CR 99-156 Variance- Parking In Front Yard Setback
C\IY OF
-
HOPKINS
September 2, 1999
Council Report 99-156
VARIANCE-PARKING IN FRONT YARD SETBACK
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 99-78. approving a
variance to allow parking in the front yard setback.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Engel moved and Mr. Ross seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZ99-13, recommending approval of a variance to park in the front yard
setback. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview.
The applicant, The Hopkins Tech Center, is proposing to use the front yard of their site for a
parking area. The front yard setback for an Industrial district abutting a residential district is
75 feet. The zoning ordinance does not allow parking in the front yard setback.
The Excelsior Boulevard reconstruction has made the west access to the Hopkins Tech
Center a right-in/right-out. This has created a situation were a majority of the traffic now
uses the east access to get to the west side of the building.
The access area in the front will be used for auto traffic and will be signed to prohibit truck
traffic access along the front of the building. Access for truck traffic to the west side of the
building coming from the east will be behind the building.
In 1988 a variance was requested to park in the front yard setback; the variance was denied.
Primary Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property?
. What is the required front yard setback for an industrial district abutting a
residential district?
. What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
. What are the comments from the Public Works department?
. What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
. What is the staff recommendation?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SUDDortin2 Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Site Plan
. Letter from Applicant
. Resolution 99-78
CR99-156
Page 2
Prima" Issues to Consider.
What is the zoning of the property?
The subject property is zoned I-I, Industrial
What is the required front yard setback for an industrial district abutting a
residential district?
The front yard setback for an industrial district abutting a residential district is 75 feet.
Parking is not allowed in the front yard setback. Over half of the site abuts the City of
Hopkins public works garage, which is zoned residential. The public works facility has
parking in the front yard setback.
What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
Because of the improvements to Excelsior Boulevard, the applicant's west access point has
been limited to a right-in/right-out. Because of the limited access on the west-side of the site,
the traffic flow on the site has changed.
The applicant is proposing to add 39 parking spaces and have an access behind the parking to
the west side of the building. This new access will allow traffic to access the west side of the
building without having to go around the building when making a left turn into the site. The
plans indicate a wall and landscaping abutting Excelsior Boulevard. The site plan also
indicates removal of 22 parking spaces in the existing parking lots. Some of the removal of
the parking spaces on the west side of the property will allow easier access to the loading
area.
What are the comments from the Public Works department?
The plans were submitted to the Public Works department for review. The comments from
the Public Works department were given to the applicant. The applicant revised the site plan.
The comments from the Public Works department are below. The site plan was revised to
accommodate the concerns of the Public Works department.
The following are the comments from the Public Works department:
. A parking lot permit is required. Concrete curb and gutter is required.
. A drainage plan is required and Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval is
needed. The parking lot improvements will require some level of storm sewer pipes.
. The perpendicular stall layout does not fully meet City standards. The recommended
drive-through lane width is 24 feet; 22 feet is shown. The new site plan has been
changed to reflect a 24-foot drive-through lane.
. The height of the retaining wall may require a fence.
CR99-156
Page 3
Clearances between the retaining wall and the bicycle/pedestrian trail are an issue.
Current bicycle path safely standards require a 2-foot clearance zone. The new site
plan has been changed to reflect a two-foot setback.
. Landscaping along the retaining wall must be carefully regulated so as not to impact
the trail.
. The developer should consider angle parking as a means to meet City design and
safety standards.
If the variance is approved, the variance should be conditioned on the recommendations as
detailed above.
What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
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 applied 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 an undue hardship. The access to the property has been
changed and created a hardship to the applicant's property.
What is the staff recommendation?
Staff would recommend approval of the variance for the setback, based on the fact that the
property does have a hardship.
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Staff reviewed the proposed access and parking area with the Commission. Tom Lyons, the
manager of the building, and Gary Rappaport, the building owner, appeared before the
Commission. Mr. Lyons stated that a full access on the west side has now been limited to a
right-in/right-out and has created internal traffic concerns with the site. Mr. Lyons reviewed
the internal movements on the site.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance. By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to construct
a parking lot in the front yard setback as proposed.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to construct a
parking lot in the front yard setback. If the City Council considers this alternative,
findings of fact will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
CR99-156
Page 4
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
.
HOPKINS TECH CENTER APPLICATON FOR VARIANCE
JULY 1999
The Hopkins Tech Center is approximately 380,000 square feet industrial
office/warehouse located across from the Hopkins Public Utility building on Excelsior
Blvd. The Hopkins Tech Center and the Napco Building are owned by Venturi an Corp.,
which has been in Hopkins for many years.
Until the Hennepin County renovation of Excelsior Blvd started, the Hopkins Tech
Center had good access, adequate parking and good visibility at the access points from
Excelsior Blvd.
Problem:
As of result of the Hennepin County remodeling of Excelsior Blvd, the access to
the west side of the Hopkins Tech Center for westbound traffic was eliminated which is
causing said traffic to access the property on the east side of the building and travel around
_ the building to reach the west side tenants. This is causing heavy truck and auto traffic on
the east side of the building and creating difficult conditions for truck access on the west
side'loading docks which were designed (along with the parking lot) to be approached
. l. from the opposite direction.
\. We now have a seriously dangerous intersection on the east side of the building
with poor site lines and multiple access from Hopkins Tech Center and Napco parking lots.
We also have almost impossible conditions for west side truck deliveries.
Solution:
Our architects have designed a parking lot and driveway across the north side
(front) of the building which improves visibilty for the dangerous intersection on the east
side of the building and provides enough extra parking spaces to re-work (eliminate)
parking an the west side so as to make the loading docks safer and more accessible for
semi-truck deliveries.
