The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1970 09-03 PCP C:J TY OF BRCOKLYN CENTER pjjq,jNjZjG COMISSION AGMMDA Regular meet-ing September 3, 1970 (*,,all Ito order 2, Ro,'!,1. c a I I The Planning COF=issiOn s an advisory, body., once of the Cormnission"s functions is to hold Ptiblic Hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the corwti.ssion, nakes recommetndations to the City Council. The city Council makes all final aecisions on these matters. _AP-R_1kc_P1i0n iiiewcon, Inc,, 70048 p,ezanir,g - R5 to C2, NZW IfUSINESS 10",-'Haul Company i0051 special use P e rrai t 'k. Eckberg/Viti-Y 7005.2 7%i r'1, .,nce from Subdivisiort Ordinanck' 1- 70053 C , Thorqa:-, COPStrxictiOn silt." and Building Plan Approval Sideyand Variance P''. sliv. Co. 70054 pence height and s.-2tback variance • PL&MUNG COMMISSION INPORMATION SHEET • Application No. Applicant U-Haul Co. (for Johnson Texaco) Description of Request,, The applicant is requesting a srecial. use permit to permit the rental of trucks and trailers at 6810 Osseo Road. BACRGROUND.- in 1963 a special use perm Law was granted to the user's of this property for the purpose of renting trailers. The Staff made an inspection of the property on August 29, 1970, and it appeared that there were no particular problems with the existing trail(--,r rental service. RECOVMKMATION, The Staff would recomiend approval providing the tnacks to be rented are stored at the rear of the property behind • the existing building. It is Vurther rectxrmiended that the pem—it be reviewed on an ar.nual basis. • E 4 �A \� I.x 5[a r` +� 'IX � ALZA 11 � a . Vk ,acur°essr..nu.cna4,cetW.wucamr,�rN.mw..s+pal,�a3[. �r a .raruw:�:mwaansnaeA.aa�awns':naar.°w+somrrx.vwus�r�r a.m n°xc'.� H � �aauvcws�rt its Si J, a k� ,.n..:,n.:am+w--»�.na....wurwa'wnv.':�•�xmr�.',°bay,sr.:o.ees«.,,r^•uun::n,�,cvwc:n�'awaru+�u' % . �s..v:WAW frrE.'a:uwnwWlk.«YC_„MUt1 TVCamtlMu¢.1�:"� , {p , ti �1 PLANNIMa CaWSSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 70052 Applicantz Charles W. Eckberg Description of Requests Variance from Section 15-104 of the Subdivision Regulations to permit a quick claim of parcels owned by Jro J. Witry, Jr. and Clarence Eaberg, BACKORDUNDg The applicant is requesting a variance from the sub- division regulations to allow a trade to two small parcels located at 6724 and 6718 Ewing Avenue North. RECUNKENDATIORU The Staff recoxymends approval. • • f Land Planning 68?S H,�hrrrRf.Ki�E. 107d Sir1116y"Y Mmn�n�tils32 Soils Testm9 , IN . Y ffLnn�Sola t 0W1&A710i01 f i. fd606 ,,, E En y neers Sur verr,5 4. i A . r- _ • --- TRACT ,"A" t That-part of Lot 2, Block 1, Oak Hill Second Addition lying Northerly of tfie following described line: Beginning at a point in the .West line of said I0 distant 4 feet South of the Northwest corner of said lot; thence Easterly along<,' T ' a line. if extended would intersect `the East line of Lot 1, of said Block 1 at ! a point which is 4 feet North of the Northeast corner of said Lot 2, to its: intersection with,the North line of said' Lot 2 and there terminating. i - S TRACT "B . . P w ': Oak Hill Second Addition That part art of Lot 1 Bloc tion lying Sout erly of the x.- following described line: ' Beginning at a point in the East line said lot ' distant 4 feet North of t e Southeast cornet of said lat;: then�e Westerly aloe$ .; a line, if extended would intersect the West line of Lot £2, of said Block`l- a' vl +..> a point which is 4 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Lot 2, to its 1 intersection with the South line of said Lot 1 and t4pre terminatingr � <" `� ss PLANNING COMISSION MFORMATION SHEET Application No. 70053 ;applicant-. Thomas Construction Description of Request: Site and building plan approval and a 3 foot sideyard setback variance. 14A MG ROUND t Tile applicant is requesting plan approval for a 128 "nit apartment carpi ex to be located at 69th and Lyndale Avenues Morth. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED.- The site plan is in order. however, the staff would reco=iend a change to the private roadway running from 69th Avenue North to 70th Avenue Nortb. Specifically, it is recormiended that it: be reduced in size fron, 30 feet to 24 feet to prohibit parking on the roadway, and in addition, A.t should be curbed. • The variance request is rather nebulous because of 60 foot utility easement on the property. It appears at this point that the Planning Commission should recommend a five foot vacation of the easement so the building could be moved in a -westerly direction thus eliminating the need for a variance. RECOMMENDATION.- The staff xiouid recomnend approval of the site pla,r contingent upon the usual stipulated conditions and special conditions as stipulated in this report �i.e. 24 foot street. -width and curbing) . 2. The staff -would reconunend that 5 feet of the utility easement be vacated in lieu of the variance request. PLANNY14G COPPUSSION INFORM ION SHEET Application No. 70054 Applicant.- Allied. Blacktop Description of Request-. 351 variance for fence in front yard setback on the property located at 48th Avenue and Dusharme Drive. BACKGRCUM The applicant, without knowledge of ordinance requirements, constructed a 6 foot cyclone fence 6 inches inside the front property line., The ordinance promulgates that a fence no greater than 4 feet in height shall be located in the 1st 35 feet of front yard setback. The property in question is rather long and narrow (150 x 450) . The applicant contends that the fence was contructed for the purpose of protection because of vandalisin that has occurred in the past. Fie additionally contends that a 4 foot fence would not deter the vandalism, and a 6 foot fence 35 feet from the front property line would negate the use of the property • because it would allow him to utilize only 115 feet of the lot 6epth on 0.1-e South and East protion of the parcel., RE COWL,NDAT ION-, It appears that the request has merit because of the odd lot configuration and unusual circumstance of a rather large frontage, However, it is the opinion of the staff that the Commission must consider the intent of the ordinance in light of this and future requests. it is the opinion of the staff that the four foot maximum height is intended to discourage improper aesthetic appearance rather than providing for physical barriers related to property protection. Given this analysis of the ordinance intent, the staff, recognizing the unusual circumstances of the property in question, and further recognizing that it is not necessarily applicable to other property in the area, would recommend approval. •``� .- µ®p -4P a' r $00 LIME SIDING .:✓'� u,... �°'y r� ��;..�p....,w,�.^.K;:e r`�uK.`�' 'Nil ,r e L,L D4,: tk- ran If ?;DIED BI KTOP CC ir YALE- ' . .T 4L ANT } Fwt► ray $` Q Z. . :?U AlITACOWO a' � a •;,�; � � � .�� by w�� ,,.� v