The URL can be used to link to this page

VN 86-07 .., • / CITY OF HOPKINS , _ - �—APPLICATION FOR: AMENDMENT OF ZONING ORDINANCE DATE: .S— 3d— �� CONCEPT REVIEW CONOITIONAL USE PERh1IT CASE N0: y/�✓ �� — � SUBDIVISION APPROVAL VARIANCE � FEE: �� WAIVER OF PLATTING REQUIREMENTS �_ �� OATE PA I 0: `j - � l. Street Location of Property: , - F � 2. Legal Description of Property: � c� d� ,� � � � n �i Cl � %'QL�' ' �' �.�Ct� �'� 3. Owner: Name �ce��, r o � ess ,!/Y��/'j��n��-�o��- Phon��'Z� 4. Appl icant's Namec�`a-j�,y�,�,(�ti,��;�� Address �� d p � Phon . 5. Description of Request: ' �'�,� - ��1� � — ,� _ / � //) � �C �' �/�� oning District Use 6. Presen Pro osed 7. Present,� Proposed � � �aJr�� y�i 3 S �/r7 e � . Reason for Request: ll��^ e—,� � /,� <<� � cQ i�� NOTE: If request is for variance, please a so 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) �� 10. Exhibits submitted: Map or plat showing the lands proposed to be changed ` ��P_ L" Other � � 11. Acknowledggnent 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 Ordinan of kins and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature of Applicant: �� Signature of Owner: � . RECORD OF ACTION TAKE�� BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Date: June 24, 1986 �— Application for Variance CASE N0: VN86-7 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS 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 parking variance for 55 spaces on site and the leased property with the Findings of Fact that the parking requirements are an stimate o�—w�at e applicant will need and the leased parking area provides the applican s ficien g and with the Condition that the applicant provide Chairman: sufficient off-site arkin if it is determin d to be necessary. CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approved X Denied by the Council this lst day of Julv 19$�_ Approved with following amendment: Approved as recommended by Zoning & Planning with Conditions as stated. Resolution No.86-37 C 1 e r k: —�, �� p —� � Following to be filled in by City Action of City Officials Chronolo Date 6 Rec'd by Bldg Dept. Published by Bldg Dept. On Pl . Comm. Agenda 6/24/86 JK Pl . Comm. Postponement Pl . Comn. Action 6/24/86 JK Recommend approval as stated above On Council Agenda 7 1 86 Council Postponement , � � � Council Action 7/1/86 JK Approved as stated above � .. � • / �..�� i _ �.� , � '!�. �� —�. — C' 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. �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. tiardship A. Explain why strict enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would cause undue hardship: /> f/ - , �. 1 � -�[,� / / ,[ 1 LC � ' ��' � G J ,-- T�l�i 1 �7' �, c� � .� //!C '�. C��'=r (d-� �C>( d�F_'�. ��C; - -��c=i _�<_I'/�rl G �; �`,U /`� <�I i'7(C� �`' C�' � � S' �1 �� -' F��Z�� l / � / �,[/ 7��' / ��f � �C� i J�_ " L' /� � V �. �'/'�*rr l //) '� ��4� //YIUCL• �f?7�7��1 i' i�i��+r-v /,/C'/C"- i� /7')O !' C' v / �� f,?c << <i �L, ��; , /�!`�, c� �_��a F c' ; , Conditions JB. � What are the sQecial conditions (shape of lot, exceptional topographic conditio�s, etc. ) of this request that are unique to this property and do not apply generally to other properties in the district? �� 'l�. ,� /r�5��17!`��1' 1` �//�7L�e_ r�c' �' o � �/F /�',7� i�S 1��/� ��z�c� vr / , C.��c << (C 1� �% 7L�P, ��'u f /v��V ��s��c /�� i �fS'€� ��c � S �ca � �, . � / f��' �� z �'�C� � - � "� N �� l� � '.5 C.�o ,`T , List of Homeowners Contacted by Applicant C. Submit a list of names an addresses of neighbors contacted. / , / [ t� �i 7 � � � h � �� '� E �t �'l��l (� �l Ct � P�v C: � �� E ,'''>� C l � �l ,�U 1 5 c� � �l` ��' C cJ, �� a�q / � f/� C' . --� ,; �, F� ��,� � �- � ��1 � �; �� F f� s , � �!c_ , /��' (�_S�r�,�7 c: � ��B��..ti �� E - � I CITY OF HOPKINS Nennepin County, Minnesota � RESOLUTION N0. 86-36 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE VN86-7 WHERE!',S, an application for a Variance entitled VN86-7 has been made by Jim Lindstrom, Hopkins Car Care, 404 Mainstreet, to construct an addition with less than the minimum parking requirements. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN86-7 was filed with the City of Hopkins on May 30, 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 coRunents and analysis of the City Staff and the Planning Commission were considered. NOW TNEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hopkins City Council makes the `— following Findings of Fact in respect to VN86-7 1. That the parking requirements are an estimate of what the appli- cant will need. 2. The leased parking area provides the applicant with sufficient parking. