HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-24 Fully Executed Variance Document & Certification NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) ss.
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS )
I, the undersigned being duly qualified and acting as City Administrator for the City of Oak
Park Heights,Minnesota DO HEREBY CERTIFY that I have compared the attached document:
Variance
(Parking Setback)
Holmen Office Associates
Walgreen's
6061 Osgood Ave. N.
with the original thereof on file at the offices of the City of Oak Park Heights,and that the same is a
full, true and complete copy of said document within the files of the City of Oak Park Heights.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the City of Oak Park Heights, ' 1st day of February,
2017. =
Eric Jo A : �/
City ' / *strator
,
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
VARIANCE PERMIT
WALGREENS 6061 OSGOOD AVE
File No.:236.02-15.10 Date Issued:January 12.2016
Legal Description: (Washington County Geo.Code: 33.030.20.44.0025)
Oak Park Heights,Garden Lot 1,Block 1
Owner: Holmen Office Associates
PO BOX 1159
Deerfield Illinois 60015
Applicant: Holmen Office Associates
N. 19476 Daulton Road
Galesville,WI 54630
Site Address:6061 Osgood Ave No.,Oak Park Heights Mn 55082
Present Zoning District:B-B Residential Business Transitional District
Permitted uses set forth in Ordinance 401 Section 401.15 C.(1).(d)
1. VARAIANCE PERMIT:The property is zoned B-2 General Business District.A variance is required in
that the City,in Section 401.15.F.4.h.17 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the curb barrier of the parking lot
be no closer than ten feet to any lot line or right of way line. This summer(2015)the Minnesota Department of
Transportation acquired,through condemnation,a strip of land from applicant on the west side of their property
for improvements to Highway 36. The acquisition eliminated most of the setback between Osgood Avenue and
the parking area on the west side of the property.Applicant has also requested a review of the existing
landscaping relative to the approved plan.
All permits and uses applied for are granted but shall be subject to the following conditions and/or restrictions
imposed by the January 12,2015 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights as follows:
The City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights approval of the Variance for setback from the west
property line is granted subject to the following:
1. The variance criteria in Section 401.04 of the Zoning Ordinance have been reviewed and it has
been determined by the Planning Commission and City Council that the variance is justified.
2. The applicants have requested the variance in that the acquisition by Minnesota Department of
Transportation has created a nonconforming setback between the right of way line and the
parking lot curb. The applicant did not create this situation;it was created by the actions of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation requiring that the variance is now requested.
3. The resulting narrow setback will not have an impact on neighboring properties,increase the
congestion on the adjacent street,impact public safety,affect property values or conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council approves the variance subject to the conditions as follows:
1. The City Council has determined that the request for the setback variance is justifiable.
2, The Applicant shall be required to maintain the landscape materials that were previously on the
subject site but are currently on the Minnesota Department of Transportation right of way.
3. The freestanding sign can remain as a nonconformity until such time that the Minnesota
Department of Transportation requires it to be removed. If the sign is replaced,it shall be
constructed to comply with current City Zoning standards.
III. Reference Attachment:
The reports of the City Planner dated 12/2/2015 are annexed hereto by reference.
IV. Abandonment: This permit requires continuous use in order to preserve the Conditional Use granted by the
City under the terms hereof.Any discontinuation or abandonment of the uses permitted hereunder upon the
site for a period of 12 continuous months shall constitute abandonment and void the permit.
V. Annual review:Annual review is not imposed as a condition of this permit
1 ,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have set forth their hands and seals.
CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS
By
L. I i r Date(—oZf /-7
Mary cComber Mayor
By )1
/A/� Date I 2
i
Eric Jolinson,City Administrator
f
f
Holmen Office Associates
By
iltAxe.;Z ate
Permit Holder Signature
Print Name of Signature
EXHIBIT"A"
PLANNERS REPORT AND SITE PLANS
•
TP 3801 Thurston Avenue N,Suite &CLOSURE
j
Anoka, MN 55303
Phone:763.231.5840
Facsimile:783.427.0520m
TPC®PianningCo.co
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Eric Johnson
FROM: Scott Richards
DATE: December 2, 2015
RE: Oak Park Heights—Walgreens—Variance for Parking Setback and
Landscape Plan Review— 6061 Osgood Avenue North
TPC FILE: 236.02— 15.10
BACKGROUND
Dennis Russel on behalf of Holmen Office Associates has made application for a
parking setback variance from Osgood Avenue. The application consists of requests for
a setback variance from Osgood Avenue related to a property taking from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and for a landscape plan review.
The Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit approvals for the Walgreens was approved in
March 2002 and amended July 2002. At that time, a 10 foot setback from Osgood
Avenue to the parking area was provided. 'This summer, the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT) acquired, through condemnation, a strip of land from Holmen
Office Associates on the west side of their property as a result of improvements to
Highway 36. The acquisition eliminated most of the setback between Osgood Avenue
and the parking area on the west side of the property. Additionally, the Applicant
requests a review of the existing landscaping to determine if it meets City requirements.
The parcel is zoned B-2 General Business District.
EXHIBITS
The review is based upon the following submittals:
Exhibit 1: Project Narrative, October 22, 2015.
Exhibit 2: Existing Conditions (1 of 2)
Exhibit 3: Existing Landscape(2 of 2)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Please find an excerpt of the project narrative as follows. The narrative also contains a
review of the variance criteria which can be found in Its entirety as Exhibit 1.
We, Holmen Office Associates own the building in the northeast quadrant of Osgood
Avenue and State Trunk Highway(STH) No. 36. The site is occupied by a Walgreens
Drug store. As a result of the updating of STH No. 36 the Minnesota Department of
Transportation acquired, in condemnation, a strip of land from out site along its western
side. That parcel taken Is known as Parcel 93 as shown on the MnDOT Right of Way
Plat No. 82-120. Prior to the taking the site contained 59,251 square feet or 1.36 acres.
After that taking the parcel contains 57,661 square feet or 1.32 acres. The parcel is
currently zoned B-2, General Business.
In order to portray the conditions existing on the site after MnDOT's acquisition a Partial
Existing Conditions survey was performed by Loucks dated October 20 & 23, 2015.
This survey shows the existing conditions west and southwest of the existing building.
Loucks has also prepared a Partial Existing Landscape Conditions plan, dated October
20, 2015 showing the existing landscape features along the west and southwest
boundaries.
This request is being made as a result of impact on the site of that acquisition of Parcel
93. This request has two parts:
I. Variance Request
The first part of this request is for the granting of a variance form the required 10 foot
setback from the west property line for parking curb. As a result of the acquisition by
MnDOT of Parcel 93 the curb along the west boundary of the site does not meet the
10.00 foot setback required by City Ordinance Section 401.15.C(1)(d). The resulting
setbacks to the curb range from one-tenth of a foot to 8.4 feet and are shown on the
Loucks'`Partial Existing Conditions"plan submitted with this request.
The resultant effect of this acquisition is that the curb on the west side of the site does
not meet the required setback. Typically a variance is requested prior to the condition
requiring the variance taking place. On this case the variance is being requested after
the fact for the following reason: the Ordinances of the City of Oak Park Heights do not
contain the provision that automatically grandfather's-in parcels that become non-
conforming due to the action of a condemnation. For that reason we are asking that the
parcel is a legal non-conforming use subsequent to the impact of the condemnation.
Variance condition review—see Exhibit 1.
II. Landscape Features Request
2
The second part of the request relates to the status of the remaining, existing landscape
Matures along the west side of the site. As a result of the MnDOT acquisition of Parcel
93, the reconstruction of Osgood Avenue adjacent to the site, changes were made to
the street, sidewalk and other features on the site and in Osgood Avenue adjoining the
site to the west. We are requesting that the City of Oak Park Heights examine the
'Partial Existing Landscape Conditions"plan submitted with this request and determine
if the remaining landscape features, following the condemnation of Parcel 93, meet the
City's landscape requirements for the site.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan. The property is designated as Commercial on the Proposed
Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. The use of the building for a retail
pharmacy is compatible with this land use designation.
