HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 04-28 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet (Addendum)
Application No. 83013
Applicant: Stanley Hahn
Location: 4014 - 69th Avenue North
Request: Preliminary Plat
This information sheet is an addendum to the information sheet supplied for the
April 14, 1983 meeting. The City Engineer has asked that the plat indicate 7' of
additional right-of-way along 69th Avenue Morth to allow for future widening of
the roadway. (The 69th Avenue North right-of-way is presently 66' and the City
wishes to widen it to 80' ) . We recommend this right-of-way dedication be required
as an additional condition of approval . It.will have no adverse impact on the
future bui 1 dabi 1 i ty of lot 3.
Also, we have received word from NSP that the 5' wide easements along the interior
property lines separating lots 1 and 2 from lot 3 should be left in place to
provide service to lot 3. So, we recommend that Condition No. 4 be modified to
eliminate only the easements along the northerly side lot lines of lots 1 and 2.
Regarding the status of 69th Avenue North as a major thoroughfare, staff would
recommend that the Planning Commission keep this designation west of Shingle
Creek Parkway in lieu of the importance of this corridor. (West of Brooklyn Blvd. ,
69th Avenue North is still a County Road and, therefore, a major thoroughfare).
There is less need to continue the major thoroughfare designation east of Shingle
Creek Parkway. There is a great deal of setback nonconformity all along 69th
Avenue North, especially with side corner setbacks toward 69th (with front yard
toward a north-south street) . Nevertheless, the nature of the roadway is such that
it should be classified as a major thoroughfare.
The conditions pertaining to Application No. 83013 are recommended to include the
following:
4. The plat shall be modified to eliminate the 5' wide utility and
drainage easements along the north side lot lines of lots 1 and 2.
5. The plat shall be modified to indicate dedications of 7' of
additional right-of-way adjacent to 69th Avenue North.
4-28-83
e
Planning Commission Information Sheet (Addendum)
Application Nos. 83010, 83017
Applicant: Rod Bernu
Location: 69th Avenue North and York Place
Request: Site and Building Plan, Preliminary Plat
This information sheet is an addendum to the information sheet for the April 14,
1983 meeting. The applicant has revised the preliminary plat to provide all correct
measurements . The plat has also been revised to exclude from the replat those eight
lots with existing townhouses . The new plat calls for 24 townhouse units , one
common area, and one outlot. The site layout has also been revised by shifting the
northerly most townhouse cluster southward so that the 50' setback requirement from
future 69th Avenue North is met.
Conditions for the preliminary plat are recommended as follows :
1 . The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances.
3. The final plat shall be filed at the County prior to issuance
of building permits .
4-28-83
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 83018
Applicant: Howe, Inc.
Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-700 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a greenstrip less than the 15' required by ordinance from the westerly right-
of-way line of Brooklyn Boulevard. As the Commission is probably aware, the land
in question is presently part of Brooklyn Boulevard right-of-way, south of 49th
Avenue North, and north and east of the Howe site. The land was acquired by MN/DOT
in 1972 because of construction of a bridge over the Soo Line tracks and to provide
access to Howe. The Minnesota Department of Transportation wishes to turn back
this excess right-of-way to Howe as a means of paying damages resulting from the
changes in access to the Howe site. - The Commission may also recall that Howe's
request to use this land area for parking was determined not to be an expansion of
a nonconforming use, subject to Howe, Inc. entering into an agreement with the
City stipulating that the resulting parking area will not be the basis for an
expansion of the business. This agreement has been drafted and must be signed and
executed prior to approval of any site plan proposing. the additional parking.
The applicant has submitted a letter (copy attached) in which he addresses the
Standards for a Variance. He argues that the land conditions - the excess right-
of-way for the roadway, the fact that only 8 parking spaces could be installed
without the variance - create a hardship for Howe, Inc. if it is to accept the land
in return for previous damages. He states that the situation is unique because the
land is being given back to a private owner after being taken through condemnation.
He also notes the topography surrounding the parcel and the fact that an additional
10' of greenstrip would have no real aesthetic benefit. The applicant points out
that the hardship is clearly created by the Highway Department which acquired the
excess right-of-way for the bridge over the Soo Line tracks in 1972. Finally, the
applicant states that the variance will have no detrimental effect on surrounding
property, but that the project is, in fact, welcomed by the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission may recommend variance from the literal provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue
hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property
under consideration (see the Standards for a Variance attached) . What the Planning
Commission must decide in this case is whether the use of the property in question
for only 8 parking stalls rather than 14 constitutes a hardship and whether the
slope of the land and the circumstances of its transfer place it in a unique category.
Staff confess that the use of a half acre of land for only eight (8) parking stalls
and an access drive seems under-utilized. Fourteen (14) stalls and an access drive
do not seem to be so different in value. Nevertheless the desired use is not out
of line for the land area involved. The chief argument of the applicant is really
that an additional 10' of greenstrip will provide no public benefit to persons
travelling over the bridge on Brooklyn Boulevard, but would deny him the possibility
of constructing 6 more parking stalls.
The situation should not be regarded as unique because of who has owned the land in
the past, but on the basis of physical surroundings. The physical surroundings in
this case - a greenstrip located at the bottom of a substantial slope - is somewhat
unique. It is likely to occur near bridges and freeway ramps, of which there are a
number in the City. Regarding Standards (c) and (d) , we have no argument with the
applicant's contentions. The current situation has obviously been caused by the
taking of land for the construction of the bridge. And the location of the variance
will have no relationship to residences in the neighborhood.
4-28-83 -1-
,�Yr
Application No. 83018 continued
On the basis of the foregoing, it appears that the Standards for a Variance may be
deemed to have been met. Approval is , therefore, recommended, subject to filing
of an acceptable preliminary plat and conclusion of the agreement between Howe, Inc.
and the City, stipulated under Application No. 83001 .
i
i
i
f
a
1
4-28-83 -2-