Variance-Parking in frontyard Setback r I 1 Y
G
4f
4110 January 18, 1993 4. 0 c P K Planning Planning Report VN93 -1
VARIANCE PARKING IN FRONT YARD SETBACK
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: N veto approve
Resolution RZ93-2 recommending denial of a variance to park
in the front yard setback.
Overview.
In conjunction with the conditional use permit submitted
for an auto sales lot at 525 Pla3nstreet, the applicant has
also requested a var to park i n the, front yard setback.
A auto sales lot is pe =rmitted in the B-3 district with a
conditional use permit. The conditional rise perm requ
a front yard setback. of 20 feet for car parking. On the
plan submitted, there it 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.
0 Staff is recommend ing denial of the variance based on k lack
of hardship.
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 recomnteridation?
Supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plan
o Resolution RZ93 -2
Th r c.t f
Nanc S. Anderson, AICP
Plann r
0
5 T
T l
VN93 -1
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Does the subject site have an undue hardship to grant a
variance?
The subject 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 be for
the most part unable to be utilized. In this case the lot
can be used for an auto sales lot without 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
undertaken on the site. The site still can be used for an
auto sales lot by modifying the site plan to allow for a 20
i foot front yard setback.
o What is the staff recommendation?
Staff is recommending denial of the variance based on the
fact that the applicant's property does not have an undue
hardship.
Alternatives.
1. By recommending approval of the variance, the City
Council will consider a recommendation of approval for
the variance.
2. By recommending denial of the variance, the City
Council will consider a recommendation of denial for
the variance.
3. Continue for further information. If the Commission
indicates that further information is needed the item
should be continued.
16(142 135 9 ...,.,1
(89)!0 S. 15(117 (112)10 0 15(141)
o
co On L{ Q (10) O 12(72) (67) 7
(90)11• o .S,' 14(116 O 14(140 (137)11 O 2 6_
12 13 (11 o 7) (41) 11(71) (68) 8 1(
13 (139 (138 12
1 sos J
NORTH 1 (69) 9
1 19(60) (42)1 M M 19(41) (21) t a' 1 1 v-
(168) 18 (43) .2 M r 18(40 (22) 2 raj 2 1 2 (12) 10 ��1� (70)10 C
N 17(58) (44) M N 17(39 (23) 3 M M 3 (5) co (88) R °i
(62) 2 -4% (45) 4• cw N. 16 (38) (24) 4 N 4 I
K 3 N (46) 5 N N 15 37) (25) 5 N 5' (13)
(64) 4 N 16 (57) 14(36 (26) 6 •c•-°- b 6 (17) (15) N 9 8 2
5 Z 15(56) (167) 1, (34t (27) 7 7 I (6) (87) (86) (E
(35 1
'65 6 7( 14(55)
(48)6
7 13' (28) 8 81(19) (16)
31) 2 9) 9 T! j (8) I 1 (110)
9 8 igg 8 1 7 i "'L 9 ..8 69) i* 12 1 13
:o 10 `r 1 0/
m tb !170 PA; 5/ 1 50/ f 4
t (68) 53)
O o O: L 1 1 1 8 A 1 _4.M. 4201 4/4 404
ti 1 X141 424 A {D
5 6 5 6 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 5 6 1 1 11 12 13 I.
(5 (561(5 t I (2 L iti5.N. I (52). 1
1 (6) (7)
99 0
_3t T■ .I
;t5 7 (58) 42 I- 7 30 i 1 (4)
)t1 .45'=- (60) N ch 41 1 14.• i fl �e a i.
9 h _44(93) (61) 9 40 9 (8)
28(26) L9) I
)2)10 (62):01. 39(50 10 I 27(25 J (32) 3)il 42l_38 {33)11 N 2 I (51) 4)12 o 41 t.I 12 ro 37(49 t2 v. 2 (33) M 25(24) N 15) 13 h. 36 (34)13 h
40 (1
39 -y.i k m::::
,t M 24(23 (1t) 7 M I
CO CZ 14 14 (38)
i)!4 1 M 23(2 (12) 8 o 7
M 3 (34) (37)
6
15 38 �t- (J/{F6� 35) 1 5 �t (13) 9 I (36) 401
n 37 -1 1 6 1 m1ri1+ (36)16 f•,.. 21(20 O 5 41
36 1 i 1171 32(45) (37)17 h <i: a 4 3 {1471 _31(44 (38) 1ti9�A :15� I
's 3 34 19 3 2 01 \9`1a� 1 e9 A,
--1 1 42: !9c 50.
h 33. i i(73)? i l� tx +j91 I
n
t 5 3 i GN N BE
6\ N�R S
1,0 4
•01
PN (139) Q� 1
v Q�`
136)
t
0 2a 1 fai—L
i
s
1
.1
...51
2
1
vil,... .1,-«
.3.
..r 1
w
n
Z
o
0x s z
.1
Q .1
,e 1
i
J
C
1
b
Dr p 11. 4..
1
y
41 19 sptis J
as a g 7
IA At N S I R EE-1.
t J
4111 CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ93 -2
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
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 public hearing on
January 26, 1993: all persons present at the hearing
were given an opportunity to be heard.
lb 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 ana also that part of 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 Planning Commission for the
City of Hopkins that based on the above findings, the application for
VN 93 -1 is recommended for denial based on the following reasons:
1. That the applicant property does not have an undue
hardship to grant a variance.
2. That the applicant has reasonable use of the property
without the variance.
Adopted this 26th day of January, 1993.
John T. Hutchison, Chairman