Zoning. The property is zoned B-2 General Business District. The Walgreens Is a
permitted use in the District. A variance is required in that the City, in Section
401.15.F.4.h.17 of the Zoning Ordinance, requires that the curb barrier of the parking lot
be no closer than ten feet to any lot line or right of way line. As a result of the MnDOT
acquisition, the resulting setbacks to the curb range from one-tenth of a foot to 6.4 feet.
Some of the landscaping that was previously on the Walgreen's lot is now part of the
right of way.
A review of the variance criteria for the setback is found as follows:
Setback Variance. Variance criteria are provided In Section 401.04 of the Oak Park
Heights Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission and the City Council should
review the following criteria and conditions to determine if the valance Is justified.
Review Criteria. The Planning Commission and City Council should make a finding of fact that the
proposed action will not:
a. Impair an adequate supply of Tight and air to adjacent property.
b. Unreasonably Increase the congestion In the public street.
c. Have the effect of allowing any district uses prohibited therein, permit a lesser degree of flood
protection than the flood protection elevation for the particular area or permit standards which are
lower than those required by State law.
d. Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety.
e. Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any
way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance.
f. Violate the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan.
g. Violate any of the terms or conditions of Item 5, below.
Conditions for Approval. A variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted unless it can
be demonstrated that:
a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of special conditions and
circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not
applicable to other lands,structures or buildings in the same district.
1) Special cases may Include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an
existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the
property.
3
2) Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not be solely
economic in nature,if a reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of this Tide.
3) Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a result of lot size
or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel.
b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights
commonly enjoyed by other properties In the same district under the terms of this ordinance or
deny the applicant the ability to put the property in question to a reasonable use.
c. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not result from the
actions of the applicant
d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is
denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structure or buildings n the same district under the same
conditions.
e. The request is not a result of non-conforming lands,structures or buildings in the same district.
f. The request is not a use variance.
g. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the intended purpose
of the applicant.
h. The request does not create an Inconvenience to neighboring properties and uses.
The Applicants have requested the variance in that the acquisition by MnDOT has
created a nonconforming setback between the right of way line and the parking lot curb.
When installed, the curb was conforming to the required 10 foot setback. The narrow
setback will not have an impact on neighboring properties; increase the congestion on
the adjacent street, impact public safety, affect property values or conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant did not create this situation; it was by the actions
of MnDOT that the variance is now requested.
Due to the fact that the additional right of way was necessary for the improvements to
Highway 36, and the Applicant did not create the need for the variance, City Staff has
no issues with approving the variance as requested.
Landscaping. The Applicant has provided the existing landscape conditions on the
west and south side of the subject site. Some of the landscape materials on the west
side are now part of the MnDOT right of way. The Applicant Is asking if this affects the
conformity with the landscape requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In that most of
the landscape plantings are still on the Applicants parcel, City Staff does not have an
issue with the current plan. A condition will be added that the Applicant shall be
required to maintain the landscape materials that are currently on the MnDOT right of
way.
Freestanding Sign. The plan indicates that a portion of the existing freestanding sign
is now extending over the right of way line into MnDOT right of way. Section
401.15.G.5.m. requires a five foot setback from the property line for signs. With the
MnDOT acquisition, the sign extends over the line approximately two feet. City Staff
has concluded that the sign can remain as a nonconformity until such time that MnDot
may require It to be removed.
4
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
Upon review of the request for a setback variance from Osgood Avenue related to a
property taking from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and for a landscape
plan review, City Staff would recommend the project with the conditions as follows:
1. The Planning Commission should discuss the request and determine
whether the request for the setback variance is justifiable.
2. The Applicant shall be required to maintain the landscape materials that
were previously on the subject site but are currently on the MnDOT right of
way.
