Loading...
CR 06-087 Concept Review-Variance 17-8th AveG~TY OF July 26, 2006 H O P K I N S Council Report 06-87 CONCEPT REVIEW -VARIANCE 17 EIGHTH AVENUE Proposed Action. This is a concept review that requires no action. Any comments regarding the development would be helpful to the applicant for further applications. Overview. Dave Lommen is proposing to construct a 40' x 102' addition on the south side of his existing building located at 17 Eighth Avenue South. The proposed addition will have a zero lot line. The ordinance requires a 15-foot setback when abutting a residential district. The area to the south is zoned R-5. The applicant will have to be granted a 15-foot setback variance for the addition to be constructed. The proposed use for the addition is a dental office. The applicant is proposing a stucco exterior with cultured stone on the south corner. The height will be 15-17 feet. 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 applicant's request? What does the applicant state for the hardship? What is the staff's recommendation? What are the items that will have to occur for this development to proceed? What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? Supporting Documents. Analysis of issues Preliminary site plan Letter from Nelson Berg ~'~~ ~ Nancy .Anderson, AICP Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: ZCR06-2 Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider. What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the property is B-3, General Business. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this site as Commercial. The proposed use complies with both documents. What does the ordinance require? The ordinance requires a 15-foot setback for a B-3 district abutting a residential district. What are the specifics of the applicant's request? The applicant is requesting a zero setback on the south side. What does the applicant state for the hardship? Attached is a letter from the applicant regarding his hardship. The first point is the theory that the proposed addition does not require a variance because the basement is constructed near or at • the property line and an addition would be grandfathered. If this were true the addition still would not be allowed because it would be an expansion of anon-conformity. The second point is that there is moisture in the basement. This is a created situation by the construction of the roof, not a circumstance peculiar to the parcel. The third point is that the roof of the basement is not safe to drive or park on. Again this is a situation created by the construction of the roof, not a circumstance peculiar to the parcel. The forth and last point is that the addition will not alter the essential character of the locality. The larger setback for business districts abutting a residential district is to move the "commercial" area away from residents' homes for a certain quality of life. Single family homes in north Hopkins are required to have an eight-foot setback. A zero setback does not even give residents in the abutting apartments a setback that single family homes have. What is the staff s recommendation? The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance is a modification or variation from the provisions of this code 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 staff cannot justify finding hardship. There is nothing unique about the parcel ZCR06-2 Page 3 that would