Green Areas:
As the plan shows, we would be constructing a retammg wall and providing
planting (bushes) between it and the Hennepin County bike path which together with the
drop in elevation would cause the parking to be barely noticed from Excelsior Blvd.
..
Additionally, the Owner would be willing to provide planting in front of the Napco
building between the parking lot and the Hennepin County bike path. (Presently the
county has no plans to provide any greenery and is leaving it up to the city to take action to
shield the parking lot from the bike path).
'\
Summarv:
The major reconstruction of Excelsior Blvd has dramatically changed the nature of
the area with the residential area to the west now heavily screened and the roadways cut off
from Excelsior Blvd. The commercial nature of the Hopkins Tech Center, Napco and all
of the businesses on the south side of the roadway are all very similar which means that the
construction of this screened parking area would fit in nicely with the surrounding
businesses in the area.
It would also greatly alleviate the hardships caused by Hennepin County, ie.,
improve traffic visibility on the east side of the building and allow us to provide better
loading dock access on the west side in correction of the problems caused by the restricted
access on that side of the building.
t.
1I
.
,..
~
<oJ
Z
o
o
0::
<(
>
......
-'
:::>
o
OJ
0::
o
in
-'
......
u
x
......
Q
Z
...
"
z
j::
z
j
a.
~
z
~ ?
~!ig
!e.:re
e~lll~ ___J
be.:. I
___oJ
---.
-----~_.__._._-~_._------_.~
,
I
L
H-H-H;
.
j
Q..
~
rn
Q
ti:I
rn
o
Q..
o
~
Q..
(E
'0
I
(:,
<D
II
.
-
~
~OOO ONIOYOl is 3M
01 31no!! ~On!!l
.
YI/
I.
fl;
fll
II
HI
1,'8 .".~o>..
~ "f.> . i '/{o
,:~: ,.)/j
t.o~
:t:
U
W
I-
Vl
z
i<:
Q.
o
:t:
e>:
w
I-
Z
W
U
2;
::lE
vi'
z
i<:
Q.
o
:t:
e>:w
OU
"-Z
<t
~~
1->
<(
U
::::;
Q.
Q.
<(
z~
,
\I
:c Cl
I-- 0:::
<! <!
a.. >
w
w -'
-' ::>
u 0
>- CO
U
CO a::
o
V1
-'
w
U
x
w
">l.l
a::
w
I--
z
W
U
:c
u
w
I--
V1
Z
~
a...
o
:c
Cl
Z
<!-,
-'
<.:)<!
Z3=
I--
z<.:)
<!z
-'-
a..~
3=;::
ww
zo:::
.,
~
I'
w
Cl
<!
0:::
<.:)
<.:)
z
f=
V1
x
W
~
~
~
~
~
Z
II::
~
:::>
o
~
z
o
e::
u
~
en
.
- .
i:;)
I
~
N
<.:)
z
~
a::
<!
~
I~
I.
'j
ill
I.
I'
.II
III
II
ill
II:
Ii
:I:
U
....
.....
V>
z
52
a..
o
:I:
'"
....
.....
Z
....
U
Z
:::I!
vi
z
52
a..
o
:I:
0::....
OU
Lo.Z
<(
~~
.....>
<(
u
::::;
a..
a..
00(
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 99-78
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A VARIANCE TO PARKIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN99-5 has been made by Hopkins Tech Center;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a lot area variance was made by Hopkins Tech Center on
July 23, 1999;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on August 31,
1999: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
4. The legal description of the property is as follows:
Parcell: All that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 25 and all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 26, Township 117, Range 22 West, as follows: Beginning at the
Northwest comer of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said
Section 26; thence South along the West boundary line of said Northeast quarter
of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 26 a distance of 96 feet; thence East on a
line parallel with the North line of said Section 26 a distance of 1087.4 feet to the
point of beginning of the property to be described; thence South along a line
parallel with the Section line between said Sections 25 and 26 to the Northerly
boundary line of the right of way of the Minneapolis & S1. Louis Railway
Company; thence Northeasterly along said Northerly boundary line of said right
of way to the Section line between said Sections 25 and 26; thence North along ,
said Section line to the North line of said Section 26; thence West along said
North line of Section 26 to a point 1112.65 feet East of the Northwest comer of
said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26; thence South
parallel with the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 26 a distance of96 feet; thence West to the point of beginning, according
to the recorded plat thereof, and situated in Hennepin County. Minnesota.
Parcel 2: Also a parcel of land described as follows: Beginning at the intersection
of the Section line between said Section 25 and 26 with the Northerly boundary
line of the right of way of The Minneapolis & S1. Louis Railway Company;
thence Northeasterly along said Northerly boundary line of said right of way to a
point 356 feet East of and at right angles to said section line between Sections 25
and 26; thence North parallel with said Section line to the North line of said
Section 25; thence West along the North line of said Section 25 to the Northwest
comer of said Section 25; thence South along the section line between said
Sections 25 and 26 to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat
thereof, and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Parcel 3: The East 660 feet of the following described tract: The South 75 feet of
the North 696 feet of the West 1,057.4 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter and the South 75 feet of the North 621 feet of the East 854.4
feet of the West 1,057.4 feet of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, all
in Section 26, Township 117, Range 22, except road according to the recorded
plat thereof, and situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Variance VN99-5 is hereby
approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the property does have an undue hardship for the granting of a
variance because of the west access now being restricted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Variance VN99-5 is hereby approved based
on the following conditions:
1. A parking lot pennit is required. Concrete curb and gutter is required.
2. A drainage plan is required, and Nine-Mile Creek Watershed District approval is needed.
The parking lot improvements will require some level of storm sewer pipes.
3. The height of the retaining wall may require a fence.
Adopted this 7th day of September, 1999.
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk