Loading...
VN 86-14 � , CITY OF HOPKINS � APPLICATION FOR: AMENDMENT OF ZONING OROINANCE DATE: 9— �—�� CONCEPT REVIEW CONOITIONAL USE PERh1IT CASE N0: ,//v �� —/� SUBDIVISION APPROVAL VARIANCE �_ FEE: �li.`9O WAIVER OF PLATTING REQUIREMENTS DATE PAIO: 9'— .5—�Y� 1. Street Location of Property: 17 8th Avenue south 2. Legal Description of Property: nttached � % .= �%'_�`� 3. Owner: Name Bursch's inc. Address same Phone 4. Appli�ant's Name: Dennis Madden Address GamP Phone 935 3401 5. DesCrlption of Request: 1. Request for variance of B-3 parkinrz requirements Z. Request for relief from front 1 foot setback requirements oning District Use , Present Proposed 7. Present Proposed B-3 same Restaurant samP t � — 8. Reason for Request: Applicant desires to construct an addition to the �rasPnr far;l ;r3� to create an additional entertainment center in order to serve the over 30 age market with a dancing and live music ni htclub scene. NOTE: If request is for variance, please also comp ete attached page. 9. What error, if any, in the existing Ordinance would be corrected by the proposed amendment? (for Zoning Ordinance amendment only) N/A ' 10. Exhibits submitted: � Map or plat showing the lands proposed to be changed Other 11. Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the penalties - of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Hopkins to take the action herein requested that all statements herein a�,t nd that all work herein mentioned will be done. in ac- cordance with the Ordinances of the 'ty of �s and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature of Applicant< I . i i . �-- Signature of Owner: r/ « RECORO OF ACTION TAKE�� BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Date:s �0/�� �'Application for Front Yard Variance CASE N0: VN86-14 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS On the 30 day of Se tember 19 86 , the action requested in the foregoing petition was approved (X) disapproved subject to the following conditions: Recommend approval of Variance with the Findings of Fact: 1. there would be a minimal affect on the building; 2. there would be no greater intrusion into tl�e front yard than existing building. - Chairman: 1� w CITY COUWCIL ACTION Approved X Denied by the Council this 7th day of October 19 �6 Approved with following amendment: Approved as recommended by Zoning & Planning with a Condition "that the applicant becomes the owner of the property prior to October 14, 1986" added to Resolution No. 86-61. Clerk: �� cS�� � Following to be filled in by City Action of City Officials Chronolo Date B - Rec'd by Bldg Dept. Published by Bldg Dept. On Pl . Comm. Agenda 9 30 P1 . Comm. Postponement Pl . Comm. Action 9/30/86 JK Recommend approval as stated above. n Council Agenda 10 7 86 JK Council_ Postponement � � .ouncil Action 10/7/86 � JK Approved as stated in Resolution No. 86-61 NOTE: A Conditional Use Permit shall expirc one year after it has been issued unless the use for which the permit has beea granted is in effect. except that. upon writ[en applicatio� of the owner of Lhe effected land for which the permit was granted prior to the end of saiG year may request and the Council may 9rant an ex[ension no[ to exceed one year. CITY OF HOP�INS `� HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION N0: 86-7� RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN86-14 WHEREAS , an application for a Variance entitled VN86-14 has been made by Burachs � 17 - 8th Avenue South , for a parking and front yard variance . WHEREAS � the procedural history of the application is as follows : 1 . That an application for Varianee VN86-14 Kas filed xith the City of Hopkins on September 5 , 1986 . 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on September 30 , 1986 . 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission , pursuant to mailed aotices , held a public hearing on � September 30 , 1986 : all persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard . 4 . That the Written comments and analysis of the City StafP and the Planning Commission were considered . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Hopkins City Couneil makes the folloWing Findings of Fact in respeet to vN86-14 : 1 . That there t+ould be no greater intrusion into the front yard than the existing building . Adopted this 5th day of November , 1986 . Ellen Lavin � Mayor � `-- CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY , MINNESOTA RESOLUTION N0: 86-61 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE vx86-14 WHEREAS , an application for a Variance entitled VN86-14 has been made by Burschs , 17 - 8th Avenue South , for a parking and front yard variance . WHEREAS , the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1 . That an application for Variance VN86-14 was filed with the City of Hopkins on September 5 , 1986 . 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on September 30, 1986 . 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission , pursuant to mailed notices , held a public hearing on � September 30 , 1986: all persons present at the hearing Were given an opportunity to be heard . �. That the written comments and analysis of the City Staff and the Planning Commission were considered . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Hopkins City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to VN86-1 �4: 1 . That there would be no greater intrusion into the front yard than the existing building . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that application for Yarianee VN86- 14 is hereby approved sub�ect to the folloWing Condition: 1 . That the applicant beeomes the owner of the property prior to Ootober 16 , 1986 . Adopted this 7th day of Oetober, 1986 . Ellen Lavin , Mayor � �,; / i � � � FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when the strict enforecment of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an undue hard- ship to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property. �Hardshi� to the applicant is the crucial test. Variances will be granted only in unusual situations which were not foreseen when the Zoning Ordin- ance was adopted. Economic situations are seldom unique and are rarely considered a valid hardship. Hardship A. Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue hardship: l. Parking requirements as per attached , 2. Set-back requirements restrict seating in proposed addition and the present conformation of the building is constructed on the west property line with no setback. The design of the property is best served with constructing up to the west (front) property line. � Conditions B. What are the special conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic conditions, etc. ) of this request that are unique to this property and do not apply generally to other properties in the district? None � List of Homeowners Contacted by Applicant C. Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted. None � \ \ �"'��°s„�`. - � CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING The Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of Hopkins will hold a hearing on Tuesday September 30 , 1986 at 7: 30 p .m. , in the Council Chambers of the City Hall to consider an application by Burschs of variances for the front yard setbaek and parking at 17 8th Avenue South . If you have any interest in this matter we ask that you attend this meeting . For further information contact James Kerrigan , Director of � Planr��ng and Economic Development at 935-8474 extension 159 • % i�� I,� .�l/<.%c,r ���.: 't �� J�ames D . Kerri�an , Director Planning & Economic Development . � , - - Plannin� Comrnission Report September 18, 1986 VARIANCE-BURSCHS 17 8TH AVENUE SOUTH PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to review and recommend action on a parking variance and front yard variance . BACKGROUND• Name of Applicant : Dennis Madden Address of Property: 17 8th Avenue South Present Zoning: B-3 Reason for Request : To build an addition to the existing building . Nature of Request : A front yard varianee of one foot and a parking variance of 48 spaces . The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to `— the existing building on the north side . The addition will have a capacity to seat 90 people and be used for an entertainment center . The current building is nonconforming . �27 . 35 requires a front yard of 1 foot in a B-3 district . The applicant is proposing to build to the lot line . The applicant currently has 91 parking spaces . The parking requirement for the applicant currently is 109 , however the applicant does have access to 38 City parking spaces . With the proposed addition the applicant will be required to have 139 on-site parking spaces . The current building varies from a 0 setback to approximately a 16 foot setbaek . The only part of the existing building which is on the property line is the Burschs sign . ANALYSIS• There are two varianees requested , one for parking and one for the front yard setback . Hardship is the erucial test for a variance . In this case the applieant does � not possess hardship in either case , the applicant NQ• VN86-14 v VN86-14 �-- Page 2 without the addition still has reasonable use of the property. Economic situations are not a valid hardship . The parking variance is mitigated by the fact that additional parking is available to the site and also that the applicants hours of business are different than the surrounding businesses , however the applicant still lacks hardship . In 1981 a variance was applied for and granted to Burschs to construct an addition to the north side of the present building , the same location as this proposed addition . This addition would have encroached one foot into the front yard setback and two feet into the right-of-way. This addition was never constructed . The Planning Commission approved the variance with the following conditions: approval of variance in view of the removal of the off-sale facility would be in the best interest of Hopkins ; and the alternative use is in the best interest of Hopkins ; and the only financial and business use that is realistic would be to make use of the space as redesigned . The City Attorney has rendered an opinion that the � previous variarice is not a transferable interest . RECOMMENDATION: I recommend denial of the variances . The following are suggested findings of fact should the Commission recommend denial . 1 . That there does not exist a unique cireumstance or hardship that would justify approval of the variance . 2. That the granting of this variance would not eliminate or minimize nonconforming building but would , in faet , enlarge upon an existing nonconformity. ;�i ��` � ,� �� .���,�'�. � , � '�'�;;�Y � , � ����1 Nancy S. Anderson CommunitJy Development Analyst L �-- Ptannin� Commission Report September 26 , 1986 T0: Zoning and Planning Commission FROM: Nancy Anderson SUBJECT : Parking Variance for Burschs ' The parking variance requested by the applicant is not required because the subject parcel abutts a B-2 District . �127 • 43 states EXCEPT in any B-2 District , and in any lot or parcel of a B-3 District which abutts upon a B-2, the owner or oecupant of all parcels and lots in any Business District shall provide such an off-street parking area as is required by this or other Ordinances . B-2 and B-3 premises separated �" only by a public road are deemed to be abutting . � No. , � MEMO Oetober 7 , 1986 T0 : City Council FROM: Nancy Anderson j'j,;� SUBJECT : Burschs Conditional Use Permit It has come to the attention of staff that the applicant does not have ownership of the subject property or consent of the owner . The applicant had hoped to close on the property before the Couneil Meeting , however , the closing is set for Wednesday morning , Oetober 8th . At the time of this memo , the applicant had not received written permission for the addition from the owner. Sinee the applicant does not have ownership of the property, action should be continued until the next Council meeting at � which time the applicant will own the subject property. �