Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC65104 - 1/13/66 - 5207, 5209 Xerxes AvePLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: ► ►/Z/`I5 FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: 6510`-I PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: RS 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 Ranoe Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Document Tyoe Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council ►I►3/4,6 2/ / Q/2-1/67 City Vault 2/1N/C.6' tabled City Vault /2►/!0!o tabled 2/2eA-(.,/Io(o, Q/ZS/47 Number Location City Vault City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault #65104 Also. No. (2nd revision) Street Location of Property +5207, 5209,E & �MXqrxes venue North Legal Description of Property Lots 0 2, and 3�.. R.R. EcChe�nnzx k lons y Second Addition Owner: Nam Addres9 Thomas Geldert TOlephone Herbert Appi6quist 5240 Xer s )(ve. No. Applicant: *epmw s gg# Address 2225 Getty.Y! rg Ave.So. .rL.r..a....r�.rr....�rr.Mlr �•••q +�� Telephdne Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval X..r. other approval�of nl_an revision Description of Request Approval of the amended site plan for the Xerxes Court Apartments to permit construction of garages on the apartment properties. Reason for Request Fee $ -- Receipt No._______,,,_ Applicant September 14, 1967 Date Dates 2f P.C. Consideration D,ates of Council CMgjdgration September 21, 1967 September 25, 1967 PIING COMISSION RECOMMMIDATION on the.ZI day of S0,061, 19 the request represented by this petition was ro die pproved subj to e following conditions. joircle one) Chairman COUNCIL ACTION Approved Denied this4L�day of , 1� Approved with the following amendment VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN CENTER #65104 Zoning Application (revised) Street Location of Property Southeast quadrant of the intersection of Hwys. Legal Description of Property Parcels 3580 and 3610, #100 and #152 Section 10 Owner: Name Address Applicant: Name McChesney Const.CO-Address 3559 Penn Ave. N®.PhoneJA 17653 Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance X Subdivision Approval X Other Description of Request Approval of the preliminary plat of "R.R. McChesney and Sons Second Addition". Approval of site plans and building plans. Reason for Request (Applicant) FEE: $ $29.00 - platting (Date) - (original December 29. ,196�) Following to be filled in by Village Recommendations of Village Officials Chronoloav Date By Rec'd, Published On P1. Comm. Agenda P1. Comm. Action On Council Agenda Council Postponement Council Action Any official making any comments should Bldg. Dept. Notified sign and date. Use additional sheet Applicant Notified comments if necessary attach hereto. Pl. Comm. Postponement Please draw or attach sketch of proposed structure showing the following: 1. Indicate North 6. Dimensions of proposed structure 2. Location on lots 7. Proposed set -backs 3. Adjacent street names 6. State zoning in force in area 4. Location set -backs and use of adjacent existing buildings 5. Distances between any proposed structures and structures on adjacent property. (To Be Filled in By Planning Commission) PLANNING COMMISSION RECONiMENOATIONS On the ./V day of „&�IJVtW Y 19,b & action requested in the foregoing petition was approved ) disapproved ( ) subjeot t� he following conditions. Chairman ( , ( . V_ COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS Approved Denied by the Council this day of a � approved with following amendment ���dr mt.&le clerk: VILLAGE OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application U65104 Street Location of Property Southeast quadrant of the intersection of Hwys 4100 and 152. Legal Description of Property Parcels 1320, 3580 and 3610, Section 10. Owner: Name Address Applicant,' Name McChesney Constr. Co. Address 3559 Penn Avenue No Phone JA 1-7653 Type of Request: _..yRezoning Special Use Permit Variance _X Subdivision ,approval X Other Description of Request Approval of preliminary plat of "R. R. McChesney and Sons 2nd Addition". Rezoning of property from R1,fid RB to R5. Approval of site plans and building plans, Reason for Request FEE: $)29.00 - Platting 25.00 - Rezoning (Applicant) December 29, 1965 (Date) Following to be filled in by Village Recommendations of Village Officials Chronology Date By Rec'd. Published On Pl. Comm. Agenda Pl. Comm. Action On Council Agenda Council Postponement Council Action Any official making any comments should Bldg. Dent. Notified sign and date. Use additional sheet Applicant Notified comments if necessary attach hereto. P1. Comm. Postponement Please draw or attach sketch of proposed structure showing the following: 1. Indicate North 6. Dimensions of proposed structure 2. Location on lots 7. Proposed set -backs 3. Adjacent street names 8. State zoning in force in area 4. Location set -backs and use of adjacent existing buildings 5. Distances between any proposed structures and structures on adjacent property. (To Be Filled in By Planning Commission) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS On the day of 19, the action requested in the foregoing petition was approved ( ) disapproved ( ) subject to the following conditions. Chairman COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS Approved Denied by the Council this day of 19 Approved with following amendment Clerk: PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SKEET Application No. Applicant: Description of Request: Property: Owner of Property: BACKGROUND, 65104 R. R. McChesney & Sons Appxoval of the amended site plan .for the Xerxes Court Apartments to permit construction of garages on the apartment properties. 