HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-009 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2009/01/27f
t
•
RESOLUTION NO. 09-009
RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCE FROM SECTION
36-193(d)(6)A OF THE ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
TO PERMIT A 35 FOOT SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 100 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
IN THE C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
AT 3900 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
Findings
1. Daniel G. Miller (Mulberry's LLC) has applied for a variance from Section 36-193(D)(6)a of
the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a drive through facility to be setback 35
feet from residential properties instead of the required 100 feet for property located in the C-
1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District at the following location, to -wit:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31,
Township 29, Range 24, Hennepin County, described as follows:
beginning at the Southeast corner of said Section 31; thence West along the, South
line of said section a distance of 165 feet; thence North parallel to the East line of
said section a distance, of 123 feet; thence East parallel to the South line of said
section a distance of 165 feet to the East line of said section; thence South along the
East line of said section a distance of 123 feet to the place of beginning according to
the U.S. Government survey thereof
2. On December 17, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and moved approval of a variance to allow a drive-
through facility and stacking areas to be setback 35 feet from residential properties instead of
the required 100 feet.
3 The Planning Commission considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,
safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and
air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the
surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use
the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply of
light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or
impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
Resolut ov No. 09-009
-2-
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
® property or immediately adjoining property' and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the
applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 08 -48 -VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variance
is granted.
9. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or
structure for which the variance is granted is removed.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance is granted based upon the findings set forth above, as follows:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits incorporated
® by reference herein.
2. The in -vehicle service shall not utilize loud speakers or an outside menu board.
3. All customer contact points shall be located on the south side of the building.
4. A privacy fence at least six feet tall shall be maintained along the north property line.
5. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or 'structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
6. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK )
The undersigned, being the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
certifies that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution No.
09-009 adopted at the St. Louis Park City Council meeting held on January 5, 2009.
WITNESS my hand alio eal of the City of St. Louis Park this 27th day of January, 2009.
O� 5t L00,
o
1.y' SEAL:_
Nancy . Sffoth, City Clerk