CR 93-19 Variance - Parking In Front Yard
( '\
I
"C \ "{ Yo!
~^.. ';. ~o ~i
, I
I
_' i
1- '" I
., 0 P I ~ f
>. .... January 18, 1993 K I Council Report 93-19
., . VARIANCE - PARKING IN FRONT YARD SETBACK
Proposed Action.
staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 93-
11 recommendinqdenial of a variance to -park in the front yard setback
at 525 Mainstreet.
Mr. Winship moved and Mrs. Reuter seconded amotion to approve
Resolution RZ93-2 recommending denial of a variance to park in the
front yard setback. The mot~on passed unanimously.
Overview.
In conjunction with the conditional use permit submitted for an auto
sales lot at 525 Mainstreet,the applicant has also requested a
variance to park in the. tront yard setback. A auto' sales lot is
permitted in the B-3 district with a conditional use permit. The
conditional use permit requires a front yard setback of 20 feet for
car parking. On the plan submitted, there is no setback shown. The
two access points to the site take up much of the front yard setback.
The applicant stated on .the application the curb cut on Mainstreet and
6th Avenue is the hardship for granting the variance.
~staff is recommending denial of the variance based on alack of
~hardship. . .' .
The staff reviewed the applicants request with the Commission. The
applicant appeared before the Commission. He stated that eliminating
the curb cuts would devalue the property. There was considerable
discussion regarding closing the curb cuts. Lee Gustafson; the City
Engineer, recommended that at least the southerly access on sixth
Avenue be closed.
Assuming the Council denied the variance, the applicant will work with
the staff to provide a new site plan with the 20 foot setback. The
. Commission indicated it would consider keeping the access off
Mainstreet open. The Commission continued action on the C.U.P. until
final action was taken on the variance and the applicant had submitted
a new site plan.
primary Issues to Consider. .
o Does the subject site have an undue hardship to grant a
variance?
o Would the applicant have reasonable use of the property
without the variance?
o What is the.staff recommendation?
. su~porting Documents.
/a 0 Analysis of Issues
. 0 site Plan
, .. 0 Res.olution 93-11
~k;^'"
U\\~ .. I
Nancy . Anderson, AICP, Planner
.
r.
,
CR93-19
~ Page 2
/ . ./ primary Issues to consider.
o Does the subject site have an undue hardship to grant a variance?
. The subj ect site is not' unlike many of the lots along Mainstreet.
There is nothing unique about the applicants lot that creates an undue
hardship. The applicant must .show that if a variance is not granted,
the property would, for the most part, be unable to be uti;tized. In.
this case the lot can be used for an auto sales lot wi thout the
variance. There is no undue hardship to grant a variance.
o Would the applicant have reasonable use of the property without
the variance?
Without the variance the applicant still can have reasonable use of
the property. The applicant may not use the lot as it is currently
designed, but that is not a reason for a variance. There are several.
other B"3 uses.which could be.undertakenon the site.' The site still
can be used for an auto sal,es lot by modifying the site plan to allow
for a 20 foot front yard setback.
o What is the staff reoommendation?
~ Staff is recommending denial. of the variance based on the fact that
the.applicant1s 'property does not have an undue hardship.
'\-2 ' .
Alternatives.
1. . By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to park
cars in the front yard setback..
2. By denying the variance, the applicant must abide by the front
yard setback and will not be able to park cars in this area.
3. continue for further information. If the city council indicates
that further information is needed the item should be continued.
.
,.
~ '" .~-
..
,. -, "'''" " "I. (142 "/3519 '" ::!' ::-"::'N" I '" 13173/ (66J 6 ~,
'(B~)I0 · ~I ~c...,;;;, /'7 ClI2)'0 ~ '~'5 (141/ ~ - - ___~ i -,-,.at I (10) ~ /' ~ 12 (72) (67) 7 ~ ~
'" "" '. '''' '.-........ on mdp 2 ' .
