CR 95-125 Variance Duff's Auto Sales
\ y '-'
(, ,<
July 13, 1995 o \c\ Council Report 95-125
e P 1\ \
V ARlANCE--DUFF'S AUTO SALES
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 95-54 denying a
variance to allow for more square footage to be devoted to car sales for Duff's Auto Sales
located at 1714 Mainstreet.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Schumacher moved and Mr. Gullickson seconded a
motion to approve Resolution RZ95-17, recommending denial of a variance to allow more
square footage to be devoted to car sales at 1714 Mainstreet. The motion carried
unanimously.
Overview.
In 1992 Duffs Auto Sales received a conditional use permit to operate an auto sales lot at
1714 Mainstreet. The conditional use permit allows for nine cars to be displayed for sale on
the site. The applicant has continually violated this condition. Last fall the operator, Mr.
Hanson, stated that his lease would expire in May and he would be leaving the site at that
time. The commission continued the review of the applicant's site, based on this
e understanding. Mr. Hanson has now informed Staff that he is not leaving the City and is
requesting a variance to allow more cars on the site than allowed by the conditional use
permit.
Mr. Hanson has been before the commission several times over the last couple of years
regarding the number of cars displayed on the site. He has stated that the main problem is his
business has grown since the time he received his conditional use permit. Mr. Hanson has
told the Staff that he is trying to find additional land on which to park cars, but has been
unable to find a parking area.
Primary Issues to Consider.
0 What does the Zoning Ordinance require for the number of cars for sale on a
site?
0 How many cars are allowed on the subject site as per the conditional use
permit?
0 What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
0 What is the Staff recommendation?
0 What occurred at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supporting Documents.
0 Analysis of Issues
0 Site Plan
. 0 Resolution 95-54
rfh
-.-
CR95-125
Page 2
. Primary Issues to Consider.
0 What does the Zoning Ordinance require for the number of cars for sale on a
site?
Section 535.03 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following:
1. The sales lot shall not be larger in square footage than the square footage of the
building devoted to the related business.
0 How many cars are allowed on the subject site per the conditional use permit?
The conditional use permit allows nine cars on the site. Mr. Hanson submitted a new site
plan that shows all the parking areas for the site as display parking. This plan does not allow
an area for off-street parking for customers and employees and would exceed the number of
cars to be displayed on the site based on the above ordinance requirement. The site plan Mr.
Hanson submitted cannot be approved without another variance granted for off-street parking.
0 What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
The reason for the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance to limit the amount of cars in
e relationship to the building is to prevent what is happening on this site. The applicant at many
times has so many cars on the site that the aisle is full of cars. The applicant has stated that
many of the cars on the site are for the auto auction. The conditional use permit was granted
for the selling of cars, not for the storage of cars for the auto auction. The subject property
does not have a hardship for the granting of a variance.
Mr. Hanson has stated in the variance application that enforcement of the ordinance prohibits
his business from growing.
The last conditional use permit that was allowed for an auto sales lot was at 525 Mainstreet.
This lot was not granted a variance and up to this point has had the correct number of cars for
sale on the site.
0 What is the Staff recommendation?
Staff would recommend denial of additional sales lot parking. This recommendation is based
on the fact that the property does not have a hardship for the granting of the variance. The
applicant does not have a hardship for the granting of a variance, but there are also other
concerns that the Staff has regarding the number of cars on the site. The following are the
concerns the Staff has regarding the number of cars on the site.
0 The appearance of Mr. Hanson's lot because of the number of cars on the site.
. Many times the cars are stacked in the aisle
0 The granting of a variance without a hardship would create a precedent for
other individuals who would want to start an auto lot in Hopkins.
0 The site plan proposed by the applicant violates the off-street parking
requirement for an auto sales lot.
