory building standards. The applicant requests increases to the number and size of accessory buildings in the R-1-E zoning district, which would allow him to construct an additional, detached accessory building (garage) on his property located at 3321 Hopkins Crossroad. Next, the applicant shared with the Commission his reason for applying for the text amendment. The applicant thanked the City for considering his request but also stated his opposition to staff’s recommendation prohibiting accessory buildings in front of the house. He explained that he would like to use the accessory building as a screen from the traffic along Hopkins Crossroad. General discussion by the Commission included next steps should the City approve the application, additional information on accessory building standards, the placement of the applicant’s proposed accessory building, staff’s recommendation prohibiting accessory buildings in front of the house and how the front yard setback of homes in the Bellgrove neighborhood compares to the rest of the city. Chairperson Warden opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Coming forward to address the Commission was Margarete Mursch, resident at 3313 Hopkins Crossroad and neighbor north of the applicant. Ms. Mursch asked how close the garage could DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, May 28, 2019 – Page 2 possibly be built to her house. Mr. Lindahl replied that the current standards require an accessory building be no closer than three feet from the side or rear property line and would not change with the proposed amendment. Charles Lick, 6 Fletcher Place, supports the proposed amendment to allow three accessory buildings but not necessarily in front of the principal building as it applies citywide. Mr. Lick questioned if a variance for the applicant’s request would be better suited. Cynthia Chapman, 1 Saint Albans Road West, is in support of the text amendment. Ms. Chapman lives along Minnetonka Boulevard and would like to build a garage in the front of her house in the future, as her lot would not accommodate an accessory structure to the side or rear of the property. Ms. Chapman inquired about design standards for accessory buildings in relation to the principal building. Mr. Lindahl listed some of the general design standards for accessory buildings. Ms. Chapman asked specifically about her house, which is mostly brick. Mr. Lindahl replied that having a majority brick house would not require the accessory structure also be a majority brick structure. The applicant addressed the Commission again stating that he does not wish to upset any neighbors with the desired accessory building, and will support the proposal with staff’s recommendations but would prefer the standard prohibiting accessory buildings located in front of the principal structure be removed. With no one else coming forward to speak, Commissioner Goeman moved and Commissioner Balan seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. General discussion from the Commission included support for the applicant’s proposal and staff’s recommendations except for the standard prohibiting accessory structures located in front of the house in the R-1-E district. Commissioner Daly moved and Commissioner Goeman seconded to approve Resolution 2019-08 recommending the City Council approve a zoning code text amendment related to standards for accessory buildings or structures minus the standard prohibiting accessory buildings in the front yard of properties in the R-1-E district. Mr. Lindahl clarified that this motion only removed the prohibiting accessory buildings in the front yard of properties in the R-1-E district and that this standard will still apply to all other residential district and the Commission agreed. Approved 6-1 with Commissioner Balan abstaining. Mr. Lindahl stated this item will be presented to the City Council at their June 4, 2019 regular meeting with the Planning Commission’s recommendation. 2. Planning Application 2019-08-AMD Final 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of this item stating that the latest version of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is now available on the City’s website for review. This version reflects edits and revisions made based on feedback received during the required 6-month interjurisdictional review period. DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, May 28, 2019 – Page 3 Consultant planner Haila Maze with Bolton & Menk continued with a summary presentation on the background and overall goal of the plan. Chairperson Warden opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Eric Anondson, 53 Jackson Avenue South, commented that he did not see any mention of affordable commercial in the plan. When properties are redeveloped, the rent increases make it more difficult for start-ups and other small business to move into these spaces. There is discussion on how to keep housing affordable, but there is concern over also maintaining affordable commercial space. Mr. Anondson also asked about how the city plans to prioritize and measure progress towards its pedestrian and bicycle goals. Mr. Lindahl pointed to the Economic Competitiveness section of the Economic Environment (page 96) that covers affordability of commercial spaces. Pedestrian and bicycle items are covered in the Transportation section of the Built Environment. Both are tied to strategies in the Implementation Section. With no one else wanting to speak, Commissioner Balan moved and Commissioner Goeman seconded to the close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. Following the public hearing, Chairperson Warden asked staff why the strategy to allow for “gentle density” in single-family neighborhoods was no longer in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Lindahl explained that the strategy had been revised based on feedback from the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee and the City Council. The original single strategy was revised into several policies under Goal 4 in the Built Environment. Chairperson Warden expressed his preference for the original strategy and asked it to be noted for the record. The Commission followed with a general discussion on affordable housing in Hopkins. With no further discussion from the Commission, Commissioner Balan moved and Commissioner Wallace-Jackson seconded to approve Planning Resolution 2019-09 recommending the City Council direct the City Planner to distribute the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins to the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statues Section 473.864. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Lindahl stated this item will be presented to the City Council at their June 18, 2019 regular meeting with the Planning Commission’ s recommendation. OLD BUSINESS – None. NEW BUSINESS 1. Election of Planning & Zoning Commission Officers for 2019/ 2020 Motion to move election of officers to the June 25, 2019 Planning & Zoning meeting by Commissioner Goeman and seconded by Commissioner Balan. The motion was approved unanimously. DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, May 28, 2019 – Page 4 ANNOUNCEMENTS During the announcements, City Planner Jason Lindahl updated the Planning & Zoning Commission on the following item: 1. Previous items before the Planning & Zoning Commission: Planning Application 2019-06-TA (Wilshire Properties, LLC Zoning Code Text Amendment) was given a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission but was ultimately denied by the City Council at their May 7, 2019 regular meeting. Staff is continuing to work with the applicant to bring the site into compliance. ADJOURN Commissioner Hanneman moved, Commissioner Goeman seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Courtney Pearsall Administrative Assistant June 25, 2019 Planning Application 2019-09-VA Ryan Minimum Lot Size, Lot Width & Setback Variances Proposed Action: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt the following motion: Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2019-10, recommending the City Council approve the minimum lot size, lot width and setback variance requests from Ethan Ryan for the property located at 501 – 7th Avenue South (25-117-22-13-0056) Overview The applicant, Ethan Ryan, requests minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances to allow subdivision of the existing single family lot located at 501 – 7th Avenue South. This property is located in the Peaceful Valley neighborhood at the corner of 7th Avenue South and 5th Street South. The applicant requests minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances to subdivide their existing 146’ wide by 128’ deep 18,827 square foot single family lot in to three separate parcels. This design would retain the existing single family home on one lot and create two additional single family lots for future development. While these variances are necessary from the current R-1-B development standards, they would produce single family lots consistent with the original plat design for the neighborhood and existing development pattern. Staff recommends approval of this request based on the finding that the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty with meeting the City zoning standards as required by the variance review standards detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. Primary Issues to Consider Background Alternatives Variance Review Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Existing Conditions Survey Resolution 2019-10 Proposed Lots Survey Site Location Map West Minneapolis Addition Plat Applicant’s Narrative Jason Lindahl, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted: Y/ N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2019- 09-VA Page 2 Background The Background section below provides details on existing condition, land use and zoning classifications and how the applicant intends to subdivide the property. Existing Conditions. The applicant’s property was originally platted in 1887 as Lots 22, 23, and 24, Block 49 West Minneapolis Addition (see attached plat). This plat laid out property from Mainstreet (then Excelsior Boulevard) to 7th Street South between Highway 169 (then 1st Street South) and 13th Avenue. Originally, most of the lots in this plat were 50’ wide by approximately 130’ deep (some lots were large while others were smaller). More specifically, nearly all the lots on the surrounding blocks from 6th Avenue South to 11th Avenue South and between 5th Street South and 7th Street South share these same dimensions. Generally, houses were built in the West Minneapolis Addition between 1900 and 1975. Houses on Block 49 (the subject property’s block) were built between 1904 and 1972. To the best of staff knowledge, Lots 22, 23 and 24 appear to have operated as one property since the existing single family home was built in 1914. Land Use & Zoning. The Subject property is guided LDR – Low Density Residential by the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. According to the narrative for this land use classification, it allows for single family detached residential dwelling at 1 to 7 units per acre. By comparison, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins guides this property as Traditional Urban, which allows for moderate density residential neighborhoods and accessory uses such as parks and neighborhood scaled public and institutional uses. Densities in this area typically range from 5-12 units per acre. The subject property is zoned R-1-B. Development standards for this district are detailed in the table below and compared with the typical existing conditions and those proposed by the applicant. 501 – 7th Avenue South Variance Proposal Category R-1-B Typical Lot on Proposed Variance from Standard Surrounding Block R-1-B Standard Lot Width 60’ 50’ Lots 22 & 23 = 50’ Lots 22 & 23 = 10’ Lot 24 = 46.39’ Lot 24 = 13.61’ Lot Area 8,000 6,450 Square Feet Lots 22 = 6,419 Lots 22 = 1,581 Lot23 = 6,409 Lot 23 = 1,591 Lot 24 = 5,951 Lot 24 = 2,049 Front Yard 30’ 20’ or less 30’ All 3 Lots None Setback Side Yard 8’* 5’ or less Lots 22 & 23 = 5’ & 5’ Lots 22 & 23 = 3’ & 3’ Setback Lot 24 = 16’ & 4’ (south) Lot 24 = + 8’ & 4 (south) Rear Yard 30’ Greater than 30’ 30’ All 3 Lots None Setback Building 35% Less than 34% 35% All 3 Lots None Coverage While the R-1-B district requires a minimum 8’ side yard setback, it also allows additions to existing building with a minimum 5’ side yard setback. Comparison of the existing zoning standards with the applicant’s development proposal results in the following variances. Planning Application 2019- 09-VA Page 3 Lots 22 - 10’ minimum lot width, 1,581 square foot minimum lot size and 3’ side yard setback variances. 