Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018/05/24 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular AGENDA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. MAY 24, 2018 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: March 22, 2018 3. Consent Agenda 4. Public Hearing A. Variance: Rear yard setback for attached garage Location: 4054 Raleigh Avenue South Applicant: Jason and Karen Dean Case No. 18-17-VAR B. Variances: Indoor entertainment/restaurant gross floor area maximum and parking variance for VR entertainment business Location: 4930 West 35th Street Applicant: REM5, LLC Case Nos: 18-18-VAR, 18-19-VAR 5. Old Business 6. New Business 7. Communications 8. Miscellaneous 9. Adjournment STUDY SESSION 1. Council Chambers Security Training 2. Sign Variances If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2572. Auxiliary aides for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952/928-2840 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES OF BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS MARCH 22, 2018 - 6:00 P.M. Members Present: James Gainsley, Justin Kaufman, Henry Solmer Members Absent: Anthony Howard, Paul Roberts Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator 1. Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of February 22, 2018 Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of February 22, 2018. The motion was approved 3-0. 3. Consent Agenda A. Resolution No. 01-18 Approving Variance at 4317 Browndale Ave. S. Chair Kaufman stated the request is for a 5 foot, 11 inch variance to the required 11 foot 8 inch side yard for construction of an attached garage. At the February 22, 2018 meeting the BOZA voted to approve the requested variance, and directed staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at the March meeting. Commissioner Gainsley made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 01-18 approving a 5 foot 11 inch variance to the required 11 foot 8 inch side yard for an attached garage. The motion was approved 3-0. 4. Public Hearings 5. Unfinished Business 6. New Business 7. Communications 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting of May 24, 2018 4A Variance to the rear yard for an attached garage. Location: 4054 Raleigh Ave S Applicant: Karen and Jason Dean Case No.: 18-17-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a 14 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard to construct an attached garage at 4054 Raleigh Ave S. REQUEST: The Applicant requests a 14 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard for an attached garage. If approved the house and attached garage would be located 11 feet from the rear lot line. LOCATION: N Board of Zoning Appeals – May 24, 2018 Karen and Jason Dean, 4054 Raleigh Ave S Agenda Item 4A 2 BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning: R-2 Single-Family Residence Existing Conditions: The property is 6,900 square feet and improved with a single-story, single- family house constructed in 1947. A driveway extends from Raleigh Avenue South along the north side of the home and into an existing attached one-car garage also located on the north side of the home. Proposal: The applicant wants to construct an attached two-car garage to the rear of the home, which will provide sheltered, handicap access to the home. The proposed garage will provide space to accommodate a handicap accessible van with a lift and a ramp to the ground floor of the home that is accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The proposed garage will not have living space above it. The garage will open to the south, and will be accessed by a new driveway with a curb cut on 41st St W. The existing garage and driveway will be removed and converted to greenspace. Drawings of the proposal are attached. Applicable Zoning Regulations: City Code Section 36-164(f)5 requires a 25-foot rear yard depth for the principal building, which includes attached garages. ANALYSIS: City Code requires the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) to consider the following prior to ruling on a variance. Staff provided an analysis of each point below, and the Applicant also provided an analysis of each point in the attached letter. 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The proposed garage addition is located in the rear yard, and is not generally impactful to the community. There is only a limited visual impact to the neighbor to the west abutting the rear lot line. That impact is mitigated by the proposed garage being a single story with a roof below the profile of the home. Staff finds the proposal does not significantly impact the health, safety and welfare of the community. N Board of Zoning Appeals – May 24, 2018 Karen and Jason Dean, 4054 Raleigh Ave S Agenda Item 4A 3 2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Generally, staff would not support this variance because the homeowners have the ability to build a legal alternative, a two-car detached garage. However, under ADA regulations, reasonable accommodations should be considered for community members with disabilities. 3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is a goal of the Comprehensive Plan to “Promote and facilitate the expansion of existing homes through remodeling projects which add more bedrooms and more bathrooms, 2+ car garages and other amenities.” The applicants are significantly remodeling their home to be more handicap accessible, including the significant expense of adding an elevator. Staff believes this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and demonstrates the intention to stay long term in the community and make investments in the property they own. 4. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical difficulty means: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items only. Single-family homes and attached garages are permitted uses in the R-2 Single-Family Residence district. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. Within the dimensions of the property, there is no alternative way to build a two-car attached garage while satisfying the rear yard requirement. However, a two-car detached garage could be legally built. The plight of the landowners does not arise out of the unique circumstances of the property per se, but out of the unique circumstances of the landowners’ family, one member of which has a permanent disability and no use of their legs. The applicants make the case that the proposed addition addresses legitimate personal and family difficulties in day to day lifestyle and enjoyment of property that emerge as a result of permanent disability. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The predominate building pattern within the immediate surroundings of property in question is to have attached garages that open onto 41st St W. Therefore, this proposed addition does not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations are not considered as part of this application. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This is not applicable to the application. 5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. There are no circumstances unique to the property preventing the property owner from having a detached two-car garage. The Board of Zoning Appeals – May 24, 2018 Karen and Jason Dean, 4054 Raleigh Ave S Agenda Item 4A 4 circumstance that is unique is the landowners’ need for sheltered ADA access from their garage to the house. 6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The BOZA has historically considered a two-car garage to be a substantial property right. As a result, the BOZA has granted variances to accommodate them when there are no legal alternatives. The property owner can legally construct a two-car detached garage. However, the applicants make the case that specifically an attached garage and sheltered ADA access to the home is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right which is for their disabled family member to live safely and independently within their home. 7. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. Staff finds that the granting of this variance will not impair light and air to surrounding properties, increase congestion or danger of fire, or endanger public safety in any way. 8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a convenience or is it necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. Staff finds the applicants persuasively make the case for the variance serving as a necessity to alleviate a practical difficulty, and not merely serving as a convenience. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the proposed application for a 14 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard for the construction of an attached garage meets the criterion required for granting a variance. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the attached Resolution granting the requested 14 foot variance to the required rear yard. PREPARED BY: Joseph Ayers-Johnson, Community Development Intern REVIEWED BY: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator ATTACHMENTS: Aerial photo Proposed resolution Letter from applicant Physician letter Site Plan Floor plans Garage elevations Board of Zoning Appeals – May 24, 2018 Karen and Jason Dean, 4054 Raleigh Ave S Agenda Item 4A 5 AERIAL PHOTO N Board of Zoning Appeals – May 24, 2018 Karen and Jason Dean, 4054 Raleigh Ave S Agenda Item 4A 6 BOZA RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING A 14 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED GARAGE LOCATED AT 4054 RALEIGH AVE S BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On April 20, 2018, Karen and Jason Dean applied for a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 36-164(f)(5) to allow a 14 foot rear yard instead of the required 25 foot rear yard required in the R-2 Single-Family Residence District. 2. The property is located at 4054 Raleigh Ave S and described below as follows, to wit: Lots 9 and 10, Block 2, Wildrose, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for variance Case No. 18-17- VAR on May 24, 2018. 4. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the Board of Zoning Appeals has determined that the requested variance meets the requirements of Section 36- 34(a)(2) of the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant variances, and makes the following findings: a. The variance does not have an impact on the health, safety and welfare of the community. b. The variance reasonably accommodates ADA considerations. c. The variance request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which promotes improvements and expansions of existing houses to include more bedrooms, bathrooms, and two car garages. d. There are unique circumstances regarding the landowners’ family member with a permanent disability that makes an attached garage a necessity to alleviate daily hardships. e. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed addition is an attached garage with no living space above it, which is in accordance with the surrounding building pattern. Board of Zoning Appeals – May 24, 2018 Karen and Jason Dean, 4054 Raleigh Ave S Agenda Item 4A 7 f. Granting of the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right which is for their disabled family member to live safely and independently within their home. 5. The contents of the Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 18-17-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION The Board of Zoning Appeals hereby approves the requested 14 foot variance to the required 25 foot rear yard for the construction of an attached garage located at 4054 Raleigh Ave S subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance applies to the project as presented to the BOZA, and as shown on the attached exhibits: Exhibit A – Lot Survey; Exhibit B – Garage Elevations; Exhibit C – Floor Plan. 2. Future additions to the home and garage must meet the requirements of the zoning district at the time the additions are requested. Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: May 24, 2018 Effective date: June 3, 2018 ___________________________ James Gainsley, Chairperson ATTEST: _______________________________________ Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator The ordinance requires that the conditions below must be satisfied in order for the variance to be granted. On a separate page, explain in detail how your case conforms to each of these requirements. Please be specific when addressing these items; the Board must establish findings which support the application as it relates to each of the following: We are requesting a variance to build a two car attached garage with access off of 41st street. The garage location has been dictated by a 10-12% maximum slope of the driveway per the city engineer, Phil Elkin. The variance request is due to the setback limitation on the rear property line. The size and design of the garage are necessary to accommodate a handicap accessible van with a lift and an ADA accessible ramp into the home. 1.The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community. We believe our proposed variance improves the health, safety, or welfare of the community because it allows my son Lucas, who is a citizen of this city, to safely and independently transfer in his wheelchair from the garage to his home. 2.The request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Our variance request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance because it protects consistent views along both Raleigh Ave. and 41st street. The garage addition does not disrupt sightlines along either of those thoroughfares. By creating an attached garage off of 41st we will be eliminating the current garage space and the entire driveway off of Raleigh. In doing so, we will be creating more green space on our lot. The new attached garage off of 41st will be up against our backyard neighbors garage which is situated the same. Because of this, it will not impede on their backyard views. 3.The request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For this variance request the comprehensive plan is not relevant. 4. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. This means that: a. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. All of the houses on 41 Street, between Wooddale and Quentin, have garage access off of 41st, most of which are attached. Given the circumstance of our property, there is no other way in which to attach a two car garage. The alterations proposed will enhance, certainly not diminish, the character of the property in the community. This variance has nothing to do with economic considerations or unique property conditions, it is merely a decision necessary to address our personal and family practical difficulty in our day to day lifestyle with our son Lucas who has a permanent disability and uses a wheelchair full time. 5. There are circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. There are no circumstances unique to the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property. 6. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right which is for our son Lucas to live safely and independently within his own home. 7. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. The granting of the variance will not impair light and air to the surrounding properties, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety. By moving our driveway to 41st, we believe there will be less traffic and fewer parked cars on Raleigh, lessening the congestion in general, while opening up the street for emergency vehicle access and increasing the safety of the community. 8. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. Our family is in need of a two car attached garage because of the permanent disability of our son, Lucas, who is wheelchair bound. The attached garage will allow Lucas to independently transfer from our vehicle into our home safely. It is risky, unsafe and extremely challenging for Lucas, and anyone who assists him, to navigate his wheelchair on our current driveway, sidewalk, and streets in inclement Minnesota weather conditions. AJMTRHWILDROSE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTACERTIFICATE OF SURVEYLOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 211FEETSCALE01020DESCRIPTIONCHKBYDATEREV. NO.CHECKEDDRAWNDESIGNEDOFSHEET_LEGENDMONUMENT FOUNDIRON PIPE MONUMENT SETFIRE HYDRANTCATCH BASINSEWER MANHOLESUTILITY PEDESTALLIGHT POLESIGNDECIDUOUS TREEOVERHEAD UTILITY LINEŒ 23'-1"SOUTH ELEVATION1 ©COPYRIGHT 2018 MLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320-224-7844 23'-1"EAST ELEVATION1 ©COPYRIGHT 2018 MLITTFIN@HOTMAIL.COM320-224-7844 1 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Date: May 24, 2018 Public Hearing Agenda Item: 4B 4B Variance to indoor entertainment/restaurant gross floor area maximum and parking variance for VR entertainment business. Location: 4930 W. 35th Street Applicant: REM5, LLC Case No.: 18-18-VAR, 18-19-VAR Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a variance from the minimum parking spaces required on the site from 147 spaces to 66 spaces and approving a variance increasing the maximum amount of gross floor area used as indoor entertainment/restaurant in a multi- use building from 25% to 50%. REQUEST: The applicants Travis Hoium and Amir Berejian (REM5, LLC) are requesting two variances in order to operate a virtual reality (VR) entertainment business at 4930 W. 35th Street. The first variance would increase the amount of gross floor area in a multi-use building to be used by indoor entertainment/restaurant uses from 25% to 50%. The second variance would decrease the amount of required off-street parking by 81 spaces from 147 to 66. SITE LOCATION: SITE INFORMATION: Site Area: 1.51 acres Current Zoning: BP Business Park Comprehensive Plan: BP Business Park Building Size: 17,128 square feet 2 BACKGROUND AND PROPOSAL: The property is improved with a one story multi-tenant commercial building constructed in 1962. The building is currently occupied by two fitness studios. The applicant would like to operate a virtual reality (VR) entertainment business in