justify granting a variance. Mr. Berg identifies several unique characteristics about the building, but these facts are not finding of fact to justify the granting of a variance. What are the items that will have to occur for this development to proceed? The following are the items that will have to occur for this development to proceed: • Approval of a variance • Approval of Site Plan review What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? Ms. Anderson reviewed the applicant's variance request. Dave Locomen, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Locomen discussed the mold, the existing building's basement, and how the addition would improve the site. The Commission discussed that the applicant did not have a hardship to warrant granting a variance. The Commission did not look favorably on granting a variance. ~L~Q'n 1L,4'~~ ~~FP"L~IE~S, l~efi~. 1011 SOUTH FIIZST STREET SUITE 400 HOPIQNS, N1N 55343-9479 NELSON W. BERG'S ATTORNEY AT LAW July 19, 2006 Mayor Eugene Maxwell City Council Planning Commission City Manager City of Hopkins 1010 South First Street Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: LOM11~N PARTNERSHIP 15 - 8~ Avenue South Site Plan Review Our File No. 0-6-OS-0154 Dear Mayor Maxwell, et al.: TELEPHONE: (952) 935-3425 FACSIMILE: (952) 935-7981 E-MAIL: berglawQgwest.net I am writing on behalf of Locomen Partnership and the Locomen family regarding the Site Plan Review Application to be considered by the City Planning Commission on July 25tH Locomen Partnership has submitted a Site Plan Review Application to construct a 4,000 sq. ft. addition to the existing 15 - 8~' Avenue South building. This addition would be located on the south side of the existing building, and would be constructed upon the footings and walls of the existing additional "South" basement. I understand City staff has indicated that this addition would require a 15 foot variance to the I S foot setback requirement on the south side of the lot. Under Minnesota law and City Zoning Code, a variance requires a showing of hardship. The purpose of this letter is to present reasons why a variance should be granted. I. used upon tl~e histary of this ~r©~erty, a variance ~nay nQt be required. The building was constructed for the Eursch Restaurant in the 1950's. The additional "South" basement of approxi~-riately 40 ~. by 100 ft. was constructed at the same tulle. The footings and basement walls were engineered to accommodate an addition -the very addition being proposed now. The South basement was used by the Restaurant for Real Property Law Specialist Certined by the Minnesota State Bar Association storage, including liquor, tables and chairs. The south wall of the South basement was constructed near or at the property line. The addition will not be any closer to the property line than the structure has existed for over 60 years. It was created by a prior owner. Therefore, the structure of the addition is either grandfathered or previously received city approval. In either case, a variance should not be required now. II. The health risks caused by the existing basement create an undue hardship, supporting the approval of a variance. Lommen Partnership purchased the property in 1995, with redevelopment assistance from the City. The South basement has been substantially unusable for their entire ownership period due to moisture. while the footings, floor and walls of the South basement