The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About19-050 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2019/04/15Resolution No. 19-050 Resolution approving a conditional use permit and variance for 8105 Minnetonka Boulevard Whereas, Robert Colehour, representing Best Cleaners, applied for a conditional use permit and variance for the purpose of constructing a building addition at 8105 Minnetonka Boulevard; the property is legally described as follows, to-wit: The South 200 feet of the North 233 feet of the West 130 feet of the East 160 feet of the West Half of the East Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 18, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Whereas, the property is guided Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. Whereas, the property is located in the C-2 General Commercial zoning district. Whereas, the applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow in -vehicle sales on the site. Whereas, the applicant requests a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-194(f)(5) to allow a decrease of 10 feet width for the required west side yard from 15 feet to five feet. Findings Whereas, the city council has determined that the applications meet the conditions for in - vehicle sales in the C-2 General Commercial District, including: 1. The existing drive-through window and stacking are fully screened and separated from residential uses to the west and south by the existing building and proposed addition. 2. The business usually generates a queue of 2 to 3 cars, which complies with all yard requirements. The proof of parking site plan indicates there is space for up to six cars to queue on the property. 3. The business has used the drive-through window for many years, and staff has received no complaints. Staff does not anticipate any adverse effects from its continued use. 4. The typical queuing of 2 to 3 cars does not impede traffic in the parking lot nor access to or from the site. 5. The site is accessed from Utah Avenue. The use does not generate significant traffic on local residential streets. 6. The canvas canopy over the drive-through complies with all required architectural standards. 7. The current and proposed uses, including the drive -through window, are in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Whereas, the uses on the property are a laundromat and dry cleaning service, which are permitted uses in the C-2 zoning district. DocuSign Envelope ID: 741C1976-8B5A-421D-BE44-197D378C3922 Resolution No. 19-050 2 Whereas, the use of this property is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. Whereas, the use is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community as a whole. It will not have undue adverse impacts on the use and enjoyment of properties, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, parking facilities on adjacent streets, and values of properties in close proximity to the conditional use. Whereas, the use is consistent with the regulations, intent and purpose of City Code and the zoning district in which the conditional use is located. Whereas, the use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. Whereas, the project plans are consistent with the design and other requirements of site and landscape plans prepared by or under the direction of a professional landscape architect or civil engineer registered in the state and adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the city council. Whereas, the project plans are consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. Whereas, no negative impacts upon the health, safety and welfare of the community are anticipated from granting the west side yard variance. An apartment building is located approximately 25 feet from the proposed addition, which exceeds the requirements for distance between buildings located in the same development in the RC district. If two apartment buildings of the same size were constructed on the same property, they could be as close as 15 feet apart. Whereas, the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to ensure sufficient space between buildings and uses to avoid negative impacts on neighboring properties. As noted above, the proposed building is 25 feet away from the apartment building, while a second apartment building could be constructed on the property and be only 15 feet away from the first apartment building. Whereas, the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The expansion of the existing business supports the city’s strategic priority of providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. The expansion is needed to meet the demands of the neighborhood and business growth. Whereas, there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Code. The variance request is due to the existing building and t he shape of the lot. The side setback variance would allow the construction of an addition that improves the efficiency of business operations, minimizes loss of off-street parking and maintains traffic circulation on the site. DocuSign Envelope ID: 741C1976-8B5A-421D-BE44-197D378C3922 Resolution No. 19-050 3 Whereas, granting the 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 or endanger public safety. Whereas, granting the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. The variance allows for the most efficient layout of the parking lot and building addition. Whereas, the contents of Case Nos. 19-02-CUP and 19-03-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the record of decision for this case. Conclusion Now therefore be it resolved that the conditional use permit and variance are hereby approved and accepted by the city council as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, city plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and certification by the City Clerk and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official Exhibits. The official exhibits include: a. Sheet 1: Site Plan b. Sheet 1A: Demonstration Stalls Site Plan c. Sheet 2: Lower Level Floor Plan d. Sheet 3: Main Level Floor Plan e. Sheet 4: East & South Elevations f. Sheet 5: West & North Elevations g. Sheet L1: Lighting Plan h. Survey 2. The proposed canopy extension should be designed to ensure that bright accent color(s) will be 5% or less of the east building elevation. 3. All vents and equipment on the new building addition shall be at least 15 feet from the west property line. 4. All new utilities shall be buried. 5. The site shall comply with the city’s solid waste requirements. 6. All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting construction, including but not limited to: a. NPDES grading/construction permit. b. City of St. Louis Park building, erosion control, and right-of-way permits. The following conditions shall be met before issuance of the erosion control permit: i. Provide gutter connection details. ii. Provide a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). iii. Provide separate utility and grading plans iv. Define the change in impervious surface and percent of site to determine stormwater management requirements. v. Define site contamination assessment. c. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District stormwater management permit. DocuSign Envelope ID: 741C1976-8B5A-421D-BE44-197D378C3922 Resolution No. 19-050 4 7. Prior to issuing the building permit, the following conditions shall be met: a. Applicant shall submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of landscaping. b. The applicant and owner shall be signed the city’s assent form and official exhibits. c. A SAC determination letter from Metropolitan Council shall be obtained and submitted it to the Inspections Department. d. The architect of record shall provide a complete code review. e. The architect of record shall provide ADA review and show how 20% of building cost will be invested into ADA improvements. 8. In addition to other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Register of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council April 15, 2019 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk DocuSign Envelope ID: 741C1976-8B5A-421D-BE44-197D378C3922