Loading...
VN 86-08 . , r CITY OF HOPKINS � APPLICATION FOR: AMENOMENT OF ZONING OROINANCE DATE: Jun e 6 , 19 86 CONCEPT REUIEW ` CONDITIO(�AL USE PERh1IT CASE N0: _��J`�J ,�� — C- J SUBDIVISION APPROVAL VARIANCE �_ FEE: �a v• -� WAIVER OF PLATTING REQUIREMENTS OATE PAID: 1. Street Location of Property: 540 Blake Road North , Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 2. Legal Description of Property: See attached exhibit 5 W. Goodale St. 3. Owner: Name White Castle System, Inc. Address Columbus , OH 43216 Phone 614 228- 10550 Wayzata Blvd. 5781 4. Applicant's Name: Schoell & Madson, Inc. Address Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone 612 546- 7601 5. Oescription of Request: Request approval to add a drive-up window to existing restaurant _ and rearrangement of parkinq lot to include 48 parkinq stalls. _ _ _ oning District Use 6. Present Proposed 7. Present Proposed B-3 B-3 Restaurant Restaurant w/drive- up window �. Reason for Request: Owner's experience indicates that a drive-up window reduces the number of arkin stalls re uired which is contrar to Cit re uirements. NOTE: If request is for variance, please a so comp ete attached page. 9. What error, if any, i� 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 4 prints attached Other 4 copies of legal description, narrative statement & list of neiqhbors contacted 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 are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in ac- cordance with the Ordinances of the City of Hopkins and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature of Applicant: �-� s� , oe a son, nc. ac . os er, president Signature of Owner: ;�� �, � . ' r �' � ; � � �' arry ings a , r a a r o . i e as e y em, nc. RECORO Of ACTION TAKEt� BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIOP� � Date: 6/24/86 Application for Parking Variance CASE N0: VN86-6 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENOATIONS On the 24 day of June 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)that a unique circumstance is present due to the storm water detention basin and the 35' easement (2) a hardship exist due to the �a�tr� ion of the storm water detention basin and 35' easement which prevents the pp �a��r ding. Chairman: _ CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approved X Denied by the Council this lst day of July 19 86 Approved with following amendment: Approved as recommended by Zoning & Planning Resolution No. 86-38 Clerk: .S • �.o� I� � 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 6 24 86 JK Pl . Comm. Postponement Pl . Conm. Action 6/24/86 JK Recommend approval with Findings of Fact as stated above. On Council Agenda 7 � I ICouncil Postponement � � � � � Council Action 7/1/86 JK Approved as recommended . • CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota � RESOLUTION N0: 86-38 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN86-6 WHEREAS, an application for a Variance entitled VN86-6 has been made by White Castle System, Inc. , 540 Blake Road North, to reduce the required parking. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows : 1. That an application for Variance VN86-6 was filed with the City of Hopkins on June 6, 1986. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on June 24, 1986. 3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a public hearing on June 24, 1986; all persons present at the � hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. 4. 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 VN86-6: `— 1. Unique circumstances are present due to the storm water detention basin and the 35' easement, 2. A hardship exists due to the combination of the storm water detention basin and 35' easement which prevents the applicant from expanding. Adopted this lst day of July, 1986. Ellen Lavin, Mayor � . , - FOR VARIANCE APPLICATION ONLY � NOTE: The purpose of a variance is to provide relief to a property owner when the strict enforecme�t of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an undue hard- sh�p to the property owner or deny reasonable use of the property. �Har�dshi� 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. Nardship A. . Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue hardship: See attached narrative statement. Conditions B. � What are the specia] 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? See attached narrative statement. 1 print of White Castle's 1978 Storm Water Detention Plan is included for your information and review List of Homeowners Contacted by Applicant C. Submit a list of names and addresses of neighbors contacted. 1) Walt Kunz, Jr. , Owner, Junz Oil Company 5200 Eden Circle, Edina, MN 55436 K-Oil Station: 530 North Blake Road, Hopkins, MN 2) Henry Kristal , Partner, Embers Restaurants 1664 University Avenue, St. Paul , MN 55104 Embers Restaurant: 1�111 Cambridge Street, Hopkins, MN � �. -,,,�,�•,;���,,,��,,,,, �,�,�,. _ CITY OF HOPKINS - _.,_........�..., � . VARIANCE - WHITE CASTLE 540 Blake Road PLANNING REPORT JUNE 11, 1986 VN86-6 . PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on a Variance request to reduce the re- quired parking. BACKGROUND: Name of Applicant: White Castle Address of Property: 540 Blake Road Present Zoning: B-3 Nature of Request: Variance to reduce existing number o7= parking spaces Reason for request: To construct a drive-up window The applicant is proposing to construct a drive-up window at the present site of White Castle. Ordinance 472.45 requires additional parking of 5 parking spaces for the first service window. The ordinance also states existing off-street park- �- ing spaces and loading spaces upon the effective date of this Ordinance shall not be reduced in number unless said number exceeds the requirements set forth herein for a similar new use. The site is required to have 165 parking spaces. The site currently has 60 parking spaces, the applicant is proposing to have 48 parking spaces after the drive-up window is constructed. Ordinance 427.23 states that variances shall be approved only by circum- stances unique to the property under consideration would cause undue hardship to owner. The applicant has contacted the surrounding neighbors, none have objected to the drive-up window. ANALYSIS: The requirement of 165 spaces is not practical in this situation, however the current number of 60 has been adequate in the past. The applicant has stated that with a drive-up window the parking has been reduced by customers using the drive-thru and not parking. This site does have certain characteristics that make it unique. The gravel area to the west is a storm water detention basin developing and that area for parking would not be suitable. The site also has a 35 foot easement to the south which also prevents using this area for park- i ng. � June 11, 1986 PLANNING REPORT � VN86-6 Page 2 White Castle does have two other sites in the area which have about the same parking and have experienced no parking problem. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Grant the parking variance. By granting the parking variance, the applicant �iill be able to construct the drive-up window. 2. Deny the variance request. Should you choose this option, you will have to identify findings of fact which support denial of the application. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the granting of the variance. The following are suggested Findings of Fact should the Commission recommend approval : 1. Unique circumstances are present due to the storm water detention basin and the 35' easement. 2. A hardship exists due to the combination of the storm water de- tention basin and 35' easement which prevents the applicant from expanding. � ��y �- y (' m l r J ! J I,N, ��� �` 'I �� �• I'f[_��_ � l Nancy 5. Anderson, Analyst, Community Development �