are in good condition and do not create any water problems, the "Roof ' of the South basement has serious leaking problems. This Roof is constructed of concrete "T" members covered by a membrane and then a concrete slab. The membrane has deteriorated over the years, allowing moisture to enter. The owners have taken steps to remove moisture, which has lessened but not eliminated a serious health risk of mold. The owners have been advised that the membrane cannot be repaired. The cost of replacing the entire Roof would be prohibitive. Construction of the addition would eliminate the health risks. III. The safety risks caused by the existing basement create an undue hardship, supporting the approval of a variance. The Locomen Partnership does not allow tenants to park or drive over the South basement. They are not confident that it can safely support the weight of vehicles, especially trucks. However, the owner has been unable to uniformly prevent other third parties from driving over the South basement. Even chains across the entrance have been broken or cut. This poses a safety risk to the public and a liability risk to the owners, again not of their awn creation. Construction of the addition would remove this safety risk. Iv. The addition will n©t alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed addition of 4,000 sq. ft. of commercial space will be a significant contribution to the ongoing redevelopment efforts in downtown Hopkins. It will provide a home for one or more new businesses, attract customers, add employees to support other businesses and increase the tax base. The side yard variance is required because it '`Real Property Law Specialist Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association is adjacent to residential property. The residential property is a large apartment building, and the Lommens expect that the apartment building owner will not oppose the variance. In fact, the addition maybe beneficial to the owner and tenants of the apartment building, as well as the City, since the area between the existing buildings has been a frequent location of activities generating police calls. V. Conclusion. The circumstances described above are certainly peculiar and unique to this property - no similar situation exists in Hopkins to our knowledge. It was not created by Locomen Partnership, and in fact has existed for over 60 years. Construction of the addition must conform to the existing footings and basement walls. The addition will enhance rather than detract from the essential character of the neighborhood. The Lommens look forward to discussing this project in more detail with the Planning Commission and City Council. Sincerely, BERG LAW OFFICE" " " ~ ~ ~~ Nelson W. Berg NWB/jah Cc: Client 'Real Property Law Specialist Certified by the Minnesota State Bar Association L `~ ~;" _Q ~ V 1 '-""~' ~' H1~OS 3nN~nd Hl L ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ '~~ ' 9i~R7 •. .. , ' B~~~Jtfn ~p3 ~ ~ • i ., '7!'14M 'M~ZO.,LI'p4$ ~• ' ' .' ,•~rYO~7 • . ". '. _ ~, x' ~.~ ~B~L~,~~a ~~ • ,__~.05~ - ., i -'~."'`` ~•qq•Fi~~~ ?;a9eq 9Qg0 g 5E8 y 6 u 1 ~c ~~,o3F5p,. 9o p9 p ~~~~ ~ ~~~z ~6~'~a flY a,C Gij' .6 p'y~ C~.. aL'2 bY:~~g ~a .Baum ~E9~a~~~at~~~a ~~ ~ r r~ , ~,~~, ' I :. ;:. o~ "= N c °.u $ o O y I M -'--~~ u~~ ~OU° LY ~pUy I C ~ ~ t ~ '~ p~l~ r~C ° Y i ~ « n « ~ c 8 oc ~ .: . $~'~ :`ors {Ay!~}.~ z =°~ ~ c Q f t 'o r o e C9 "f ~O ~ .. 