-- -- - ----- - -
CR95-125
Page 3
. 0 What occurred at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
The Staff reviewed the history regarding the number of cars on the site. Carl Hanson, the
applicant, appeared before the commission. Mr. Hanson stated that he just wanted to use all
the property because his business has grown since the conditional use permit was granted.
l\.1r. Hanson also stated that he would like to have about 20 cars on the site. The commission
had a discussion on hardship and how this site does not have a hardship. The commission
noted that l\.1r. Hanson has continually violated the conditions of his conditional use permit
and has appeared before the commission several times before regarding the number of cars on
the site. The Staff stated that the site is required to have off-street parking for employees and
customers and with the proposed site plan by the applicant, there is no off-street parking on
the site which would require another variance..
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be allowed more cars
on the site for auto sales. The City Council can only approve additional sales cars that still
would allow space for off-street parking. If the City Council indicated that all of the
parking area on the site should be uses for a sales lot, a variance will have to be granted
for the off-street parking requirements If the City Council recommends this alternative,
findings offact will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
e 2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will be allowed the nine cars for
display as per the conditional use permit.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
.
\ '\ I' 'l;~~
\ \ I ~
\ \ I
\ ,
\~\ lev
. i'f2
(56)
-~l1VSTRrrr - - - - ~
- V8&> /8;'.z f /; /
'r- -4-
I ,12 r 3 4 r 5 I
: J I' 1(20 k1)/
~ r I J i~ I
_________ I Ii) I'" 17 (33) (24) 8 '" 17 (47 (38) 8 '!:
I C) I
~ . ~ 16 (32) (25) 9 C:l ~ 16(46) (39) 9 C:l I
2 ~i i t'I.l, C\J
~I I I. :II~ 15(3]) (26) 10 In! I. : ~ 15(45) (40)10 \J;) ;f
~~.' ~I~ s: C\J
~I I tt!~ 14 (27) II . ~ ~ 14(44)/(41) II t'I.l
5 I "\. f (30) ~, "1 ;:t
~ --J (15) (86) F C) A OJ (43) IJ.-
6 I ;- ~ (2) ~ If) 13(29) (28) 12 1.1;)/ l() 13 (42) 12 .;['
--- IT) h) l.I;) '''--
_ C5"1 (85) E ~ (:3) "'t- If) l'
~ ~ ; __B~3} ~ I sf STREE SO
8 I (84) D C:l;' (4) C ~ T/- .
, C c' 14 ~
~----WII >-.. . " ,!? (75) (62) I~! i!i 1416 Ii /14'" 1 s: I - i
~I r--. ~ ~ (14) (S) ailf"\., <.0' f~1 I
~)I '-J (16) ~ i 2::;: ~ 13(74) (63) 2 ~/ ~ 13(60) (49) 2 ~I '
:'{!~ I~I.'!:! A (76) (6) ~ ;tl~. I~ 'II
~ :t I II i~ ::::; I. -1.~12(73) (64)~~'~ ~ 12 '(50)... --; !
,(,..,' I () -----ir-..... ---1'1--- oJ ---
V) I ~' ~I~ -~.J~ (87) 1.1;)10)' r-... (59) ':
I : (79) A ~I I-- c ~I.........I~ 11(72) (65) 4 tol mil\. II II
, ,/ IT) ::::;, '"'" :::: (51) 4
! 1(80)!b ~ - 0 (78) (7) ~ i ......... (58) I
'-------';"" ~ '-- -...: i() , ,
I ' - f1 " -..,..... ~ /0(71) (66) 5 '1-1 Ii() j
I (17) 1- - ~ Ih=; (J3) (8) ~i ~I ~ 10( )(52) 5 ~I i
I I C L--I--- C\j, ,~7, 'I
i ,~~ 'I I. I "
~ - - - J If) 9 0 C:l!' I
, (18) I (8')~- \:! CJ! &; (12) (9) ~. !:'2 (7 l)<67) 6 ~Ir ~ 9156J(531 6 ~II II
~ C\J l ~ ~---------f-c--_ - -- -- i '
> I i() Oil (10) C:l ~ 8(69 l/(68) 7 <.0 i() 8 (54) 7 j I
~ !.'?' ~ ~ (55) "'>
, I
I COUNTY ROAD NO. 3 I
, I
. I
I
.~~) I
?
