Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 07-24 PCP 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Study Session July 24, 1980 1 . Call to Order: 7:3b p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: July 10, 1980 - 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations -to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. David Brandvold 80026 Request for preliminary plat approval and a variance to subdivide three lots at Ewing and Drew immediately south of the I-94 right-of-way. One lot is substandard as to width and proposed cul-de-sac do not meet the minimum diameter required by ordinance. 6. Other Business 7. Discussion Items a) Harron Methodist Church parking lot. b) Draft Ordinance amendment regarding compact car parking stalls. c) Report on Commercial Partner development 8. Adjournment _ 1 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 80026 Applicant: David Brandvold ' Location: Ewing and Drew Avenues, south of I-94 . Request: Preliminary•Plat and Variance The applicant requests plat approval of a three lot subdivision located between Ewing and Drew Avenues and immediately east of Drew, just south of the I-94 right- of-way. The lots are within the R1 zone and will be developed with single-fami.ly homes. The plat comprehends a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance in, that the lot east of Drew is approximately 65' in width at the setback line. All of the lots exteed the required 9,500 sq. ft. of area for single family lots in the R1 zone. The applicant has submitted no letter addressing the Standards for a Variance. (ettached). However, 'in this case the proposal seems to meet those Standards unambiguously. The circumstance a property remaining after highway taking which is substandard in width, yet buildable - is fairly unique and was certainly not the result of actions taken by the owner or anyone having an interest- in the property. Denial of the variance would cause a hardship in that the use of a buildable property would be denied; moreover, use of the lot west of Drew Avenue might also be denied since the access to that parcel is presently controlled by 'the owner of the property to the east. Finally, no -adverse impact on the sur- rounding property seems likely to result from the development of this property for a single-family home. The applicant has additional concerns over the location of the structures on the lots because of setback requirements from property lines and/or the noise wall to be erected within the I-94 right-of-way to the north of these lots. However, the current application addresses only the width of the eastern most lot and no other variances are comprehended. The variance request also comprehends the approval of an 80' diameter cul-de-sac rather than the ordinance required minimum of 100' . The diameter of the paved area will be 60' . Consistent with the variance on lot width, we find no conflict with the ordinance Standards for Granting a Variance. An important issue involved in this plat is the size and shape of land to be dedicated for public right-of-way. The City Engineer is presently seeking a response from MN/DOT as to whether it would allow the City to store snow on the I-94 right-of-way, between the property line and the noise wall . If this is allowed, it may be possible to shift the proposed cul-de-sac so that it is entirely contained within the land presently being platted. Otherwise, easements for right-of-way purposes would have to be obtained from the properties to the south. Or, a "hammerhead" cul-de-sac would be necessary to provide adequate turnaround space for City vehicles. This solution would create difficulties for the developer in that driveways and consequently, garages would have to be located on the south side of each lot. The setback require- ment for dwellings being greater than for garages, .some inconvenience would likely be experienced by the builder in situating the houses on the respective lots. It is our judgment, however, that such an inconvenience would not be great enough to constitute a hardship and thereby-justify a variance. We will _ be prepared to discuss this issue in greater detail at Thursday's meeting. 7-24-80 -l- Application No. 80026 RECOMMENDATIONS Approval of the variance from Section 15:106 g. and 15:106 (c) 10 of the Sub- division Ordinance is recommended on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met. It should also be recognized that no variances for the development of the property are comprehended by this approval . Approval of the preliminary plat is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . Final plat approval is subject to the requirements of the Sub- division Ordinance with the exception of the lot width require- ment on the easterly lot which is acknowledged by variance to have a lot width of 65' and with the exception of an 80' diameter cul-de-sac rather than 100' . 2. The final plat is. subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. . 3. The preliminary plat shall be modified prior to consideration . by the City Council to indicate the following: (a) Each lot shall be given a lot number and two blocks should be indicated, divided by the Drew Avenue. right-of-way. (b) The size and shape of the area to be dedicated.for cul-de-sacs shall be modified in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer. 7-24-80 -2- Section 35-240 (cont'd) 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their,strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under con- sideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topo- graphical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from'a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally,•to other property within -the same zoning classification. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental = to the public welfare or injurious to other land or Improvements in the neighborhood in which . g the Parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions•and Restrictions r The Board of Adjustments and appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as.to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and.with the -spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. MOUND TOWER CEMETERY memo MIN ilia, � mm m MIN � WIN PARK IF -GARDEN C1 Y'I -I •Sd MIN oil MIN Iff �H 1 1�1��,' � •� D � 111, ' 1u 1•lJ• C � �U�11�11�1 1� � �� 11/►�� L�1/ Draft Ordinance Amendment regarding compact cars parking spaces Section 35-702 of the City's Zoning .Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: Parking Space Standards - The following minimum parking standards are hereby established for all [districts other than R1 and R2] : off-street parking lots having more than six (6) stalls. Regular Size Parking Spaces • Space 2 Space Lengths Plus One Center Aisle Angle Width Curb to Curb With Curb Overlap 900 (Two-way) 8'8" 19.5 + 19.5 + 24.0 = 63'0 18.0 + 18.0 + 24.0 = 6010" 60.0• (One-way) 9'0" 20.0 + 20.0 + 20.0 = 60'0" 18.5 + 18.5 + 20.0 = 57'0" 450 (One-way) 9'2" 18.0 + 18.0 + 16.5 = 5216" 17.0 + 17.0 + 16.5 = 50'6" 309 (One-way) 9'6" 15.0 + 15.0 + 16.5 = 46'6" 14.0 + 14,0 + 16.5 = 44'6 00 (Parallel) 8'0" wide by 24'0" long, with•24'0" aisle Compact Car Parking Spaces Space 2 .Space Lengths Plus One Center Aisle Angle Width Curb to Curb With Curb Overlap 900 716" - 17.0 + 17.0 + 22 = 56 ' 16.0' + 16.0' + 22' = 54' . 600 810" 17.5' + 15.5 + 20 = 55' 16.5 + 16.5 + 20 = 53' 450 812" 16.0 + 16.0 + 16.5=48.5 ' 15.0 + 15.0 + 16.5 = 46.5 ' 300 816" 14.0' + 14.0' + 16.5=44.5 ' 13.0 + 13.0 + 16.5 = 42.5' 00 7'0 by 22' 0" long with 22' 0" aisle Compact car spaces may not exceed 20% of all parking spaces in- stalled on any one site and must be clearly designated as such by appropriate signery approved by the Building Official In cases where compact car parking spaces share a driving aisle with regular 'size parking spaces, the width of the driving aisle shall be de- termined by the aisle requirement for regular size cars. An accurate, dimensioned parking layout which complies with the fore- going shall be submitted for approval with a site plan, and parking arrangements shall thereafter comply with such layout. Parking spaces shall be clearly designated by lines painted upon the surface of the parking area.