3~o J~o tl $ w ~ • w O ~ ~wi p«p a as ~/ \ S OMJ 4 •Yy M i \ Yy icLmp jai. ~ ~ ~4LN Y I1 O• .~ ,_ c +.u: o'~o a rw. ««yZ • a a . j= /y r ~ r.ip p~f MC w~ (~ ~ ~ ~i~w- ag a'J obi 'y~ I, ~ ~ J +~M{.S J'Rc^ wp pc pp pwE l~ OC ~UL« .'j- qL 1u „n"Oa `~° .~ ~°o (~~ VJ z a a V O ' Z f~ V! ~m W J W ~~.//^/J v \~ ~ iL .s~. o~so ~« ~ . w_ ` Q ~ FAAY ~-Y YL -JO Y-~ 4`~\ "- ` t `. a ~. a i 1T t uu u u~ C I ' ~ rF f ~~ ~ .~ (d'iA''~~41 t~' LfI ~ ~~J~ "~; ( -I b a 55 c 0 Q~ m_ . ~,~ ~(-'{~ k »4L1 , o ~ c6t ~ ~~~~ C ,~ }Y ~ 59'55 w t__ '~ n~~a G ~Z $p m iii ~ ~ ~~pa~• °~. a, W p w • ~ '' ~1~CCj ti • mW n ~' ~,::.,-' •_ ~ Eti~ytlh = car .. - .. ~u. W `~~•er ~ 0 0. w _ cti ~ I ~. ~' _ fir, ~ .~ri 2.. ~ - 1.. -..:~ .... . t ~ I Y ~o ~ • •~ u ~ ~fif ~ ~ ~• - q Vm t tea. . ~y! ; J ~ 1.~ . ~'~' I•oL .. ~ .` ap •'. , Y ? w`• iB'ol. •Grp~ a ~'. ~' ~ ~•. .'cr Pb'O,J~-':r,; y - __ -ao'4L-- '-- O ~ ~i~r'~i' `,fir -- ``' •~'''~;3',; , ~ - -~.0~nn ~~'yy. . r - '-~ _ (/~ 7 RJlir~~ I? ,ta~i~~~~ Y~,~ r . /'. .. . - •r~'Ij.G ~~'• ` ~~~y7F~y'•,i~A4Vr•J~•7 ll.,.. '.*' .~y~~<'~U~ 7 lOV7/'YV'~~ ~' .r ~ l! ~ ~i„i ~ . ~ Y.' ~~At ~~`!; ~'IM~Y'. . ~ ~ r:j .,~: ~ ran ~, ~.•: ~ •• , iu~.,~y r Y q.p 'HY' rw»i y5~nMw' ~ '1{•LL~Rµ~'^~; ~1 '; may. ~"~,:~ .°~,~.nN3nb u ~ 8 . ~I` ~ f~ r f ~ ~.~ ~1 .~ i~l~ 1 .'.t ;J.16' A ~yr.4*., u~.F.nRV'ty. .rrr .~..• .~' ~ ~t't ,7 ~U, " ,9LYltwli~k.. ~ t X .~e. Sapp ~~ ~~~ ~ N ' 9~~~I~g~ ~ uu ~~d ~~ ~~D~ ~~~~ ~ ~11~5~~ N~wl~ „ NVf/wl~ i N~wiq /Jj.l NPJ I~ N~wli- ItY/wl~ w N~wl~~ __...r~ _ s N r,. Q ~ 1 l ~1' ir.~L -. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ .~~~ h N i ~s 0 N ~' l9 .a_ ~~ ~~'' ~~ 7~~Nf ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ arm' .:~.1~ !' ~ ~M ..~ hn~l~ C`,~~1 U N~+wi~~ N tip 7d ~A~~ ~~ fM ~ '" .~ Y ~' ~ ~~ ,~-~~~ ~. w ~- i ~ ~ ~~ ~~y+~S ~~~ ~~o _! ~~ - ~. Q v~,c3C1 ~ . (~Q d u~i~ ~~~ fin ~ ~~ ~4 ~ '~ N@wIL~ Q // Nm-,Q11 ~ w,,,' • ,{~ N~wi~ N$w1M a~! xm ii' ~,~~/rr- ~ ~Y X~ -~a ~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ;~ n@-,$1 ~. ~-- J n~'I~I { .~ 1 1 1 . 1 11 11 ~'~~ I III ('~ 1` ~I.` ~~, CC".. 1 + ~ 11• 1 11' ~ 1 11 i 11 111 •~ 1 { ~ 1 1 . 1 _. 1 •11•1 ~• .7 t~' I ~1 { 1 {- 111 ' I tl~l ~ t ~ I ( I' 1 ' •' • (.' 1 I 1 1'~. ` ( 1 1 II III' 1 (1 1 1 1 111 1 1 3• 1 ,1 S y I I il' 111 4~ 1 ~ .,T 1" 'I, . '1•x,1 • •• •.T, ',~ T ,'r'' ' 1. ~1• • •~ t ... ..5' 1 ~, . .'1• 't .r••~ 5•• • ~ r' •' ~..• • • '• r 'r.. ~ 4 S ••i r ' r, ~ . ~' . . r•. •~. •. •.a' 'r fM' ,~ •••,T a ,\• .If ',' , t,,, ... '. v. • ,f J ~ r. . •" 1 !~ 1 ~N~~ ~~ :~~`~ W. G1 .3' `y~ ~i 3 r.,r•.r ~, •.. .. r ~ ~ V~f .; ~ :fir .. ~. • ~ ~ I ' .. ~,; . , it ~ ~ 1 f 1 ~•} ,y r~ {~r1 . 1' ~• ' .. .r ° li r• ' ~ ' ~ ,~ r• •~ V` ~ ,a ~ .` ~r. .r~• . , •• j,l t' ~ i • ~ ... .f. ~• r .. . ,' Ifr,'t, F•~ • • . '/• u • . ~ ^ •~f • •,1 r r;. ~. • .. (~ ~' , • ..:, ,; ,~ •:• 't 1, ~y r i '• ~1' . ~ r, .. r . •. ', 'P~ 1 •~ •~r.. r r ,.1 r '.• r~ ... r •' a .'. ,- r" ~r'• . ~•r •,•• ' ,•1 `• •'11 ~ •t r'. t. v. ~,,t' , ••. T' ' , . . .. ~ti f . I . • ,.1 ~ • • { t . . t • •' 1. r ' f ~ 1 ' •'(• ''r . A .T~ ~ t ~.1' T .. S . '1 ,~ r , . . ••t 1~ ~: r' r . ~r. ~ ~ ~ 1• .r •~~ ~ y, ~ h . ~'r,• 'r' •'i it {, 4M • ~ r, .. .. r .r`` ,~' 'f~ t• ,~ rr. t. • 1••. .. . ••1 • •r•' r, •~ • •• '~1• r •~• ~ •l i. Sri J S 1 .1 ~~ .r N • • I •'i N~r~~~ 5 1 .,. . r •. •1• .. . a' If. ,fI 'r:. ~'r~ j' .,r•.. 1•,111 ,{~• ..~11,~ 11~' ~I tl~rl~' ~A~-~~~25NIP '~~~`IL ~OM~"~~N ~ ~4.EvA,~~or15 ~~~. 11S ~,~'n'~ r~o°~ ~ 0 ~ ~~ z