3. The freestanding sign can remain as a nonconformity until such time that
MnDOT requires it to be removed. If the sign is replaced, it shall be
constructed to comply with City Zoning standards.
pc: Julie Hultman
5
EXHIBIT 9
Holmen Office Associates
6061 Osgood Ave., Oak Park Heights, MN
PID No. 33.030.20.44.0020
Narrative of Request to the City of Oak Park Heights
October 22, 2015
We, Holmen Office Associates own the building in the northeast quadrant of Osgood
Avenue and State Trunk Highway (S.T.H.) No. 36. The site is occupied by a Walgreens
Drug store. As a result of the updating of S.T.H. No. 36 the Minnesota Department of
Transportation acquired, in condemnation, a strip of land from our site along its
western side. That parcel taken is known as Parcel 93 as shown on the MnDOT Right
of Way Plat No. 82-120. Prior to the taking the site contained 59,251 square feet or
1.36 acres. After that taking the parcel contains 57,661 square feet or 1.32 acres. The
parcel is currently zoned B-2, General Business.
In order to portray the conditions existing on the site after MnDOT's acquisition a
Partial Existing Conditions survey was performed by Loucks dated October 20& 23,
2015. This survey shows the existing conditions west and southwest of the existing
building.
Loucks has also prepared a Partial Existing Landscape Conditions plan, dated October
20, 2015 showing the existing landscape features along the west and southwest
boundaries.
This request is being made as a result of impact on the site of that acquisition of Parcel
93.This request has two parts:
I. Variance Request
The first part of this request is for the granting of a variance from the required 10
foot setback from the west property line for parking curb. As a result of the
acquisition by MnDOT of Parcel 93 the curb along the west boundary of the site
does not meet the 10.00 foot setback required by City Ordinance Section
401.15.C(1)(d). The resulting setbacks to the curb range from one-tenth of a foot to
6.4 feet and are shown on the Loucks' "Partial Existing Conditions" plan submitted
with this request.
The resultant effect of this acquisition is that the curb on the west side of the site
does not meet the required setback. Typically a variance is requested prior to the
condition requiring the variance taking place. In this case the variance is being
requested after the fact for the following reason: the ordinances of the City of Oak
Park Heights do not contain the provision that automatically grandfather's-in
parcels that become non-conforming due the action of a condemnation. For that
reason we are asking the City for the grant of a variance to the setback in order to
confirm that the parcel is a legal non-conforming use subsequent to the impact of
the condemnation.
Following are the justifications, as we see them,for the grantingof the variance,
listed here in correlation with the variance conditions listed in City Ordinance No.
401.04.A(5). (Italics represent wording from the city ordinance; bold represents our
response):
a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the
existence of
special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure, or
building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures or
buildings in the same district.The unique condition here is that Parcel 93 was
taken by MnDOT after approval and development of the property, causing the
non-conforming setbacks.
1)Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions
or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness,
insufficient area or shape of the property. The special condition here is the
change in the parcel boundary due to the MnDOT taking.
2)Undue hardship caused by the special conditions and circumstances may not
be solely economic in nature, if a reasonable use of the property exists under
the terms of this Title. The variance is being requested in order to affirm that
the reasonable use of the property will be allowed to continue.
•
3)Special conditions and circumstances causing undue hardship shall not be a
result of lot size or building location when the lot qualifies as a buildable parcel.
This request is not related to lot size or building location.
b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district
under the terms of this Ordinance or deny the applicant the ability to put the
property in question to a reasonable use. Denial of the variance request would
make the parking non-conforming and possibly impede future use or sale of the
property.
c. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not
result from the actions of the applicant.The cause of the insufficient parking
setbacks was completely out of the control of the applicant and was due solely
to the unavoidable condemnation by MnDOT.
d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings in
the same district under the same conditions.This condition is unique to this
parcel due to the condemnation which took place after the site development
was approved and constructed.
e. The request is not a result of non-conforming lands, structures or buildings in the
same district. No other lands are involved in this condition. It exists solely
between this parcel and the public right-of-way of Osgood Avenue.
f. The request is not a use variance.This request does not involve a use variance.
It is solely a parking setback variance.
g. The variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the
intended purpose of the applicant.The variance dimensions here represent the
only dimensional request that can be made. The resulting setbacks represent
the condition created by the MnDOT taking which moved the west property
line and its relation to the existing, already constructed parking stalls.
h. The request does not create an inconvenience to neighboring properties and
uses.This variance request will not affect any other properties.The physical
conditions that necessitate this variance are already in existence and are
functioning, in regard to the pedestrian and vehicular traffic in and adjacent to
Osgood Avenue.
• .
IL Landscape Features Request
The second part of the request relates to the status of the remaining, existing
landscape features along the west side of the site. As a result of the MnDOT
acquisition of Parcel 93, and the reconstruction of Osgood Avenue adjacent to the
site, changes were made to the street, sidewalk and other features on the site and
in Osgood Avenue adjoining the site to the west. We are requesting that the City
of Oak Park Heights examine the "Partial Existing Landscape Conditions" plan
submitted with this request and determine if the remaining landscape features,
following the condemnation of Parcel 93, meet the City's landscape requirements
for the site.
Respectfully Submitted,
Holmen Office Associates
. . .
.„
,--- , 1 '.) iiirtlil 41Mili 1 Ili li P'" ,:.• .14 F r esi
4." - *C "31 tii'llilb
•• Jg liP, iliP11111 I 1.— , .,.. •,,,, .., ...„
x... tsi i Ili
- ti ,;ill,
liNie 4
.. P
' 11166°
.,•.= •• - Ihtliiiiii
cv
g 1111
2 ill i
i ill IC
II 1
11111M 1 ig tll . 0 I
k 1 0111 ;gam
I`ei ill
I
2 i 11 / 11111 !II 111 ' E ii 1 E g
MIMI .: - /I 1111 I
4
' if R )•1. ll-,• i
o. il I fill 1
1/1111111: iii h i 1111 '
1101Fee. •o(2) 1 Di *
ilf J .1 1111 1
• s 41
: R
I Ai:3(.01•I'1.7/i..) !::'1 H 9 Eli 1. 21.Z1..1 li'd ...\.V 0
VA^
I 1 !
I i .........a.rws...........4 r g IS
IS W.)
1 1 i
L1 t .— t,g,.."4•7 . - i
'f pl
1 . ___
ts .
I I tet ,i
1 • 1
•:,:. 1 1 12 1 CI _ {
:
-..: I 1 . :2: _ a, • , ' i 1 .f 4,
1 \* : I 13 •'-' . , s .
-4, k.
o
,. .4. .:*.:
............ .4 h, t‘' 71
1 .s'"..- ....*..,.... LI,...---- -..,
----,
---11,--*Ii
1 1 _ ...,
, , .1 t
;.) 1
1 .1 icv 11' 1
r'il, 1 i.1
•:,
L 111 .1 ,.------- - - '",' '","... ' ' .."11? ..- ....
, l L'..."..... isamv!,w141.- m!mi.. 04 " ' ..........-......22.-_1
1 , .
.7----
.. . wino _ I--
_
”ilriet.
--"'"--kr— ..,....,..............-"
..--S-,..._
o ,zr
. ;;.
ents4v I 0E1-i:g '0A; 1 . Id Ail *0 ,..]
pease° 1 .1..•0 1, I ir
1 :1.•
-t s
..........„.._____.-. ... _ r.1:.
Z:)
S.:
.F.
I.
.....6140.0.21.10..516.•MI 4....U.MA(
1
i
•I .
a
•
k E 1�
iZ t ilki`' Y 4 fist :liplini i i; li gmai�i ' o N
O 0 6 s 0 gill 1s diff i Its 1 , , ,. c `+.
1, O v �_ '�) fit`{ R�� , �, 1 a o
C —1 € F 11111 #ii t , ! ��^`''�` " —+V
MI 0114111111 I th
MI IA itilf le .
0',5
yp
Qt q
to
UI __
q ,I II 1 11
FIE Y1 I 1 i ii11 I 2li11 ki
t
! 100 O OXo 00010
di
i
,.g
y aOq ,r..
''' _ 'z..vtlilii 71'' 1
, al •-
a 0 ...v., Au •,
i , ' + ii
1e
!My mew* ,
IL .
O ill_.,,,P'::
of
- '''a uuv
•
t�acc'ec
p�ulololoaZaO•ovallitenT01 e...•ti","'` ,-yw�_ ., „,
mottommemozcoso
... ...1....1....1.1 S
q�
4,ry
,`
i
S
1
mTrxrr�..n' rflw:0.YYikfMNi.� +nO MC:t.-t,:+w.