Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC67017 - 5/4/67 - 3207 63rd AveL PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: q FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: RN 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. • 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 Minutes: City Council Document Tvoe Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council Ordinances: City Council -3 `1SI b`1 Number City Vault City Vault Location City Vault City Vault City Vault CITY /�OryFywtf�}yl��2.Y{11.���QA jj(j.jj App. bTo..:.�....�.rl�.�.�. Street Location of Property „w3207 - p3rd Aver+ �e North Legal Description. .of -Property Lot -10, Block 2, Garden City 2nd Add 1 n. Owner: Nance Robert Anderson Address 3207 - 63rd Ave. rIo_ Telephone 561-6555_ Applicant: SSamg, Address - Telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit ._ X__.. Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request •Variance -from-Section 35-401 to permit- r��.rrr...rr.r.r.rr�rr.��..r....r.rrrrrr rr fir+.• rrrr r r � construction-of -an-attached--- pA a less than the re ired.five feet from the west j2roRert . line. Reason for Request Fee $ 5.00 Receipt No.#2 icant Dates of P.C. Consideration DlIes of Council Consideration my 4, 1967 May 15, 1967 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOHNEWATION On the day of AVOY 19 6 , the request represented by this petition was approved disapproved subject to the following conditions. circle one) Chairman W / ODUNCIL ACTION A t3®nied this /J�aY of 19 ..rr...� ....._ _r.wsrr Approved �� .. Approved with the follo—wing amendment Clerk PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET M N Application No. Applicant: Description of Request: Property: Owner of Property: BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 67017 Robert Anderson Variance from Sec. 35-401 to permit construction of an attached garage less than the required 5 feet from the west property line. 3207 - 63.rd Avenue North (Lot 10, Block 2, Garden City 2nd Addition) Robert Anderson 1) The request of Mr. Anderson, as contained in a letter of approval from his neighbor to the west submitted to the Commission, is to construct a garage 22 feet in width attached to his house. The construction of this garage would leave two feet remaining between the garage and the west property line. As the attached garage of the neighbor to the west is 5� feet from the property line, 7,1? feet of clear space would remain between the two attached garages. 2) Although the angle at r;hich the lot lines meet is largely irrelevant in this case given the amount of variance the applicant will be requesting, it may be useful if he requests a somewhat lesser variance. The interior angle of the northwest corner of the property is approximately 86056 which would make the front of the garage (assuming a 24 foot depth, and the garage front parallel to the street) 1.29 feet further from the lot line than the rear of the garage. STAFF C014MENTS s 1) In two recent applications for variances to construct attached garages, I made the following comments, which seem to be pertinent here as well. -2- "It is questionable that the problem here evidenceiis one which is"unique to the parcel of land', as many other lots in the vicinity, and elsewhere in the City, have been platter. in non -rectangular shapes. In fact, the problem exists as a result of the original developer constructing the house either without foresight to providing a garage, or with the view that a future garage would be detached, to the rear of the property. In fact, the present and future owners do or may have different concepts of site development than those of the original developer ..... A question one should ask, then, is to what extent is the resolution of these differences of opinion a public matter? By actions on variances such as this one, a zoning ordinance allowing construction close to property lines is being evolved; if less restrictive limits are desired, perhaps they should be stated explicitly in the text of the written ordinance." "With a previous application..., I made comments regarding possible lack of foresight on the part of the original developers regarding garaging space, and on other occasions have made similar comments on such variances. it, is obvious to everyone involved., I am sure, that the variance standards are not proper for such determinations, because they are based on hardship ... rather than 'reasonableness' or design preferences. obviously, however, there must be locational requirements for buildings or there would be no open space to the asides of homes. The Planning Commission proposed a change to the zoning setbacks following a recent discussion of such a variance. Essentially, this proposed change would allow garage construction on lots whose side property lines are not at 90 degree angles to the front line to be three feet at one corner if the other corner of the same side of the garage is a minimum of five feet front the line. Although it was not stated, I assume this would also apply to the ten foot setback of houses on the same type of lot, with perhaps a seven foot setback allowed at one corner. (?)" 2) Assuming the house to be parallel with the street, the addition of a 22 foot wide garage to the 44 foot wide house would leave 2 feet to the west property line at the front of the garage, and approximately .71 foot at its rear. The greatest variances of this type which I can recall were to permit construction no closer than 3 feet to the side lot line. `. MEMO TO: City Council FRAM: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: May 11, 1967 PX: Planning Commission items to be heard at the Council's May 15th meeting. Application No. 67017 - contained in Planning Commission Agenda of May 4th. An erroneous bit of information appears in the Agenda with relation to this item. Due to a misinterpretation of the plat of which this lot is a part, it was stated that the lot lines met at an angle of .Less than 900. This in fact is not the case, as the lot lines do meet at a 900 angle. Thus, if a 22 foot wide garage were permitted, it would be at a constant distance of a feet from the west property line. The Planning Commission, in approving a 20 foot garage, was acting in accordance with the erroneous information, and was attempting to permit a 2 car garage with as much space between the garage and the lot line as possible. It appears, however, that a 21 foot garage could be built and still maintain a 3 foot side yard setback. Application No. 67023 submitted by Mobil OilCorporation. This item was not included in the Planning Commission's Agenda, due to the lack of site and building plans at the time of the Agenda's preparation. The plans were submitted in time for review and submission to the Connnission on May 4th, and action approving them was taken at that time. The plans submitted for the station are the same as those previously approved by the Commission and Council in 1965 (Application No. 65034 - June 1, 1965). Greenstrips, curbcuts, and other details are in accord with ordinance requirements. The Commission followed the outline of the previous approval of the station In approving Application No. 67023. Applications 66038 & 66039 by Shell Oil Company; Application No. 66041 by American Oil Company. T'ou may or may not, recall that the service stations approved in conjunction with the abo4.7e applications (66036 - S.W. corner 66th and Lyndale; 66039 - S.W. corner 69th & Humboldt; 66041 - N.E. corner 69th and Humboldt) were approved with permission for freestanding signs specifically excepted (Council minutes of Sept. 12th, July llth, and June 8th, respectively). 2- Since the time of these approvals, both .American Oil and Shell Oil, have proceeded to construct stations on these properties. inadvertently, American Oil, who was constructing two similar stations in Brooklyn Center, one of which had free- standing sign approval, installed a sign at the 69th and Humboldt site which had not been approved, and which the Staff did not "catch" at the time of installation. Shell Oil, on the other hand, was more aware of the limitations imposed upon them, and has asked that the Council act to give than a sign before their stations open. Since Shell has asked that this matter be taken care of, 2 have also placed the American Oil sign before you also, so that it might be legitimized at a size in accord with others permitted at the intersection. The following data summarizes the signing already pennitted on other service station properties at these two intersections. 69th and Humboldt .Pure Oil (S.E. corner ) - permitted 24 foot sign/rotating 2ji rLras . American Oil (N.E. earner) Shell Oil (S.W. Corner) - 66th and Lyndale Phillips (S.E. corner) American IN.E. corner) Texaco (N.W. corner) - Shell (S.W. corner) - -- eicisting non -permitted sign 24.4 feet high. proposed siqn 26.5 feet high/ 8 feet square, - permitted 27 foot signi`3_44 sa. ft. - permitted 25 foot sign two freestanding signs permitted: a) 17 ft. high/25 sq. ft. along 66th b) 24 ft. high/170 sq. £t. along Lyndale two freestanding signs proposed% a) 22 ft. high/6 feet square al^ng 66th b) 26.5 ft. high/ 8 feet square %long Lyndale.