("..' . .r
. -~ /?I-)\.,~_.\JY. 6-
C -=- C G S + CM....~"r -- ~ '__u
L-= 1-..- c." -~
L..,.' r :' ...
OLD SITE PLAN
I
r- - 93-
~.-
1- - -'"1 - _. - . - - - - -- ....
I ) I "J I, -- - ---~
, 00 ~" ;'0 . .
~ (_( -- : I ~ I
I I " _u -- ,
~'-'- r
-- ~---
. I ~
tA --'-~ --I :
I 1 -... I
I I
,
t Iv -J
I -.. -.- -----i ----._1
\J -58- ..j I
I
--- -
t I I
~ ~...!J -J
t -Z -2 '0 .. I
;
, I ~~ 'S- ~i
')(-j _,-:-:,0 , ' , I I
I We') ... \ - --. ---.
.' - -J
I -5- -..0
, ,-- ---~- Cb
I - f.?- \J <:)- -
I ~ --J ,
I --~ - -- -.
I -,I
- ,;-- (-
I .
r
I
'-. ,
I Exi"'Jl\ r-lc.. -.
0 I
....... - -::),Kw"" )K - 2.&; -
J
- L I ~
J = LO
:P~~K\ N6 __ ----' -------
~
- DO'f. rA<<.)(\ NCD free..A
ND "~:;i~lrr...~
NEW SITE PLAN
,
- 93-
I ...-- -- ._~_.__.~-_.---_.._---.- --..- I
I .J j
I '1/.)/70 00#
I t
I ~ i
I I
. 1 c. ._ .". '1 'f',
':<' ,
I ~ \
~
I ~S8- I
c:::-:. ~ I
<.::::;:,
I ~ !
I I I
,
.1..9 I
, ~ JJ-
I I 'J1~ I I
t .~-5
W(9 ...
, -5- --.()
CD
I ~
- ).7- 1
I t",\
I
I .
I
,
, I
I
I
_i
I EXI"'.:,\'\ p.~ I
0 -zG-
I ".::)lri..WIO\ \K
. /
-
1 = LO
. CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 95-54
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A
VARIANCE TO ALLOW MORE SQUARE FOOT AGE DEVOTED TO AUTO SALES
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN95-2 made by Carl Hanson to allow more square
footage devoted to auto sales at 1714 Mainstreet is denied.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows.
1. That an application for Variance VN95-2 was filed with the City of Hopkins on June 1,
1995.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notices, held a meeting on the
application and reviewed such application on June 27, 1995.
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City Staff and the Planning Commission
. were considered.
4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows.
The north 102 feet of Lots 3 and 4 and that part of Lot 5 lying west of the east 25 feet
thereof, Block 2, Boulevard Manor Addition.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL YED that the application for Variance VN95-2 is hereby
denied based on the following Findings of Fact.
1. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property without the granting of the
vanance.
2. That the applicant does not have a unique hardship for the property for the
granting of a variance.
3. That with the granting of the variance as requested by the applicant, the site does
not have the required off-street parking as required by the zoning ordinance.
Adopted this 18th day of July 1995.
e Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
-- -"
l'I...r..'...... 11'......111.....1.'11
. ..'''w~~='
:~[~;i1~1:(1:1i:~::::~::;;i1~~:II(::<(~::~:lt.P::;:;;:::t~;;l:::
"~'!~I:'II'~'" ......... , -' ..~, .... ......
i~~\~\~~{~~J~~~j~~~i~~~\j~J~it\~t~\\~\~~~~~~\ili~~j~~t~j~~~~l~ijif~~~\~lli~\
To: City Council
From: Nancy Anderson
Date: Thursday, July 13, 1995
Subject: Auto Sales Lots
I. Introduction.
Carl Hanson, the owner of Duff's Auto Sales, has requested a variance to allow more
sales cars on his lot at 1714 Mainstreet than allowed by his conditional use permit. Mr.
