CR2003-115 Sideyard Variance 900 2nd st NE
(" \
CITY OF .
.'
August 14,2003
-
HOPKINS
Council Report 03-115
V ARIANCE-SIDEY ARD
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 03-66. approving ,Of
a variance to construct an addition to the existing building at 900 Second Street N.E.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Ms. Hatcher moved and Ms. Allen seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution RZ03-7, recommending approval of a variance to construct
an addition to the existing building at 900 Second Street N.E. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Overview.
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an addition at 900 Second Street N.E.
The applicant, EDCO, is proposing to construct a 39,755-square-foot addition to the
existing building at 900 Second Street N.E. The addition would be located on the south
side of the building abutting the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority
(HCRRA) property. In order to make the addition workable, EDCO is proposing to
expand the addition one to three feet from the south lot line. The required setback is 20
feet. EDCO has looked for additional warehouse space within the City but has been
unable to find any.
.
The minimum south setback presents the challenges to the proposed addition. Not only
will the applicant be required to be granted a variance, fire access needs to be maintained
on the south side of the building. HCRRA has to grant an access to their property. A
fire lane abutting the building will be constructed and maintained. HCRRA currently
has a bituminous trail on their property, but in the future, this area is proposed to be a
light rail corridor. There is room for a fire access, trail, and light rail transit in this area.
The existing building is sprinkled and the addition will be sprinkled.--
Primarv Issues to Consider.
· What is the zoning of the property?
· What does the ordinance require for a side yard setback?
· What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
· What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
· What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning me,eting?
Supportinl! Documents.
· Analysis of Issues
. Site Plans
· Resolution 03-66
Nanc . Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Y/N
Source:
CR03-115
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned 1-2, General Industrial.
. What does the ordinance require for a side yard setback?
The ordinance requires a minimum sideyard setback in the 1-2 zoning district of20 feet.
. What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant is requesting a 17-19 foot variance
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance is a modification or variation
from the provisions of this code granted by the board and applied to a specific parcel of
property because of undue hardship due to circumstances peculiar and unique to such
parcel. The Zoning Ordinance also states the following: that the Commission must find
that the literal enforcement of the provision of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an
undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration and that the granting of a variance to the extent necessary to compensate
for said hardship is in keeping with the intent of this code.
In this case the applicant has an undue hardship that is unique to the property. The
applicant's property abuts the HCRRA property. Because the HCRRA is unbuildable
there is no impact to this property with the applicant's building being closer to the
property line.
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed variance for the new addition. Ms. Anderson
stated that the new addition would be one to three feet from the property line.
Alan Kimpbell, representing EDCO, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Kimpbell
reviewed the site plan with the Commission.
Altern atives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to
construct the building as proposed.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to
construct the building as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative,
findings of fact will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
.
.
.
CR03-115
Page 3
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further
information is needed, the item should be continued.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 03-66
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A 17-19 FOOT SETBACK VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 900 SECOND STREET N.E.
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN03-1 has been made by EDCO; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN03-1 was made by EDCO on April
25,2003;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on
June 24,2003: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered;
and
4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
That part of Tracts Land P, Registered Land Survey No. 561, Files of the
Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota lying
Southwesterly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the
Northwesterly line of said Tract P distant 66.79 feet Southwesterly along
the Northeasterly line from the most Northerly corner of said Tract P;
thence Southeasterly in a straight line to a point on the south line of said
Tract L di'stant 770.15 feet east of the most westerly corner of said Tract;
and that part of Lot 91, auditor's Subdivision No. 239, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, west of a line drawn from a point on the north line of said Lot
91 distant 31.21 feet west along said north line from the most easterly
corner of said Lot 91 to a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 91
distant 29.96 feet Southwesterly along said southeasterly line from the
most easterly corner of said Lot 91.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application for Variance VN03-1 IS
hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
.
1. That the subject property is unique because it abuts the Hennepin County
Regional Railroad Authority Property.
. ,
, RESOLUTION NO: 03-66
Page 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Variance VN03-1 is hereby approved
subject to the following condition:
1. That the conditional use permit is granted for the construction of the building
addition.
Adopted this 19th day of August 2003.
ATTEST:
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
....'1
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
i
I
r
Ii
gd
-II
J~~
, :;J~
2 ~ Illl
B::
i
hi i
iJ~ ~
~~i ;
~~~ ~
.:lili Ii
U~ ~
u~~
"~ . ~
Ofj~ ~
.,'" '"
~~ ~
niil~
~ II ~
Ii
~
~~
~~ i!
~i m
~; I
rt :;J
~i ~
Cl Cl
III ~
~ ~
i~~I~~
~[llrll~i!l~
~~:~::
9 3
I I
i i
! !
I I
q
i
o WI
Z'
1
1-1
(f)i
o!
121
I NI
i i
I I
i i
I I
i i
1 I
i i
I J
"'r i i
~Sl ~ I I
9"'!!l I I
- - i i
1 1
Irl i i
is I I
~~ Irl i i
~fa i i
~U I I
e ~ I I
~tf ! i
Q-:;J I I
~2 5 ! !
"'~... I 1
I
i
1 I
i i
I I
i i
I I
i i
I I
i i
1 I
i i
I
i
110,0'
j
1
i
!
I
"""'-..J !
I 9,"
I
t '"
8 .....'f..~.
r i~ 8 .........
".........!~ if......................
I '-t..",.... I\I?.A l:"'.........
i ....., , IT &' .........
! ""'"...,"11v "'" 'F
I "" "'~
I ..........
i .....,
I '.
. "
I ,
I ,
i "
I
i
.I
I
~
I
~
..
i3
~
;!
Iii
i
I
I
i
i
~
='
~
~
....
~
I ill
M!I
~
~
..J
(L
ill
I-
Q)
~
~
I
5
i
...
e
-~
~
:8
~
II!
u:
~
onu .nuulW """"YUM _. "pl.
DB...iS"....(CStLI rx_. p.I....tncJII~MOII8L
OCSIo-ZJ.I-CeDlJ ~OUOIfd ...11I H
'GJ. 1 'SJ.O!lJ.lHOI:IY
"'jol;~ N-l '9NDIoIOH ';;fN '!; ONt IMJ9
a9rlQHiRj'Vfn H01J.l1liilRlU.~la
;!~ ""aa
~""'~'~~
1i:~i1~".~); :~;YJ:~::.:"'({ m
"I'a
SNOISIA!lI:I
Nnd iUIS
11J.1J. J.lIHS
..
Ii ~Il~~