' (96//1, ~ S<. 14 ClI6 ((13) /I '!:!.4 ('40 (137)" ~ ",-, ('"') ~ l
' '" '" ..... '" IjS- -Ii' ~ is II (71/ 16B/ B ~
. (' " ,,13 (1/ 51 (114/ i2 1)',. ~'3 1139 (138112 ~ ..... (I, 7) 509 (11), ..... I
~ NORTH" I ~ '(69) 9 g\:
' " · · r--... ""i .\
1 ~ ~,-:-/~6.2.} (42" ~ J~ 19(4/) (21) '! J-, _'-: 2 (/Z) ~II ~~N(70)101
~.~ IB (4:l)2 '1'.. I:l 'B14O 12212 ., 2, II 10 .. '
(l6B/ , 9> , ~ _ ..., (5) (B9/ 1BB/ 0/
~~ l7(5B) (44' ;.:il ~ 17(39 (23) 3:il 3_'1.1- _ _ ~ (14) ill I
~ Y 1\:,fF;'Q; 1-' - _ _ lQ I
(62)2:il, '<l!'-~ (45)..':e "'. '6rea) 124'4,:e 4/ .
c-- - - , "J ..... e--_ (13/ " ,
i(63) 3 :e "..(46) 5 ~ <v 15 (37) 125' 5 ~ 5,., ?O<,
'.' 5 ~,/5(56). . "" (/67~~~ 1(34 (27}7 ~ ~~",7~/1(18)r(6): tp (87) (8S) ,
- - - - - - - _. ' ' , "'5 ~ t , (3)
'65) 6' ~ ~ 14(55) 1""'6 '" 12B, B ~ 8/(19/, (16) ~ i
--r:-:-' -,-'0.-:-.,...... ....1' , I
' "':, .' r- . !-...~r-... 3/}~9)9 ~1~r:(8) ~ f_ /. 1 (110)
, ,.' ", ~',.. - -:of , ... I
i) 9. '2 ", /0 '9 B I 7 (3 "69) <0 : :C>, ....... 17 ill, '2 I 13
: (~)(6G" (54,' l<D15Q,cgp 1"'~ '2 II ~.",.. :t;;t' '.. , I 499 4P/
j t:s "~' rol.,~ ~ 'ff: , ,Ci 621 l,sfl ~ (/70' 5~~'~ 517, I 501 , ,
. .. ..'. ~ '. "'"'' , " -....: ' "
1681 . .153/, ,,'-.. ,
. ~ I I I I ~(8T A,' I -4,1f:L 4201 ,4/4 404
' "'". '" ~, ..
,f!!~ ~ I ~ I:! ;;:, K' ~. ~, : 1 1 I I 1'-.;-'..... ...(I~ 4<'~ A ..,01"2 '3 I
· "A ~ ...i:,. 2 3 5 6 ~ I 2 1 3 r 4 I 5 I 6 1"3~ "-.,.. (3), (52) I : (61 (7)
8 ~99)OOC .,-" (5/1C5~ (53 (5 )$ ~ 6)(5n. ,-:J _ L ~ ~2L 1_ L f.. . 31 i~., ~...T r:.. _ ~
1(, . ~-" _ r -- - - i-_~ I' (4) '" -i:::' (.'~
'. , .. '-....... '- " <>
,':.4$(94):159)7 ~ i- -~.: c _7_ _ '" 30 . I , "../ 'JJ'I../ ~ '---
' , , . " N..s B
'D '. '.::, ~"r: J.~s,,~': ~ ~/_... !Q 29(27) - -; - , '-.. {...: 1B/ _
- 9-' -. ~ ~4(93j :(6/). 9 ~",:' 40 _ _9_ __ ~ 28 (26) (9)3-, ; ,/ 'I, ~
-- ..... - " '"
. , .. " ' <v 39$0'0 _ _ ~ _ _ _" .
)2) 10, 1--.- d, (l62)10C\s ~ .~. {>.. 27(25 4 I ~ I (32)
. , , " , , 3S' (33)11 '" - - - - - - - I ~i"'.....~ (51)
'3)11 . -,ji?, ." 1_ _': - - '- - - - _ __ ll;;:r: 26 ,5 ___ '~ .
'" .." - - 4; - ',' 12 ....... ;;; _32.149 '2 K:: ;;; 2$(24) ~ .. 2 (33) ,
'4)/2 ., '1' '-'" . - )' - - - '" ;<..: ". , \0 '" I C\s
~.,~ 40 0,5) ,/3 '" K:: 36 ~"!!3_,,,- :il 24123 ~
. ........." - - -/:1 - - - - - i\.. ... ",:---...:!. (37) (38)
'}14' ,CO..... 39 IS 14 ., 35(48) 14 '1/1 23(zZ C/21 B" 1/13 (34) 6 7
' , ',' ...... " "
--, · t!, 3B ,';; 15 " 34.147. ~"5 ~ \'I 22121 ~'3) 9'.1- I (36~ I. 4~
15./, ,~..fl4llJ..._ ",. '" ~ ~ 5 411 ~
.. - .:;1 , 37' I. ~6 ' " 33(46 i36)'6:t ... 21(20 '" !l (35) I
16.. '- - - -, ,- - J.... "" , 'P' l:! 42
~ ~ , 36 I! J'7~ ~ 32(45) (37)/7 "'. ~ lilllf'.l\i\~" Ill:! (~ \ '~
Jb..j ,i-' ;j,i471 ;- ~ - - ' '38)~ \ 1\9) \ \5~~\~~_ ~3
. - - - - IB ~ O.
,
~ -
-
-
.
~\O
~) , ,'Ot:\ 0 ~ ~
\NG\ 'ICp..G ~ ~
'"'\ \R\..: . r~\ _
Ii!
c .- .
I r
'c L_ I
..-':- -T, .
--
.. -.........-.................. ...- -......-.. -T
, u I I (
1 - b
.
. .
.<:..... s ~ "4. "" p~_lc ~. .
rj
...u . ,
')
c{! -
.~ ,''' ~~ ~ ,'C":I'"
J
.J . I ~- ). ).\) .3' .
.... I
" ~ ;
. .
W u
::l
Z \)
W ' ,
> .. \j.....
c( .: . ~
.~~ 0 ~I
"^
)" -c. I ,
it - ' '. . I 0
en - fI
.J . .--6
~
tI' \J'--
n '1
. . ".
,.' t'
I
.I .
I- -.,.... .. Ia-
S
CJ
-Cl
. :\Z
. l.i
J-
O'Sp'~~
---- w
I 'Q
,/0
.
_.. ._w . -- s":;r}' ~ .'
--
.. c-.
. '
p\.~ \ N S-rRtSe-T.
"'
,",'
.:- .,.
, CITY OF HOPKINS
~,
Hennepin County, Minnesota....
RESOLUTION NO: .93-11
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT. AND ..
DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a variance entitled VN 93-1 made by Joseph
E. Garber is recommended for denial.
WHEREAS, the procedural history'of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance entitled VN 93-1 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on December 28, 1992.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on January 26, 1993.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
published and mailed notice, held'a hearing on January
26; 1993: all persons present at the hearing were given
an opportunityt6 be heard.
, 4. That the written comments and analysis of the City
Staff and the.. Planning Commission were considered.'
5. A legal description of the property is as'follows:
Lots .9, 10, & 11, Block 64.;, West Minneapolis 2nd
Division and also that part or Lot 3 and
SUbdivision #242 lying south of westerly extension
of north line of Lot 4 of said Auditors
SUbdivision, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of
Hopkins that based on the above findings, the application for VN 93-1
is denied based on the following reasons:
1. That the applicant property does not have an undue
hardship to warrant granting a variance.
2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property
without 'the variance.
Adopted this 2nd day of February, 1993
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
, ATTEST:
e
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
~:"'" . "'.'; ,."~.~....,,...,.~._,---<"
. ....".-....- _ _.~u ____ -"'-- ,-