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for Variance VN86-7 is hereby approved subject to the following Condition: 1. The applicant provide sufficient off-street parking if it is deter- mined to be necessary. Adopted this lst day of July, 1986. Ellen Lavin, Mayor � . ,�� -��,,•�� .. . .. ..;:,�,. CITY OF HOPKIIVS __....� � _ . June 12, 1986 VARIANCE - HOPKINS CAR CARE 404 Mainstreet PLANNING REPORT VN86-7 PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on a variance request for parking at 404 Mainstreet. BACKGROUND: Name of Applicant: Jim Lindstrom Address of Property: 404 Mainstreet Present Zoning: B-3 Nature of Request: Parking variance for 26 parking spaces Reason for Request: To construct a 8672 square foot addition The applicant is requesting this variance in connection with the Conditional Use Permit at this site. There are three uses on this site. The first is a car wash which �'" requires 30 stacking spaces, however no employee parking. In check- ing with other cities, they did require employee parking for a car wash and it seems logical that employee parking should be required. Examples of employee parking from others are one space for every 2 employees and 9 minimum spaces or one space for each employee on maximum shift, whichever is greater. The applicant has stated that he has 30 employees at maximum shift. The second area contains the 8 stalls for cleaning cars. This service will offer a customer a more complete cleaning for their car. They will leave or wait for their car to be cleaned. For this area we used the motor fuel station requirements which requires four off-street park- ing spaces for each service stall . This would require 20 parking spaces. The third area is the retail area which contains 4350 square feet. This area will require 22 parking spaces. The applicant is required to have 57 parking spaces. The site plan shows 31 parking spaces on site and 25 leased spaces. The applicant is trying to purchase the railroad property, however, at this time he can only secure a yearly lease. The Commission granted a similar variance to Kokesh in October 1985. � . PLANNING REPORT VN86-7 Page 2 � ANALYSIS: It appears with the leased parking area the applicant will have enough parking for the proposed development. Since the City does not have exact parking requirements for the stall area and for employees for the car wash, the number the applicant may need in reality may be somewhat less. It may be realistic to believe that the 31 on-site spaces will not be enough. It is also conceivable that the applicant will loose the leased parking area in the future. It appears from the site plan tha} 15 spaces will not be easily accessible if the car wash is busy, since these spaces are in the stacking area. However, these spaces can be used for employee parking or cars to be cleaned. This variance is a hard one to make a recommendation since the applicant really does not have a hardship. However, there are several unknowns that could happen which would make it possible for the applicant not to have a parking problem. The applicant may be able to have a yearly lease forever, he may be able to purchase the land or the 34 stalls may be adequate for the business. The best solution would be if the applicant is able to purchase the rail- road property. However if this is not possible , the second best solution is the applicant be required to provide sufficient parking for employees and stall area off-site. �'" ALTERNATIVES: 1. Grant the variance. By granting the variance the applicant will be able to construct the proposed addition. 2. Deny the variance. Should you choose this option, the applicant will not be able to construct the addition. 3. Grant the variance with conditions. RECOMMENDATION: I recorrmend option three. The following are recorrmended Findings of Fact should the Commission recommend approval : 1. The parking requirements are an estimate of what the applicant will need. 2. The leased parking area provides the applicant sufficient parking. Conditions : 1. The applicant return to the Commission one year after completion of the addition for a review of the parking situation. 2. The applicant provide sufficient off-site parking 'if it is determined necessary. 3. The applicant continues to seek permanent off-site parking. � ) � �-- Nancy . Anderson, Analyst Conmun ty Development