Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC80003 - 1/10/80 - 57th & Girard AveWM PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: IJC1 L1 FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. 0 Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission©lam City Vault Minutes: City Council I (a-� Nc City Vault \cka-N V96 Document Tvpe Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault CITY OF bl ,i1U};I.;11 CHMk i.it PLANNING ZK'1HG AiPLICA*110N Application No. 80003 Please ''rint_C1c•;rI I or %;� Street Locat;on of Property 57th and Girard=Ave. N. Legal Delcript'ion of Property Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Larson Addition. O..rner David L. Larson Address 6401 Baker Avenue N. E. Mpls. 55432 Phone No. 571-2684 Applicant Same Address Phone No. Type of Request*: Rezon i ng Subdivision Approval Vari arrce Special Use Permit -Site & bi dg . Plan Approval Other: Description of Reques-t: Platting of property into two lots. fee $ U.94 Receipt NO. 522]5__. Date: of P.C. Consideration: App i ce.nt s ;� yr�,. .,r•�� _ �9 PLANKING COi^.r:? Si!:`'� P.EC014;ii:tNDAT?CiN AFC; rn, V d_ V Denied this c day of ing coed' Gha i ra,a n CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Counc,l Consideraticn: Anpro�f .t____ Denied this .. day cti �,,,��. 19 with thL fof 1,4,�., e,rendmont. i'JI No;•a; ' 13 (uvor 1.1c 1';(') Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 80003 Applicant: David Larson Location: 57th and Girard Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat and Variance The applicant seeks preliminary plat approval to subdivide a tract of land 160' x 130' located at the southeast corner of 57th Avenue North and Girard Avenue North. The property is surrounded by single-family homes in all directions and no change in the zoning classification is sought by the applicant. The proposed plat creates two lots, an interior lot 75' x 130' which meets all ordinance requirements, and a corner lot roughly 85' x 130' which is substandard as to width by 5 feet. (The applicant has applied for a variance to allow the sub- standard lot. Issues regarding that variance will be treated separately.) Both lots are served by a 14' wide alley along the east property line. The total site is presently occupied by a house,two garages, and a stone fire- place. The house is located on the proposed Lot 1 and meets all setback require- ments. One garage and the stone fireplace are located properly within required setbacks on Lot 2; the other garage straddles the proposed property line dividing the two lots and must be relocated onto Lot 1 and meet setbacks (the applicant has agreed to this condition). The site generally drains toward the southeast corner of Lot 2 and the Superin- tendent of Engineering is somewhat concerned with how this low spot will be drained. There is also a 5' wide power line easement along the north side of Lot 1 which is not shown on the plat. City water and sewer are available in Girard Avenue for Lot 2. As indicated previously, the applicant seeks a variance from Section 15-106, g (ff) of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of a corner lot (Lot 1, Block 1, Larson Addition) which is substandard with respect to lot width, but which meets other ordinance requirements for depth and area. The applicant has submitted no letter explaining the grounds for the variance, but his argument is fairly simple: namely, if the variance is not granted, the applicant will be denied the reasonable use of his property. Whether this argument is valid amounts to a judgment on the part of the Planning Commission and City Council since the property is already being used for a single-family residence. If the Commission deems the lot split to be a "reasonable" use of the property, it should make this fact clear in light of the variance standards. The Commission's determination of what makes this variance reasonable to grant will in essence establish a precedent which should be narrowly, not broadly, construed when considering other variances in the future. Prior to 1976, the City granted a number of variances for houses to be built on substandard lots, using a "70% rule" to evaluate the extent of the variance. The cases, however, involved pre -established lots where a property right could already be said to exist. Whether a property right already exists in this case to create an additional lot is subject to a reasonable interpretation of the circumstances. Since January 1, 1976, there has been only one case in which a substandard lot was created by new plat, that being the property at 810 - 61st Avenue North under Application No. 76061. It is questionable, however, whether this serves as a true precedent since the variance application was for a sub- division by metes and bounds. The record indicates that the issue of creating a substandard corner lot received little or no attention. 1-10-80 -1- Application No. 80003 Page 2 The Commission's attention is directed to the Standards for a Variance contained in Section 15-112 of the Subdivision Ordinance (attached). The first standard seems to be met by the fact that the existing parcel of land is left over from a previous subdivision in which the property to the east was divided into two lots. The length of certain blocks in the City almost requires that some lot, often an end lot, be substandard. The present owner of this property had no control over the creation of other lots on this block, and consequently, one of the lots he wishes to create is substandard by 5 feet. In comparison to these other lots, the creation of the 85' corner lot seems reasonable. The third standard also seems to be met in that the remaining 85' wide corner lot will still be larger than many other corner lots in this neighborhood, notably the corner lots on the northeast and northwest corners of the same intersection and the corner lot lying to the rear of the subject property. The proposed subdivision will also leave the existing house within all established setbacks, a basic criterion for substandard lots. The garage which presently straddles the proposed property line will be relocated to within proper setbacks prior to final plat approval. As to the second standard acknowledging a substantial property right of the petitioner, it must be noted that the applicant purchased the property as one lot, not two lots. He, therefore, has no economic investment in a second lot and no claim of confiscation if the subdivision is denied. It may be argued, however, in this case that the second standard is met if the first and third standards are met since, to a large extent, the other two standards being met create the right to another lot. The fact that the previous owner did not seek to subdivide the property is inconsequential since the right to do so always existed. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent regarding both the preliminary plat and the accompanying variance. Based on the foregoing analysis, approval of the variance is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The particular circumstances pertaining to the property are such that a strict application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land. 2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighbor- hood in which said property is situated. 3. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. 4. No other variances are required for the development of the property as it is zoned. 5. The variance applied for has been minimized as far as is possible under the circumstances. 1-10-80 Application No. 80003 Page 3 Approval of the plat should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat approval is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat approval is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The garage located on the property line dividing Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be relocated within proper setbacks onto Lot 1 prior to final plat approval. 1-10-80 r � z _ Y _ � PRO MINNEA � � I l; a o t • � O __ - O Z __ � POLIS I I