23 - 10’ minimum lot width, 1,591 square foot minimum lot size and 3’ side yard setback variances. Lot 24 - 13.61’ minimum lot width, 2,049 square foot minimum lot size and 4’ (south) side yard setback variances. Subdivision Proposal. Should the City approve these variances, the applicant could apply to subdivide them through the Administrative Subdivision process that would not require additional review by the Planning & Zoning Commission or City Council. The applicant requests minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances detailed above to allow subdivision of their existing 146’ wide by 128’ deep 18,827 square foot single family lot in to three separate parcels. This design would create two additional parcels for future development on Lots 22 and 23 while retaining the existing single family home on Lot 24. While these variances are necessary from the current R-1-B development standards, they would produce single family lots consistent with the original West Minneapolis plat and surrounding neighborhood development pattern. Variance Review City review of variance applications is a Quasi-Judicial action. Generally, if the application meets the review standards, the variance should be approved. The standards for reviewing variances are detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. In Summary, variances may be granted when the applicant establishes there are " practical difficulties" in complying with the zoning regulations. A practical difficulty is defined by the five questions listed below. Under the law, economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In addition, the City may choose to add conditions of approval that are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Staff has reviewed the variance request against the standards detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6 and finds the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty. As a result, staff recommends the City approve the applicant’s request. These review standards and staff’s findings for each are provided below. 1. Is the variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: The requested variances are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the R-1-B district. The performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 530.05 – Standards for the R Districts and the table above. These standards allow for single family detached dwellings. The requested variances would allow creation of three single family lots that would be consistent in size and dimension with the original West Minneapolis plat and surrounding existing development pattern. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The requested variances are consistent with the goals and policies of both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update –Cultivate Hopkins. Goals and policies from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan supporting the requested variances include: Planning Application 2019- 09-VA Page 4 Protect residential neighborhoods. Retain and enhance detached single-family homes. Take advantage of redevelopment opportunities to provide new housing choices for the community. Encourage the development of owner-occupied housing. Continue to strive for a mix of housing that accommodates a balance of all housing needs. While not formally adopted, it is worth noting that the requested variances would also be consistent with the future land use category and goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins. If approved, that plan would designate the future land use category for the subject property as Traditional Urban, which allows for moderate density residential uses with densities from 5-12 units per acre. Goals and policies from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that support this proposal include: Built Environment – Land Use & Design Goal 4 - Support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and appropriate infill. The supporting policy for this goal states the City should “ preserve and enhance the community’s detached single family housing stock, especially in the Estate Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood future land use categories.” Goal 5 - Reinforce Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of community through high quality urban design. This goal is supported by a policy to “ Reinforce the distinctive characteristics of Downtown and existing neighborhoods by encouraging developments that are compatible in design and supportive within their context.” Goal 6 - Create appropriate transitions between areas of the city where there are potential incompatibilities in land use or scale. This goal is supported by the policy to “Use urban design elements, building massing, land use strategies, and public realm improvements to provide appropriate transitions between developments – particularly those of different scale and intensity.” Built Environment – Housing Goal 4 - Maintain the quality, safety, and character of existing housing stock. This goal is supported by the policy to “ Ensure that new housing proposals address building massing, parking locations, access, traffic impacts, landscaping, exterior architectural design, fencing, trash handling, and parking ratios.” Based on this goal, staff recommends a condition of approval for these variances require the garage and vehicle access to come from the alley behind these properties. 3. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: The proposal would put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The requested minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances would allow the applicant to subdivide their existing single family lot in to three separate parcels. This design would create two additional parcels for future development on Lots 22 and 23 while retaining the existing single family home on Lot 24. While the requested variances are necessary from the current R- 1-B development standards, they would produce single family lots consistent with the goals and Planning Application 2019- 09-VA Page 5 policies of the comprehensive plan, the original West Minneapolis plat and the surrounding single family development pattern. