Cond. Use Request-1601 Main•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT NO. CUP -85 -1
PURPOSE:
CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST - 1601 MAINSTREET
CITY OF HOPKINS
December 17, 1985
Recommend action on a Conditional Use Permit to operate a quick order restaurant
at 1601 Mainstreet.
BACKGROUND:
The following is a summary of the pertinent information relative to this appli-
cation:
Name of Applicant: Han -San Lee
Address of Property: 1601 Mainstreet
Present Zoning: B -3
Conditional Use Permit Requested: To operate a quick order restaurant
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a quick order
restaurant at 1601 Mainstreet, the current site of Phil's Deli. Ordinance 427.06
states a lawful non - conforming use in or on any location may be changed to a dif-
ferent non - conforming use provided such new use is permitted in the zoning classi-
fication applicable to such location or such new use is more restrictive and if a
more restrictive use is selected, the location shall not return to the previous less
restrictive use. The change is allowed since the new use is a permitted use within
a B -3 district.
The current structure has a one bedroom apartment and a two bedroom apartment. The
applicant is proposing to remodel the one bedroom apartment into a kitchen. The ap-
plicant is planning to rent the two bedroom apartment.
Ordinance 427.36(S) requires the following for a quick order restaurant:
"(a) conformance to all conditions stated in sub - section 'F' of this section
except (d) (f) and (g).
(b) that the front yard and side yard shall be landscaped with the front yard
not less than 20 feet and side yard not less than 10 feet.
(c) that provisions be made to pick up the adjacent neighborhood daily
relative to material initiated on the site."
Sub- section F
"(a) the site is designed and constructed to handle parking and traffic
flow according to a plan submitted to and approved by the City.
(b) the site drainage is designed and constructed according to a plan
submitted to and approved by the City.
(c) that screening be provided along the property lines to control
headlight beams when abutting an "R" Residential District.
• REPORT NO. CUP -85 -1
Page 2
(e) the lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct
source of light visable from the public right -of -way or adjacent land in
an "R" Residential District.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant has applied for three variances in conjunction with this Conditional
Use Permit. The staffs biggest concern with this use on the site is the parking
situation. Although the current use seems to have no problem, this use may present
a traffic problem. I have recommended in the variance that the applicants situation
be reviewed in six months or a year to review the parking situation as it exists.
Also, if the applicant in the future plans to put tables in the restaurant he be re-
quired to come before the Commission for an evaluation of the parking situation.
ALTERNATIVES:
A
tOSNC, 'J� (' �X1 rX(\
1. Deny the Conditional Use Permit.
2. Approve the Conditional Use Permit with a review period.
3. Approve the Conditional Use Permit.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit but that a formal review of the
Conditional Use Permit and the parking variance be held by the Planning Commission
nine months after the remodeling has been completed.
Nancy Anderson, Analyst
Commu 'ty Development
CITY OF HOPKINS
December 11, 1985
PURPOSE: Consider reviewing of Conditional Use Permit
section of Zoning Ordinance.
- BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested that the Zoning
and Planning Commission review the present Conditional Use
Permit section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Council feels
that this section needs to be made more restrictive than it
is in its present form.
The Conditional Use Permit was originally incorporated into
the 1966 Zoning Ordinance. It was modified substantially in
1977 and has not been amended since that time
ANALYSIS: The staff has reviewed four different ordinances
from surrounding communities. For the most part, a majority
of the language in our ordinance on CUP's is consistent with
other communities. Therefore, I do not see the need for an
overall revision but rather some additional language to more
specifically detail the requirements that have to be met by
an applicant. At the present time I would recommend the
following section be added to 427.26:
CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS: No Conditional Use Permit shall
be recommended by the Zoning and Planning Commission unless
such Commission shall find:
(a) The conditional use will not be injurious to the
use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor
substantially diminish and impair property values
within the neighborhood.
(b) The establishment of the conditional use will not
impede the normal and orderly development and
improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted
in the District.
(c) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to
provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to
minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
(d) The conditional use shall, in all other respects,
conform to the applicable regulations of the district
in which it is located.
(e) Compliance with and effect upon the Comprehensive
Plan.
(f) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the
conditional use will promote and enhance the general
public welfare and will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort.
(g) The proposed use is or will be compatible with
present and future land uses of the area.
(h) The proposed use conforms with all performance
standards contained herein.
(i) The proposed use will not tend to or actually
depreciate the area in which it is proposed.
(j) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing
public services and will not overburden the City's
service capacity.
REVOCATION. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the
City Council may direct the revocation of any Conditional
Use Permit for cause upon determination that the authorized
conditional use is not in conformance with the conditions of
the permit or is in continued violation of this Ordinance,
City Codes, and other applicable regulations. The Planning
Commission shall schedule a hearing in the manner set forth
in this section and shall notify the responsible person to
whom the permit was issued, that it is an opportunity for
that person to show cause why the permit should not be
revoked. The Planning Commission shall make a report to the
City Council following the hearing including a
recommendation and the reasons therefore. The City Council
shall consider the report from the Planning Commission and
shall, by Resolution, declare its findings as to whether the
Conditional Use Permit shall be revoked, including the
reasons therefore. The Zoning Administrator shall provide
the responsible person to whom the permit was issued a copy
of the proceedings and findings of the Planning Commission
and City Council.
AMENDMENTS. Holders of the Conditional Use Permits may
propose amendments to the permit at anytime, following the
procedures for a new permit as set forth in this Section.
No significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the
permitted use shall be undertaken without approval of those
amendments by the City. The Zoning Administrator shall
determine what constitutes significant change. Changes
include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, number
of employees, expansion of structures and /or premises,
different and /or additional signage, and operational
modifications resulting in increased external activities and
traffic, and the like. The Planning Commission may
recommend, following the procedures for hearing and review
set forth in this Section and the City Council may approve
significant changes and modifications to Conditional Use
Permits, including the application of additional or revised
conditions.
The above additions will bring our CUP requirements in
conformance with those of other surrounding cities and
should also address the concerns recently expressed by the
Council.
Besides these additions I also feel consideration should be
given to increasing the $75,000 limit detailed in 427.26(c).
The present dollar amount requires the Commission to
consider a number of items that realistically do not need
review. Probably a figure of $150,000 — $200,000 is more
logical. The City Attorney has been provided a copy of
these changes for his review and comment.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) Schedule a Public Hearing at the January Zoning and
Planning meeting and request the City Attorney to draft the
changes in ordinance form.
2) Continue to review additional changes.
3) Recommend to the Council that the CUP requirements not be
changed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Appro e7number 1 above.
( /?/
i
James D. Kerrigan,
Community Development Director