vacant space inside the building. As part of the project, on-site parking would be increased on the west side of the property, resulting in 66 total off-street parking spaces. All renovation work to the building would take place on the interior of the building. The floor plan for the VR business includes lobby and waiting areas, bathrooms, offices, storage room, a small kitchen/prep room, and the main entertainment space with eight VR pods. The applicant is requesting two variances on the property. Indoor entertainment and restaurant uses in the BP Business Park zoning district are limited to 25% of gross floor area of a multi-use building. The applicant proposes operating the VR business on 47% of the gross floor area of the building. The applicant is also asking for a parking variance to reduce the amount of required parking from 147 spaces to 66 spaces. Applicable Zoning Regulations: The sections of city code that is the subject of the variances is as follows: City Code Section 36-233(c)(9)a Gross floor area maximum in BP district: The uses may not exceed 25% of the gross floor area of a single-story building or 50% of the ground floor area in a multi- story building. City Code Section 36-361(c)(3) Parking minimum for restaurant: One space per each 60 sq. ft. floor area. ZONING ANALYSIS: Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards. Parking Variance: The business is classified as “Indoor Entertainment”, however, food and alcohol will also be served. The intent is to have a small area where people can eat while waiting for a VR pod to become available and to allow customers to bring drinks and snacks to the VR pod observation areas. Due to liquor licensing requirements, staff has to classify the entertainment use as a restaurant so that customers can take the drinks to the seating areas at the VR pods. The restaurant classification increases the parking requirement from 34 spaces required for the indoor entertainment and restaurant use, to 102 spaces when classifying the entire space as restaurant. In addition to the proposed VR entertainment use, there are also two fitness studio uses located in the building. The studios require an additional 45 parking spaces. The total parking required for the existing studio uses and the proposed VR entertainment use is 147 off-street parking spaces. The parking variance is requested because the entertainment use is the predominant use in this business. The food and alcohol service is provided as a convenience for those enjoying the VR studios. Therefore, the parking demand is expected to be at levels typical of an entertainment use, not a restaurant use. The floor plan proposed for the VR entertainment use shows a small restaurant and a large entertainment area. When the parking formulas are applied to this floor plan, the parking requirement is reduced from 147 for the entire property to 79. Therefore, while the requested parking variance from 147 spaces to 66 seems significant, practically speaking (because of the small size of the actual seating area for the restaurant), the difference in parking is from 79 spaces to 66. The parking requirement for Indoor Entertainment is dependent upon the type of entertainment activity. The zoning ordinance determines parking requirements. Staff have found that the VR 3 entertainment use is most similar to a bowling alley use, with each VR pod considered equivalent to one bowling lane. See the table below for a comparison of parking requirements. Use Classification as: Parking Space Requirement Number of Spaces for REM5 only Spaces for studio uses Number of spaces for entire building Restaurant 1 space per 60 SF floor area 102 45 147 VR Entertainment & Restaurant 1 space per each VR pod, 1 space per 60 SF restaurant floor area 34 45 79 Gross Floor Area Maximum: Both indoor entertainment and restaurant uses have the same operational conditions in the BP district. In this district, both uses are limited to 25% of gross floor area in multi-use buildings. The customer area of the business will only take up about half of the square footage of the business. The rest of the floor area will be used for office space, lobby, bathrooms, and storage. Because the existing building has established tenants that will remain, and because of the space needs of the VR entertainment use, the applicant requires a variance to occupy 47% of the gross floor area of the building. As required by City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) considers the following prior to ruling on a variance. Staff has provided an analysis of each point below. 1. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community. The increase in allowed gross square footage for indoor entertainment/restaurant will not negatively impact the community. The VR entertainment use generates little parking and traffic needs as each VR station is used by one person at a time, and they are proposing to utilize only eight stations. The reduction in parking requirements will not have a significant impact on the community because the primary use of the business is VR entertainment which requires substantially less parking than a restaurant use. Therefore, the actual parking needs of the use are far lower than the required parking based on restaurant designation. 2. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. 3. Whether or not the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. 4. Whether or not the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner proposes to use the property for a land use permitted in the zoning district in which the land is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items required in the zoning ordinance, including but not limited to setbacks and height limitations. The proposed VR entertainment business is classified as an indoor entertainment/restaurant use, which is a use permitted with conditions in the BP zoning district. However, it is limited to 25% of the gross floor area of the building, which is the basis of these variances. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. 4 The need for the variances is due to the unique needs of the VR business. Each VR station requires a large area to operate, and only one person can utilize a VR station at a time. Therefore, more than 25% of the gross floor area is required to operate a successful VR entertainment business. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The business is conducted entirely within the building. This use will not generate significantly more amounts of traffic or parking in the area. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Without the variances the business will not be able to operate at this site. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. e. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. This criterion is not applicable to this application. 5. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the property include the shape, topography, water conditions, or other physical conditions unique to the property. There are no circumstances unique to the property. 6. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The unique nature of the VR stations results in a need for more than 25% of the gross floor area of the building to operate. 7. The granting of 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. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. 8. Whether or not the granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. Staff finds that this criterion has been satisfied. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution approving the variances to Section 36- 233(C)(9)a and Section 36-361(C)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the operation of a VR entertainment business at 4930 W. 35th Street with conditions recommended by staff. PREPARED BY: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner REVIEWED BY: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator ATTACHMENTS: Aerial photo Draft resolution Project plans 5 Aerial Photo 6 VARIANCE BOZA RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTIONS 36-233(C)(9)a AND 36- 361(C)(3) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW 66 PARKING SPACES INSTEAD OF THE REQUIRED 147, AND TO ALLOW A RESTAURANT/ENTERTAINMENT USE TO OCCUPY 49% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA INSTEAD OF THE 25% MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR A VIRTUAL REALITY ENTERTAINMENT USE LOCATED IN THE BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT AT 4930 35TH STREET WEST BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Zoning Appeals of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. On April 23, 2018, Travis Hoium and Amir Berenjian (REM5, LLC) applied for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-233(C)(9)a and Section 36-361(C)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 66 parking spaces instead of the required 147, and to allow a restaurant/entertainment use to occupy 49% of the gross floor area instead of the 25% maximum allowed for a virtual reality entertainment use located in the Business Park District at the following location, to-wit: LOT 3, BLOCK 1, BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 2. The Board of Zoning Appeals has reviewed the application for Variance Case No. 18-18- VAR and 18-19-VAR. 3. The Board of Zoning Appeals has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, and existing and anticipated traffic conditions. While the business is an entertainment/restaurant use, the virtual reality entertainment use is the primary use, and it generates little parking and traffic needs compared to a restaurant. Each virtual reality station is used by one person at a time, and they are proposing to utilize only eight stations. The reduction in parking requirements will not have a significant impact on the community because the primary use of the business is virtual reality entertainment which requires substantially less parking than a restaurant use. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The need for the variance is due to the unique needs of the VR business. Each VR station requires a large area to operate, and only one person can utilize a VR station at a time. Therefore, more than 25% of the gross floor area is required to operate a successful VR entertainment business. 5. The primary use of the business is the virtual reality entertainment, not the restaurant. Therefore, the restaurant seating area is limited in size to reduce the parking impacts. 7 6. 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. 7. The contents of Board of Zoning Appeals Case File 18-18-VAR and 18-19-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public record. 8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to initiate 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 a variance from Section 36-233(C)(9)a and Section 36-361(C)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a 66 parking spaces instead of the required 147,and to allow a restaurant/entertainment use to occupy 49% of the gross floor area instead of the 25% maximum allowed for a Virtual Reality (VR) entertainment use located in the Business Park District is granted based upon the findings set forth above and with the following conditions: 1. The variance applies to the project as presented to the BOZA, and as shown on the attached exhibits; Exhibit A – Site Plan, Exhibit B – Floor Plan. 2. The Restaurant seating shall be limited to the area shown on the floor plan, including the VR station observation areas. 3. The parking lot shall be striped prior to occupancy permits being issued for the VR business. 4. 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. 5. In addition to other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval Adopted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: May 24, 2018 Effective date: June 3, 2018 _______________________________ Justin Kaufman, Chairperson ATTEST: ______________________________________ Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONNOTESCERTIFICATION4930 35TH STREET W.ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 GTGSEEEEEEEE