| | | | | | | | 
Shakopee Board of Adjustments and Appeals
August 3, 2023
|
| | | | | | | | | FROM: | Mark Noble, Senior Planner | | TO: | Board of Adjustment and Appeals |
|
| | | | | | | | Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING - Culver's Restaurant Parking Lot Setback Variance |
| | | | | | | | Policy/Action Requested:
Approve Resolution PC2023-011, a resolution denying the variance request for expansion of their parking lot to the west property line, adjacent to Canterbury Road, where 15’ is the minimum required setback per City Code. |
| | | | | | | | Recommendation:
Approve the requested staff recommendation. |
| | | | | | | | Discussion:
G4 Construction Management, LLC, applicant, and J & A Financial, LLC (dba Culver’s Restaurant), property owner, have made application for a variance for property located at 4058 12th Avenue East.
Variance Considerations:
The applicant and property owner have expressed concerns with the traffic flow for the Culver’s Restaurant located at this address (southeast corner of Canterbury Road and 12th Avenue East). Their request would be to allow expansion of their parking lot up to the west property line, adjacent to Canterbury Road, where 15’ is the minimum required setback per City Code (30’ if unscreened). The expansion would widen the north side of the westerly spaces by approximately 1’- 9”, and approx. 5’- 6” along the south side of the westerly spaces. With the pavement up to the property line, they would be requesting approval by Scott County to construct a 3’ tall vinyl fence within their Canterbury Road public right-of-way.
City Planning does not feel that this minimal expansion of the parking lot would adequately address the site vehicular circulation issue that currently exists. Even with this minimal expansion, there would still not be enough room for the drive-thru lanes and by-pass lane to eliminate congestion and confusion. The better solution is being represented in the applicant’s revised concept plan by the one (1) way traffic flow (presently there is two-way traffic) which will minimize traffic conflicts, and if a 2nd dedicated drive-thru lane is necessary, provide additional curbing to keep the two drive thru lanes from conflicting traffic movements, with a separate bypass lane as an exit for their other customers.
City Engineering and Shakopee Public Utilities have provided memos and/or comments regarding this application. Engineering provided comments regarding the drive thru lanes, minimum separation between the fence and edge of trail, and the need for a County permit for any encroachment into the right-of-way. Shakopee Public Utilities has commented that they have an underground electric feeder in this area, and that they should be contacted to coordinate and inspect construction to avoid potential impacts to their utility services.
Findings:
Section 151.015, Subd. B, of the City Code contains provisions for the granting of variances only if all of the following circumstances are found to exist. Staff has provided draft findings for purposes of discussion by the Board. The Board may use or modify these draft findings as it sees fit, as well as propose other findings.
Criterion l:
The strict enforcement of the ordinance provisions would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Undue hardship means the following:
1.A. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control;
Finding 1.A. The applicant is proposing a reasonable use of the property, but not in a manner that is consistent with the spirit and intent of the City Code requirements for parking areas. There is nothing preventing the applicant / property owner from continuing to utilize the site in its present configuration, or with improvements that would not further impact the parking lot setbacks.
1.B. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property;
Finding 1.B. The proposed expansion of the parking lot is not a unique circumstance to this property. This business has operated successfully in its current configuration (building and parking layout) since the original construction/site development in the early 2000’s.
1.C. The circumstances were not created by the landowner;
Finding 1.C. The landowner did create this current proposal and the circumstances surrounding it.
1.D. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
Finding 1.D. The variance will alter the character of the area as the parking lot would be located closer to the property line and could create undesirable lighting conflicts between the headlights of those cars in the lot with those on the adjacent street (Canterbury Road).
1.E. The problems extend beyond economic considerations. Economic considerations do not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance.
Finding 1.E. The problems do not extend beyond economic considerations.
Criterion 2:
It has been demonstrated that a variance as requested will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the chapter.
Finding 2 The proposed variance would not be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of Chapter 151 (Zoning) as it would allow a parking area well within the desired setbacks as established in the City Code.
Criterion 3:
The request is not for a use variance.
Finding 3: The request is not a use variance.
Criterion 4:
Conditions to be imposed by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals will ensure compliance to protect the adjacent properties.
Finding 4: Should the Board support this request, they should provide conditions that would ensure some form of protection of the adjacent properties.
Criterion 5:
Variances in the flood plain overlay zone also shall meet additional criteria:
Finding 5: (Not applicable since the property is not within the flood plain overlay zone.)
|
|