CR 95-145 Variance - Duff's Auto Sales
1 Y
IJ
(,
,
o ';I
P K \
Council Report 95-145
.
August 10, 1995
V ARIA NCE-- 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.
Overview.
In 1992 Duff's 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
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.
e
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.
o What does the Zoning Ordinance require for the number of cars for sale on a
site?
o How many cars are allowed on the subject site as per the conditional use
permit?
o What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
o What is the Staff recommendation?
Supportine Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plan
o Resolution 95-54
e
~~~p
PlaMer
CR95-145
Page 2
.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o 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.
o How many cars are allowed on the subject site per the conditional use permit?
The conditional use permit al10ws 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.
o What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
e
The reason for the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance to limit the amount of cars in
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 ful1 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.
o 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 varrance. 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,
o
The appearance ofMr. Hansonts lot because of the number of cars on the site,
Many times the cars are stacked in the aisle
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.
The site plan proposed by the applicant violates the off-street parking
requirement for an auto sales lot.
.
o
o
CR95-l45
Page 3
.
Alternatives,
}, 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.
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.
.
.
.
e
.
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 RESOLVED 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 15th day of August 1995.
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk