CR 92-76 Front Yard Variance - EDCO Products
t
t' \
i Y 0
\
U ;:.
-m
.y '"
o p ~
March 31, 1992 K \
Council Report 92-76
FRONT YARD VARIANCE - EDCO PRODUCTS
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution 92-32 approving a front yard setback variance to
construct an addition at 845 Excelsior Avenue East.
The Commission on a 6-0 vote approved Resolution RZ 92-7
recommending approval of a front yard setback variance at
845 Excelsior Avenue East.
Overview.
Edco is proposing to construct an addition to their existing
building on Tyler Avenue. This area is
zoned 1-1 which
requires a 20 foot setback abutting Tyler
Avenue. The
proposed building has a two foot setback. This addition is
needed for additional office space.
The proposed addition does not have the 20
foot required
setback. In order to meet the 20 feet requireme
nt the
applicant could either request a vacation of
Tyler or a
variance.
Last month the Planning Commission recommended to deny the
vacation of Tyler Avenue. The City Council also denied the
vacation. The applicant has now applied for a variance.
Staff reviewed the request with the Commission. Jerry
Gustafson representing Edco appeared before the Commission.
There was very little discussion on this item.
primary Issues to Consider.
0 What is the required setback for the building?
0 will the City allow parking on the right-of-way?
0 What is the hardship for the variance?
0 What alternatives are available if the variance is
denied?
Supportinq Documents.
0 Analysis of Issues
0 site Plan
0 Resolution 92-32
y I-
CR92-76
Page 2
. primary Issu s to Consider.
0 What is the required front yard
setback for the
building?
The required front yard setback for a
building in the
industrial district is 20 feet. This
is a front yard
because it abuts a public right-of-way.
0 will the City allow parking on the right-of-way?
with the construction of the addition, Edco is proposing to
use a portion of the Tyler right-of-way
for parking. The
staff proposes the City will execute a
right-of-way use
agreement for the use of Tyler for parking by Edco. If in
the future Tyler Avenue is constructed as a thru street Edco
will have to remove this parking. As a
condition of this
variance the staff is recommending that if the parking area
is removed because of the construction of
Tyler, the
applicant submit a parking plan to show compliance with the
zoning requirements.
0 What is the hardship for the variance?
The following are the reasons for the variance:
- The unusual lot layout and
the various building
locations create undue hardship for expansion and
development.
- The City's intent to retain
right-of-way over
Tyler, although not used as such for public right-
of-way creates, undue hardship
for building
expansion.
0 What alternatives are available if
the variance is
denied?
The following are the alternatives available
to the
applicant if the variance is denied?
- revise the design of the building - this is something
that has been explored by Edco and has not been
acceptable to them
- reconsider a street vacation
- applicant does not undertake project
Alternatives.
1. By approving the variance, the applicant will
be able
to construct the proposed addition with
a two foot
setback.
. ~
CR92-76
Page 3
. 2. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able
to construct the proposed addition.
3 . Continue for further information. If the city Council
indicates that further information is needed the item
should be continued.
\
,
200 0 200 400
L . 1
~ scole , ' feet @
31 . 42
, I( Location Map )19-117-21@
(20)
p-'- ------ --'- - - ~'''-l - ------------------ -
. eO~
I f I I
I I I II \
r I I ,I
i I I I \
I I I, I
I I I I , I
I I ',I: I
I I I
,. I' I I ,I I
I I (58) It..i I f I' I F
I I : ~ : I 'N,$. G : (35)
I I ~ .~~~
...... ............
I ~. I I . ..:.......:............ I
....:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.
I I .................................. , 1'1'5
, ,_ . .':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ( ) "'1
~ ............................................ 26 (25) '009 I 10'''5
I .... ...................................... ,I"
I~ .^~N~~~~~
'" ........ .....................................
........:.. ... ...........tl..);,(................... 9 0 ("" '3)
I :::::~::::::::::"i;::::::::~:.:,:.::::::::::::::::::: ~
.......................................................
--:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::
I :::::::.:::.::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::. E (34)
~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
fl...... .......................................... ... I
I ..............................
'........................~. .......................... . I
, :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: 0'.I0~":':':':':':':':':' I I 7
~ 17 ' f'.~.................... ~'m!:;.................. 88 8
/ / 1 ,..,:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: 89, I
1- - - - I ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~::: I ~ :;
. 16 I .................................................... ... j -- -- -- I
I ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: _ -;.- .., G
I ~ - - ~ I (59) I....................................................... - --, r I I
...... . :.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.... l -"" ...-t
1<\1 15(43)1 ,............................................. -. -I ,I I I 1\"
~ _ "- I :~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:....... I t41 \ \ ...
I ...................... '1 I I n I \0 I I
14 I .............. . /1 9 -;t
...... .' I
I ~8) t9) I : I I ~
- t1) I \1\ \f>
_ _ 1 \21\"$ I
If 82
8(])9
I ~
(13)
I
l I I
'31 2 \ I I 82
6 \ I
I .1 _'- J
-l - 32"'{t6) -:' =-:1 [- - - - -
~ IT)': -.... 31 (15) I
8 I
~ '
(18) 9 ~ -- 30(14) I
(19) 10 ~ .... 29 (13)
~ \\j I
\\j (20) II \() 28(12)
\() \\j I
\\j (20 12 C) 27(1 J) I
C) fI')' I
!!l (22) 13 ~ .. 26 (10) t3)
~ fI') I
"., ~ 25(9)
~ fI') I
"" c\.. 'i= 24 (8)
I
. \
. , CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 92-32
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
WHEREAS, an application for a variance entitled VN 92-1 made by
EDCO Products is approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is
as
follows:
1. That an application for a variance VN 92-1 was
filed with the City of Hopkins on March 6, 1992.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such
application on March 31, 1992.
3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to
mailed notice, held a hearing on March 31, 1992:
all persons present at the hearing were given an
opportunity to be heard.
4. That the written comments and analysis of the City
Staff and the Planning commission were considered.
5. The following is a legal description of the
property:
Auditors Subdivision No. 239, Lot 90,
commencing at the SW corner of Lot 90, then
northeasterly along the south line to the
center line of Polk Street, then north along
said center line to the northwesterly line of
Lot 90, then southwesterly along said
northwesterly line to a point 99 1/10 feet
northeasterly from the northwesterly corner
thereof, then at right angles southeasterly
one foot, then southwesterly parallel with
the northwesterly line of said Lot to the
west line thereof, then south to beginning.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for VN
92-1 is
hereby approved based on the following Findings
of
Fact:
1. The unusual lot layout and the various building
locatiuns create undue hardship for expansion and
development.
2. The City's intent to retain right-of-way over Tyler
although not used as such for public right-of-way
creates undue hardship for building expansion.
3. That the uncertainty of the widening of County Road 3
creates an undue hardship for the applicant.
,
. .
.
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for VN 92-1 is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant will execute a right-of-way use
agreement with the City for the parking area on Tyler
Avenue.
2. That if Tyler Avenue is upgraded as a thru street that
the applicant provide the City with a plan detailing
where the office parking would be relocated. Such a
plan shall not create a non-conformance as relates to
available parking for the entire Edco development.
Adopted this 7th day of April, 1992.
Nelson w. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk