Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-142 - ADMIN Resolution - City Council - 2011/12/19• VARIANCE • RESOLUTION NO. 11-142 A RESOLUTION GRANTING REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES AT 3924 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR (E2) BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: Findings 1. Bader Development has applied for two variances from Section 36-167(g)(8)-(11) of the Zoning Code for the required rear yard and side yards for property located in the R -C High Density Multiple Family Residential zoning at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard and legally described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the plat of "Minikanda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on said plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension 170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said parallel line 166.30 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. On November 16, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of the two variances to reduce the rear yard (along the northerly property line) from 25 feet to 5.5 feet and to reduce the side yard (along the westerly property line) from 56 feet to 6 feet. 3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to 411 use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate Resolution 11-142 -2- supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 7. The development has a very deliberate and high quality design that seeks to meet the requirement of the ordinance, the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment guidelines, the established character of the neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior development, and the economic realities of redeveloping a contaminated and constrained property. 8. The conditions guiding the development of the subject property are different than other structures in the district. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue as a high priority redevelopment site, including the subject property. The proposed redevelopment removes impacted soils, puts the property to its highest and best use, provides 20% green space, and coordinates with the design, access, circulation, and parking of the neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior development to provide a unified environment. 9. Without the proposed variances, the redevelopment goals cannot be met, and the environmental and economic challenges to redeveloping the property cannot be overcome. The variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant to develop the property in a manner consistent with community goals. 10. Granting the variances will not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The applicant provided a shadow study that clearly demonstrates the design has consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings and proves the plan meets the ordinance requirements. 11. The plan achieves the goals and substantially meets the guidelines established for this specific redevelopment area in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed e2 development exhibits the high quality design contemplated in the guidelines, including quality building materials, edge buffering, building articulation, and scale at the block, street, site and building levels. 12. The contents of Planning Case File 11 -29 -VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. Resolution 11-142 -3- 13. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the,,work on or before one year after the variance is granted. 14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed. CONCLUSION The application for a rear yard setback variance from 25 feet to 5.5 feet and a side yard setback variance from 56 feet to 6 feet is granted based upon the findings set forth above, and subject to the following condition: 1. The property shall adhere to all other requirements of the Final PUD and City zoning code. The C. lerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Henn e in I ounty Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed Administration: City Manager Attest: City Clerk Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011 Mayor IIllhI ffl III 101 0hI 1011 00 011 III Doc No T4925333 Certified, filed and/or recorded on 2/3/12 12 00 PM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, Acting Registrar of Titles 4 Mark V Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer / Deputy 54 Pkg ID 771924M Doc Name: Resolution 11-1,0_. Document 1 -1`0 - Document Recording Fee $46 00 Multiple Certificates Affected $20 00 Fee Document Total $66 00 Existing Certs 1314326 1332250 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document New Certs CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK /_/ LJ l33ac3Z Administration Office 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park MN 55416 (952) 928-2840 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss CITY OF ST. LOLIS PARK ) The undersigned hereby certifies the following: "CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION" 1) The attached is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 11-142 adopted December 19, 2011, and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 2) The City Council meeting was held upon due call and notice. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of St. Louis Park. )‘13(3b Nancy J. Stro City Clerk Date: January 26, 2012 • • VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 11-142 A RESOLUTION GRANTING REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES AT 3924 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR (E2) BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: Findings 1. Bader Development has applied for two variances from Section 36-167(g)(8)-(11) of the Zoning Code for the required rear yard and side yards for property located in the R -C High Density Multiple Family Residential zoning at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard and legally described as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the plat of "Minikanda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on said plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension 170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said parallel line 166.30 feet; thence Northwesterly at nght angles 190 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. On November 16, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of the two variances to reduce the rear yard (along the northerly property line) from 25 feet to 5.5 feet and to reduce the side yard (along the westerly property line) from 56 feet to 6 feet. 3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, nsk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to ® use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate 'Resolution 11-142 -2- supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 7. The development has a very deliberate and high quality design that seeks to meet the requirement of the ordinance, the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment guidelines, the established character of the neighbonng Ellipse on Excelsior development, and the economic realities of redeveloping a contaminated and constrained property. 8. The conditions guiding the development of the subject property are different than other structures in the distnct. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue as a high priority redevelopment site, including the subject property. The proposed redevelopment removes impacted soils, puts the property to its highest and best use, provides 20% green space, and coordinates with the design, access, circulation, and parking of the neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior development to provide a unified environment. 9. Without the proposed variances, the redevelopment goals cannot be met, and the environmental and economic challenges to redeveloping the property cannot be overcome. The variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant to develop the property in a manner consistent with community goals. 10. Granting the variances will not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent -properties. The applicant provided a shadow study that clearly demonstrates the design has consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings and proves the plan meets the ordinance requirements. 11. The plan achieves the goals and substantially meets the guidelines established for this specific redevelopment area in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed e2 development exhibits the high quality design contemplated in the guidelines, including quality building materials, edge buffering, building articulation, and scale at the block, street, site and building levels. 12. The contents of Planning Case File 11 -29 -VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. v • Resolution 11-142 -3- 13. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variance is granted. 14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed. CONCLUSION The application for a rear yard setback vanance from 25 feet to 5.5 feet and a side yard setback variance from 56 feet to 6 feet is granted based upon the findings set forth above, and subject to the following condition: 1. The property shall adhere to all other requirements of the Final PUD and City zoning code. The C lerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Henn e in 4ounty Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed o Administration: City Manager I ., Mayor Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011 Attest: City Clerk IIIU II ID 110 IH II 010 O0 IIfl II Doc No A9748100 Certified, filed and/or recorded on 2/3/12 12 00 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, Acting County Recorder Mark V Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 52 Pkg ID 772297M Doc Name: Resolution ( I — / LI a Document Recording Fee $46 00 Document Total $46 00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document • • • CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Administration Office 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park MN 55416 (952) 928-2840 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ) The undersigned hereby certifies the following: "CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION" 1) The attached is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution No. 11-142 adopted December 19, 2011, and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 2) The City Council meeting was held upon due call and notice. WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of St. Louis Park. Nancy J. Str City Clerk Date: January 26, 2012 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. 11-142 A RESOLUTION GRANTING REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES AT 3924 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD ELLIPSE II ON EXCELSIOR (E2) BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: Findings 1 Bader Development has applied for two variances from Section 36-167(g)(8)-(11) of the Zoning Code for the required rear yard and side yards for property located in the R -C High Density Multiple Family Residential zoning at 3924 Excelsior Boulevard and legally descnbed as follows: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28, Range 24, described as commencing at the intersection of the Southwesterly line of the plat of "Minikanda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" with a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet Northwesterly from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue, as delineated on said plat; thence Southwesterly parallel with said centerline and its Southwesterly extension 170 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Southwesterly along said parallel line 166.30 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles 190 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles 166.30 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The Southwesterly 11.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 2. On November 16, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received testimony from the public, discussed the application and recommended approval of the two variances to reduce the rear yard (along the northerly property line) from 25 feet to 5.5 feet and to reduce the side yard (along the westerly property line) from 56 feet to 6 feet. 3. The Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan. 4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate Resolution 11-142 ' -2- - supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which such land is located. 6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty. 7. The development has a very deliberate and high quality design that seeks to meet the requirement of the ordinance, the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and redevelopment guidelmes, the established character of the neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior development, and the economic realities of redeveloping a contaminated and constrained property. 8. The conditions guiding the development of the subject property are different than other structures in the district. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue as a high prionty redevelopment site, including the subject property. The proposed redevelopment removes impacted soils, puts the property to its highest and best use, provides 20% green space, and coordinates with the design, access, circulation, and parking of the neighboring Ellipse on Excelsior development to provide a unified environment. 9. Without the proposed variances, the redevelopment goals cannot be met, and the environmental and economic challenges to redeveloping the property cannot be overcome. The variances are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the applicant to develop the property in a manner consistent with community goals. 10. Granting the variances will not impair the adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The applicant provided a shadow study that clearly demonstrates the design has consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other buildings and proves the plan meets the ordinance requirements. 11. The plan achieves the goals and substantially meets the guidelines established for this specific redevelopment area in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed e2 development exhibits the high quality design contemplated in the guidelines, including quality building materials, edge buffering, building articulation, and scale at the block, street, site and building levels. 12. The contents of Planning Case File 11 -29 -VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case. Resolution 11-142 -3- 13. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the variance is granted. 14. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the variance is granted is removed. CONCLUSION The application for a rear yard setback variance from 25 feet to 5.5 feet and a side yard setback variance from 56 feet to 6 feet is granted based upon the findings set forth above, and subject to the following condition: 1. The property shall adhere to all other requirements of the Final PUD and City zoning code. The C Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Henne in bounty Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed o , Administration: City Manager Attest: City Clerk Adopted by the City Council December 19, 2011 d 2,-(