Hanson was granted a conditional use permit for an auto sales lot in 1992 and is
allowed nine vehicles on his site for sale. Mr. Hanson wants to use all available area
on his site for sales vehicles. The City Council has asked the Staff to look at several
alternatives to allow more for sale vehicles on the site.
. n. BackQround.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a conditional use permit for all auto sales lots. One of
the conditions for an auto sales lot states the following.
The sales lot shall be no larger in square footage than the square footage of the
building devoted to the related business.
This requirement has been in the Zoning Ordinance since 1977. This requirement was
put in the ordinance to limit the number of cars on an auto sales lot. Along with a limit
on the amount of cars on the site there are other controls for auto sales lots that affect
the appearance of the lot, for example, landscaping, setbacks, and screening. If there
was no limitation on the number of vehicles on a sales lot, an individual could construct
a small building and the number of vehicles would only be limited by the amount of land
a person had. Since the existing ordinance was adopted, the appearance of auto
sales lots has improved.
All lots are still required to provide off-street parking for employees and customers and
setbacks that may reduce the amount of sale vehicles on the site.
--
___ _0- -. - ---
. III. Comparison of Other Communities.
The following are requirements that other communities have.
a) St. Louis Park--two square feet of sales lot for every one foot of
building.
This would allow Mr. Hanson 26 cars on the site based on a 6.5' x14'
area for a car and 13 cars based on a 9' x 20' area. Mainstreet USA
would be allowed 40 cars based on a 6.5' x 14' area.
b) Plymouth--does not have a specific square footage for auto sales lot.
Requires a conditional use permit and must meet all setback,
landscaping, off street parking requirements, and parking lot design.
City does have the ability to limit the number of cars through the
conditional use permit process.
c) Minnetonka--does not have a specific square footage for auto sales
lots.
. Requires a conditional use permit with a site and building plan review.
The city does have the ability to limit the number of cars through the
conditional use permIt and the site and building plan review.
d) Hopkins--square footage of sales lot shalf be no larger than the square
footage of the building.
IV. Alternatives.
The following are two alternatives identified by Staff which would allow Duffs Auto to
display more vehicles for sale on the site. The Council needs to be aware that either of
these alternatives, if implemented, would allow existing as well as future auto sales lots
to also have more on-site vehicles.
a) Do not calculate the number of sale vehicles based upon a standard
parking stall. Presently Staff identifies the size of the sales lot based
on the 1: 1 ratio and then determines the total number of vehicles
allowed using a 9' x 20' parking space. Under this alternative Staff
would not limit the number of vehicles that could be placed in the sales
area based on the number of conventional parking spaces. In
essence, the operator would be able to park vehicles closer together
to increase the number of sales vehicles.
--
- -- --.--
. The building on Mr. Hanson's site is 1200 square feet. This would
allow Mr. Hanson four to six more sales cars on the site, for a total of
13-15 cars (assuming approximately an area of 6.5' x 14' for a car).
Mainstreet USA would be allowed approximately an additional 10
sales cars for a total of 20 cars.
This alternative will not require an ordinance change. This would be a
policy change on how the area is calculated to determine the number
of cars on the site.
b) Calculate the number of cars allowed based on a 1.5 ratio of cars to
building rather than the existing 1: 1 ratio.
Mr. Hanson would be allowed 1800 square feet for a sales lot. This
alternative would allow Mr. Hanson approximately 19 sales cars if the
area is based on the calculations of a 6.5' x 14' area for a car. Mr.
Hanson would be allowed a total of 10 cars using a 9' x 20' area for a
car. Mainstreet USA would be allowed 20 additional sales cars for a
total of 30 (based on a 6.5' x 14' area).
Mr. Hanson has also stated that he wants to purchase the building and put cars in the
e building for a showroom. The cars in the building are not counted as part of the sales
lot.
V. Conclusions.
The existing ordinance regulating auto sales lots has been effective as concerns the
following.
0 limiting the number of auto sales lots in the city.
0 assuring that auto sales lots do not create a negative appearance
If the ordinance is changed or interpreted differently to allow more sales vehicles on a
site, it may be less effective in achieving the above goals.
e
---