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: There are unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner. The original West Minneapolis plat created lots that were predominately 50’ wide by 130’ feet deep. This design is consistent with all of the other single family lots on the block on which the subject property is located as well as the surrounding blocks from 6th Avenue South to 11th Avenue South and between 5th Street South and 7th Street South. As a result, expecting this property to meet the current lot size, lot width and side yard setback standards of the R-1-B district is impractical. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. The requested variance would produce single family lots consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, the original West Minneapolis plat and the surrounding single family development pattern. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the variance application. By recommending approval of the application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the variance application. By recommending denial of the variance application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. Should the Planning Zoning Commission consider this option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning & Zoning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the items should be continued.  CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2019- 10 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501 - 7TH AVENUE SOUTH ( 25-117- 22-13- 0056) WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins ( the “ City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Ethan Ryan ( the “ Applicant”) is the fee owner 501 - 7th Avenue South legally described below: Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 049 West Minneapolis Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. the “ Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is zoned R-1-B, Single- Family High Density residential; 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, Section 530.05, of the City Code requires that single- family dwellings in the R- 1-B district be at least 60-feet wide and at least 8,000 square feet in size and have side yard setback of at least 8 feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a request to the City for a minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances in order to subdivide their existing 146 feet by 128 feet 18,827 square foot property into three separate parcels; 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 1  WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, 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 their submissions, the written staff report, and after careful consideration of all other written and oral comments concerning the requested variances, 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 the variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: The requested variances are in harmony with the purpose and intent of the R-1-B district. The performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 530.05 – Standards for the R Districts and the table above. These standards allow for single family detached dwellings. The requested variances would allow creation of 3 single family lots that would be consistent in size and dimension with the original West Minneapolis plat and surrounding existing development pattern. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The requested variances are consistent with the goals and policies of both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins. Goals and policies from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan supporting the requested variances include: Protect residential neighborhoods. Retain and enhance detached single-family homes. Take advantage of redevelopment opportunities to provide new housing choices for the community. Encourage the development of owner-occupied housing. Continue to strive for a mix of housing that accommodates a balance of all housing needs. While not formally adopted, it is worth noting that the requested variances would also be consistent with the future land use category and goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins. If approved, that plan would designate the future land use category for the subject property as Traditional Urban which allows for moderate density residential uses with densities from 5-12 units per acre. Goals and policies from the 2040 Comprehensive Plan that support this proposal include: Built Environment – Land Use & Design Goal 4 - Support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and appropriate infill. The supporting policy for this goal states the City should “ preserve and enhance the community’s detached single family housing stock, especially in the Estate Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood future land use categories.” Goal 5 - Reinforce Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of community through high quality urban design. This goal is supported by a policy to “ Reinforce the distinctive characteristics of Downtown and 2  existing neighborhoods by encouraging developments that are compatible in design and supportive within their context.” Goal 6 - Create appropriate transitions between areas of the city where there are potential incompatibilities in land use or scale. This goal is supported by the policy to “ Use urban design elements, building massing, land use strategies, and public realm improvements to provide appropriate transitions between developments – particularly those of different scale and intensity.” Built Environment – Housing Goal 4 - Maintain the quality, safety, and character of existing housing stock. This goal is supported by the policy to “ Ensure that new housing proposals address building massing, parking locations, access, traffic impacts, landscaping, exterior architectural design, fencing, trash handling, and parking ratios.” Based on this goal, staff recommends a condition of approval for these variances require the garage and vehicle access to come from the alley behind these properties. 3. Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: The proposal would put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The requested minimum lot size, lot width and side yard setback variances would allow the applicant to subdivide their existing single family lot in to three separate parcels. This design would create two additional parcels for future development on Lots 22 and 23 while retaining the existing single family home on Lot 24. While the requested variance are necessary from the current R-1-B development standards, they would produce single family lots consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, the original West Minneapolis plat and the surrounding single family development pattern. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: There are unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner. The original West Minneapolis plat created lots that were predominately 50’ wide by 130’ feet deep. This design is consistent with all of the other single family lots on the block on which the subject property is located as well as the surrounding blocks from 6th Avenue South to 11th Avenue South and between 5th Street South and 7th Street South. As a result, expecting this property to meet the current lot size, lot width and side yard setback standards of the R-1-B district is impractical. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. The requested variance would produce single family lots consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, the original West Minneapolis plat and the surrounding single family development pattern. 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 3 Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Hopkins approve the Applicant’ s requested variances. Adopted this 25th day of June, 2019. James Warden, Chair 4 Site Location Map for 501 – 7th Avenue South Subject Property  Zoning Variance Request Applicant: Ethan Ryan Phone: 952- 258- 9012 Address: 501 7th Ave S, Hopkins MN 55343 Legal Description: Lots 22, 23, and 24, Block 49, WEST MINNEAPOLIS PID: 2511722130056 Zoning: R-1-B Statement of Request My existing home is located on a parcel land which is legally described as Lots 22, 23, and 24, Block 49, WEST MINNEAPOLIS addition. It was originally platted on June 3rd, 1887. The entire Block 49 was platted with the lots all generally being 50’ in width and approximately 130’ in depth. At some point in history, the 3 lots were combined into one PID number with Hennepin County. Lots 1-21 of Block 49 all have one single family home on them. When the home was built in approximately 1914, it was built entirely on Lot 24. Subsequently, there was an addition built on the south side of the home, approximately 8’ wide. I am planning on removing this 8’ addition to the home which would place the home at 4’ from the south property line of Lot 24. According to the City of Hopkins Zoning Map, the parcel is zoned R-1-B which requires 60’ wide lots with a minimum area of 8,000 square feet and a side yard setback of 8’. My request is for a variance in lot width and area to revert the single PID parcel back to the original Lots 22, 23, and 24 and obtain 3 separate PID numbers to allow for construction of two additional homes on Lots 22 and 23. In keeping with the character of the other neighboring properties within Block 49, I am also requesting a side yard setback variance to allow for 5’ side yard on Lots 22 and 23 and a 4’ side yard on Lot 24 for the existing home. R-1-B Block 49 Typical Lot Subject Property Requirements Request Lot Area 8,000 6,000 (north lot) 5,951 (Lot 24) 6, 450 ( avg. remaining lots) 6,409 ( Lots 23) 6,419 (Lots 22) Lot Width 60 47 ( north lot) 46. 39 ( Lot 24) 50 (remaining lots) 50 (Lots 22, 23) Side Yard 8 5 4 ( existing home) 5 (Lots 22, 23) My variance proposal meets the "Practical Difficulty" legal standard based on the five criteria addressed below. 1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance?  Yes. Based on current lot sizes in the R-1-B zoned block 49, the proposed lots resulting from the reversion are in harmony with the R- 1- B neighborhood lots within Block 49. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Yes. As stated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated goal of Protecting these ( single family) neighborhoods”. Further, the Comprehensive Plan goes on to allow for single family detached residential at a density of 1- 7 units per acre and that “ This category accommodates the existing single-family detached housing that contributes to Hopkins’ character and cohesiveness”. Reverting back to the originally platted 3 lots calculates to a density of 6.97 units per acre. Stated goals of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan include: Retain and enhance detached single-family homes Take advantage of redevelopment opportunities to provide new housing choices for the community Encourage the development of owner-occupied housing Although the 2040 Comprehensive Plan has not yet been formally adopted, the 2040 plan shows the Future Land Use for this area as Traditional Urban land use with a density of 5-12 units per acre which is consistent with what is being proposed. 3. Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Yes. The variance would result in the addition of two new single family homes on the block and leaving the existing house on a lot the same size of the lot across the adjacent alley. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Yes. As mentioned, the original plat for this property consisted of 3 lots and all other lots within Block 49 are as originally platted in 1887. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The result would be keeping the existing home on the current Lot 24 and two new homes on Lots 22 and 23 which is consistent with the other 21 homes within Block 49. The character of the neighborhood would now be consistent among all 24 lots.