Loading...
CR 98-155 Variance- Garage HeightSeptember 30, 1998 Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 98 -63, approving a height variance to an existing garage. At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Gleeson moved and Mr. Gross seconded a motion to approve Resolution RZ98 -19, recommending approval of a height variance. The motion was approved on a 5 -1 vote, Mr. Blair voting nay. Overview. The applicant, Christopher Rohr, is applying for a height variance to a recently constructed garage. The garage was constructed without obtaining a building permit. The garage was constructed a foot too high. The zoning ordinance requires a 15 -foot maximum height to the highest point for accessory structures. The new garage has a height of 16' 1" on the alley side. The applicant also constructed a fence without obtaining a permit. Since notifying the applicant of the need for a permit, the applicant did apply for a permit and is in the process of altering the fence to meet the ordinance requirements. Primary Issues to Consider. What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • What does the ordinance require? • What are the specifics of the variance? • Does the property have a hardship? • Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property without the variance? • What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? Supporting Documents. • Analysis of issues • Garage elevation plans • Resolution 98 -63 Nancy '! Anderson, AICP Planner VARIANCE — GARAGE HEIGHT Council Report 98-155 CR98 -155 Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider. What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The site zoning is R -1 -A, Single and Two Family High Density. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Low Density Residential. What does the ordinance require? The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum height of 15 feet to the highest point for an accessory building. The height is measured from the public right -of -way. In this case the public right -of -way is the alley. A garage is considered an accessory building. What are the specifics of the variance? The new garage height is 16'1" measured from the alley. Does the property have a hardship? The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance is a modification or variation from the provisions of this code or variation from its provisions granted by the board and applying 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 subject property has no undue hardship. There is nothing unique to the applicant's property. Even if the applicant had not constructed the garage, the subject property has no undue hardship for the granting of the variance. The staff feels that this situation does not constitute a hardship to the property according to the above zoning requirements and, therefore, would not qualify for the granting of a variance. Does the applicant have reasonable use of the property without the variance? If the applicant is not granted the variance, the applicant has reasonable use of the property if the garage were lowered to 15 feet in height. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? The Planning Commission had approved the variance at the August meeting and directed staff to prepare findings. Ms. Anderson stated that the findings for approval of the variance were prepared for the resolution. The Commission did not make any changes to the findings. CR98 -155 Page 3 Alternatives. 1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to keep the height of the garage as it is. 2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will have to modify the existing garage to meeting the required 15 -foot maximum height requirement. If the City Council considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. 10 tisE FT 737 s V' oPosett GARA4E SZS S'F` ToT4t_ /2 5 sr SuziE 3' 1 LAu1`6 a%4 -1 o Ave NI So d 3 c ��� Z �tt" L i 11 • IOG titN5hUU1- & H55UU . 1RF BENSHOOF &ASSOCIATES INS. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE. SUITE 500 / EDINA, MN 55439 / (612) 832.9858 / FAX (612) 832 -9564 September 22, 1998 REFER TO FILE: 97 -61 MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Anderson, C of Hopki A FROM: James A. Benshod and Peter A. Hultgren P 44/ RE: Traffic Review of Revised Supervalu Site. Plan PURPOSE b12 832 9564 P.02/05 We last evaluated the traffic circulation and roadway plan for the proposed Supervalu site in our memorandum dated June 12, 1998. Since this last evaluation, Supervalu has proposed a revised site plan. This revised site plan shows a larger building than was included in our prior evaluation. Two recommendations in our prior evaluation concerning the 3rd Street/5th Avenue intersection and the 5th Street/2nd Avenue intersection have not been included in the revised site plan. The purpose of this memorandum is to review the trip generation implications of the larger building size and to review the designs of the 3rd Street/5th Avenue and 5th Street/2nd Avenue intersections. TRIP GENERATION In our prior review of June 12, the size of the proposed building was 489,400 sq. ft. The revised site plan shows a building size of 577,260 sq. ft. We conclude that the latest proposed building size will neither significantly change the trip generation during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours nor significantly change the anticipated levels of service at key intersections during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. We draw this conclusion based on the fact that Supervalu employee work shifts change prior to the peak traffic hours and that the currently proposed building size is slightly less than the original size (600,000 sq. ft.) considered in our initial traffic study of December 1997. 11:02 Ms. Nancy Anderson 3rd STREET /5th AVENUE INTERSECTION As described in our memorandum of June 12, Supervalu intends to add a south leg to this intersection for use as a truck exit. An auxiliary lane on the south side of 3rd Street will be used by trucks to circulate from this west truck exit to the east truck entrance. The current site plan shows three outbound truck lanes (one each for left turns, through traffic, and right turns). The outbound left turn lane is aligned opposite the 5th Avenue southbound Left turn lane. This alignment encourages motorists to improperly continue southbound through the intersection and enter the Supervalu site from 5th Avenue. To prevent this, we recommend that the outbound left turn and through lanes be combined into a single shared outbound lane aligned directly opposite the northbound departure lane on 5th Avenue. This is consistent with the recommendation in our June 12 memorandum. We also recommend that the island creating the right turn lane be enlarged for improved channelization of traffic. The layout we are currently recommending for this intersection is shown in Figure 1. 5th STREET/2nd AVENUE INTERSECTION In our memorandum of June 12, we recommended that this intersection be reconstructed to closely resemble a "T"- intersection. Contrary to this recommendation, the revised site plan shows a curve linking 5th Street with 2nd Avenue intersected by a second curve from the new west frontage road. We recommend substituting the intersection shown in the revised site plan with the intersection layout shown in Figure 2. This is identical to the "T"- intersection layout we recommended in the June 12 memorandum. Traffic safety is known to be improved when roads intersect at close to right angles on tangent sections. The intersection angle shown in Figure 2 is 75 degrees, which conforms with State Aid standards. We understand that Steve Stadler may be concerned about narrowing 2nd Avenue to a width of 26 feet as it approaches 5th Street. This width could be increased while still maintaining the "T" configuration shown in Figure 2. CONCLUSIONS SENSHOOF & ASSOC. 612 832 9564 P.03/05 -2- September 22, 1998 The revised building size will neither significantly increase trip generation nor significantly change intersection levels of service during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours when compared with previous building size s analyzed for this development. We are confident that safe and . efficient traffic flow will be maintained around the Supervalu site if our recommendations regarding the 3rd Street/5th Avenue and 5th Street/3rd Avenue intersections are included in the final site plan. 5tr 4e - 1 y niu 11:0.5 1hNSHUUI ASSOC. 612 832 9564 P.04/05 ALIGN OUTBOUND LEFT/THROUGH LANE OPPOSITE 5TH AVENUE NORTHBOUND LANE CITY OF HOPKINS BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATIONENOINEERSAND PLANNERS TRAFFIC REVIEW OF REVISED SUPERVALU SITE PLAN FIGURE 1 RECOMMENDED LAYOUT FOR 3RD STREET/5TH AVENUE INTERSECTION 5tr 22 -1yy6 11:W J NNSHUUb & ASSOC. 612 832 9564 P.05/05 CITY OF HOPKINS W BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRAN TRAFFIC REVIEW OF REVISED SUPERVALU SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 RECOMMENDED LAYOUT FOR 5TH STREET/2ND AVENUE INTERSECTION TOTAL P.05 RESOLUTION NO: RZ98 -21 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Permit CUP98 -5 has been made by SuperValu; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a conditional use permit was made by SuperValu on August 31, 1998; That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed and published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on September 29, 1998: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and A legal description of the subject property is as follows: Block 25 to 29 inclusive and Blocks 43 and 47 inclusive including adjacent vacated street and alley except roads and State Highway 169, West Minneapolis. That part of NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 lying south of west Minneapolis and west of State Highway 169 except street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use Permit CUP98 -9 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the proposed building meets the requirements for a conditional use permit. 2. That the proposed use is permitted in the I -1 zoning district. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Conditional Use Permit CUP98 -9 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following conditions: 1. That Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approves the grading plan. 2. That RCM approves the grading and drainage plan. 3. That a lighting plan be submitted and approved by City staff for the east side of the building. 4. That the subject property be platted. 5. That the Public Works department approves the final grading and drainage plan. 6. That the design of Fifth Street /Second Avenue intersection be constructed as per the Benshoof memo. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota 8. Adopted this 29th day of September, 1998. Randy Engel, Chair That the design of the Third Street/Fifth Avenue intersection be constructed as per the Benshoof memo. That SuperValu provide the City with an access and right-of-entry agreement for purposes of maintenance for the water quality ponds.