5207, 5209, and 5211 Xerxes Ave. No. (Lots 3, 2, and 1, R. R. McChesney and Sons 2nd Addition) Henry Lunacek - 5211 Thomas Geldert - 5209 Herbert Appelquist - 5207 1) The Xerxes Court Apartments consist of three 12 - unit building in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of. Highway #100 and #152. The plans for these apart- ments were approved in final form by the Council on June 13, 1966. The present owners of the property, who have purchased the buildings from McChesney Construction Company, now desire to add garages to their properties, hence this request for approval of the site plan. For continuity in record --keeping, the Staff has considered this as an amendment to the previous plan approval under Application #65104. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Each of these gentlemen has indicated that the ultimate number of garage stalls he would like to build is 12, so that one stall would be available for each unit, although the actual construction of the total number of stalls may not occur this year. Utilizing the setbacks of five feet from the side and rear property lines, there should be no problems in installing this number on any of the properties. The installation of the 6 foot redwood fence for screening of the parking area is almost complete at this writing. lip At /%,IL -----------'--------- / | � \~' / � ' . \ / ^ � / / '.c V � L1 -------� |�� r � 44 | —'-----''--- -----` �—'----'— --- MEMO TOs Planning Commission, February 7, 1966 FROM: James H. Johnston, Village Attorney RE: Application for approval of preliminary plat of R. R. McChesney and Sons Second Addition. You have asked that I review the above application With a view to advising what the legal implications would be in recommending approval or denial in your capacity of advising the Village Council: It is my understanding that the property is presently zoned RB exoept for a SM11 lot to the -South and -a strip~oa the E$st. It is also my understanding that the proposed use is permitted in an RB zone. Therefore, the aspect involved seems to be whether there is any basis for a village initiated action to re -zone to An R classification. The questions that are involved in this consideration are: 1. What grounds can be used by a village to re -zone to a district of lesser use? 2. What effect does a state's taking of property and access have? The court in one case, _Olsen v. City of Minneapolis 115 N.W. 2nd 734 (1962) among other findings.. -fields "One who has acquired property zoned for particular purposes under comprehensive zoning ordinance is entitled to rely thereon as against arbitrary enactment.of amendments thereto which result in diminuation in value or restriction of his rights and interests in such property." The courts have been reluctant to allow a village to re -zone where the owner has acquired a vested interest in the zoning. While interests usually vest when the property has been put to the permitted use, the courts have been recognizing vested interests to some degree when there has been some reliance in the zoning. In Raskin v. Village of Brooklyn Center the court found that the highest and best use of the property was for multiple dwellings and not a B-3 use. In addition it found the re -zoning to a lesser use did not decrease the value. Also, the owner had made no application for a building permit, expended no money and in no other way relied on the B-3 zoning. In the instant case -- 1. How long has owner owned property? 2. What is highest and best use of the property? 3• Would the re -zoning decrease the value of the land? 4. Has the owner applied for a building permit? 5. Is the present zoning compatible with surrounding uses? MEMO TO: Planning Commission, February 7, 1966 Page 2 6. Will the intended use deprive the neighboring residential dwellers of a substantial portion of the use, enjoyment, peace and quiet of their residential property? 7. Has the owner relied on the present zoning and made any further investment or commitment? The courts will upset a re -zoning if: 1. The action is arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. 2. It results in a "taking" of private property without just compensation. 3. That it is a denial of "equal protection" guaranty under the U.S. Constitution. 4. That it will cause the owner irreparable harm, damage or injury. 5. That it deprives the owner of property without the due process of law. I have considered that the state's taking for the highway interchange results in limited access to the property and will no doubt create more traffic on 51st Avenue and Xerxes Avenue. Since any use of the property would increase the traffic to some degree, the fact that traffic will increase to some unknown greater degree may give the village the right to require certain things in plan approval, but in my opinion it is not sufficient in and of itself to sub- stantiate a re -zoning to a R district. This memorandum by no means is an exhaustive study of the questions raised by this application. However, I hope that it is of some guidance to you.