The URL can be used to link to this page

273635 C�TY CLERK �� FINANCE G I TY O SA I NT PA U L Council DEPARTMENT AVOR File NO• cil Resolution . Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, Prairie Chicken, Inc. applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61.105 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to minimum yard setback and accessways in an Expressway Service District for property located at the southeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Old Hudson Road; and WHEREAS, Following a public hearing with notice to affected property owners the Board of Zoning Appeals by its Resolution No. 8464 adopted July 10, 1979 denied the request for a variance to relax the front, side and rear yard requirements based upon the Board' s finding of fact that: l. The request for variance is not based upon any physical condition of the site other than a self imposed size limitation which would restrict the applicant from meeting the strict require- ments of the Ordinance. 2. Granting the variance which would provide for a new curb cut, could hinder traffic flow and safety conditions on White Bear Avenue. 3. The request for variance appears to be based primarily on a desire for economic gain. 4. Granting the variance based on convenience rather than any undue hardship associated with the characteristics of the site would be a dEtriment to the surrounding neighborhood and to the public good, and would compromise the intent of the Ordinance. WHEREAS, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 64.204 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code Prairie Chicken, Inc. duly filed with COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Butler [n Favor Hozza Hunt Levine __ Against BY Maddox Showalter Tedesco Form Approved by ty ttorney Adopted by Council: Date Certified Passed by Council Secretary �y � By Approved by Mavor: Date ^ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By _ BY C I T V C L ER K ��;��A- FINANCE GITY OF SAINT PAUL Council ;:�� OEPARTMENT ��L� MAVOR File NO. �� '�� Council Resolution Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date the City Clerk its appeal from the determination made by the Board of Zoning Appeals and requested that a hearing be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Board; and WHEREAS, Acting pursuant to Section 64.204 through 64.207 and upon notice to Appellant and other affected property owners, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on August 2, 1979 where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, The Council having heard the statements made and having considered the variance application, the report of staff, the minutes and findings of the Board of Zoning Appeals, does hereby RESOLVE, That the Council of the City of Saint Paul does here- by affirm in all respects the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in this matter and does hereby confirm and ratify the findings made and determined by the said Board; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the appeal of Prairie Chicken, Inc. be and is hereby denied; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Prairie Chicken, Inc. , the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals. , -2- COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays � �r [n Favor Hozza Hunt V' Levine _ _ Agaiast BY — Mad walter Tedesco Form Approved by ity Attom opted by Coun � Date --� Certifie ssed by ci , c�tary BY B � /#pproved by Mavor: Date _ Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By _ BY �s�tEU SEP 8 1979 , . . � . . . �-:.j . . � . - . . . . � . � � . % ^ � - � � . � .} � ' . . - . � . ' , � ��, . c .� ,.M �I -•. • t t� �r:f . .x � I . � , . . . . ' � �. . . - . h,'�� r� � � . � . �� 3� 3 , -�. , . a�' . � �,, � ,� , .�:, } � ' � ' � � '\ � , �. �' ` � August 2, 19'�'9 t , � �;. � I � r Mr. �'� .� ' �rr " City��rl��sy � l�oom 64T, City r3a].]. . . . , 8t. peul, Ni.nti�sota . Dear `Bir: ' , � - The �ity Council tod�y denied the apQeal oP Pre�irie Chfcken, Iac. ' to a decieion qP tbe Board oP Zon1n� A,p�Pea.l� aYfea�i:�8 P�Pe='�Y at i+il�.te Bear atu3 Old Fiudson Road. Nill you pleese prepare the proper resolution iL�nleroenting thig ac�tion? ' Very trul,y yotLra� • , , �os� 1•�tix , ' Ci�•. �1erk . . � , , ABOtl.s ' � oc: � P].a�nir� StaPP, &vnin� Sc3etioa � . , � , , , . � , , , ' . . - . ; , , • , . , , i Z � a4�,T. o�,,r • CITY OF SAINT PAUL � -j DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT . ., 0 � -- .' DIVISION OF PLANNING �° ^c 421 Wabasha Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 ... 612-298-4151 George Latimer Mayor July 26, 1979 r Rose Mix, City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: Re: Zoning File No. 8464 - Prairie Chicken, Inc._ This is in response to the appeal of Prairie Chicken, Inc. for variances pertaining �n: setback and accessway requirements in an ES (Expressway Service District) in order to lease and develop the south half of a vacant gasoline station site on the southeast corner of White Bear and Old Hudson Road for a fast food restaurant operation. At a public hearing held on June 26, 1979 the request for the variances was heard by the St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals. Planning District #1 was represented by its Corr�nunity Organizer, Ms. Toni Baker, who informed the Board that the District 1 Corr�nunity Council had voted unanimously to opp�se granting these variances and sub- mitted a letter ta that effect. Basic concerns were traffic congestion and crowding too many structures� into a small area. Staff recorr�nended denial of the request, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, on a 7 to 0 vote, concurred unanimously. This matter is scheduled to be appealed before a City Council public hearing on August 2, 1979. Sincerely, � � Laurence J. Jung City Planner LJJ/gf Enc. \ `� � \� • �e % i. �\`- • • �"/� d L f�: . � � , q '• � � �i F �' f A P�P1'�`��, 0� �Gh �'P °1. �� o •. , �� c� �' � �� . C! ��°�r O + i' �j• p� '•., •,rij, �p��. � � Qr ��, �. P •'•j ' '•,aL:'•, �o ! �� '� C� c�' ��' . J' f � �s \ 6 �' ! � l�^a,. �` ��>•c,°ay�' '•.�•,':��. � �'°o. t . •' � � �`.� c► �,�` �.�`� P �� `,.� �'.t�� c� aP., �� ¢� , ��` � o . .r` � �� `�4�� `.9��t ° r, l.�' i,L o ' /�o� �� Q��' � t P�'7';,,, �O, �P�J P��• '�f�'. ,. . ►' ' !�� '� 6 p� �(P c'1 •.J'. Z t'�,�. �4: � O 'c'�, N�s ��• '•..9�•. . �� P� N� �. P0� + . . � P '• � � � �•. �l� 9l,�9`O` ��j�:. or� pJl �,�., �`.�o.. �,. , � '��9 GO�F � � ••,j'•,, Q�,. c�jc � •' � P,� �'•, ` �f+ �� ,9 0.�. �' �'�,. P.. a��"' J�� ,' y J9� ` � � ' ;^ . � r O ��pG �yzoi � p � '• ••,d��''•, • s 2 FJ. J�,�.• � 'ti P AQ�? G�" ��'� , �� ,tP ,'.� ��•.� � a�' o � � '',C',f°��'•�, � i�f p o � J. P ' • � . . d ,�� r�. s �� t� � sQ �� '�.,�'', rP Q� ��.,�,'�� '•., �^ q �r��G'••. •.�`�4� ��. � ,�.j0�6 . � '� P'� 'O� �r' "'� `� �� a° ��t .a 6 � @�� o Q y r fc �}� -_ ` /y � �P �� .;, `( � �Py a�0 Jj�G �� •�, \ � 4• � t;� . rp+ ,�, � pr '�' j� ,,'• � ON '.� l�P, ,,�•��' PN � � . • G ,a�'' 4� � �? Q� � r�; r� � ,� � u° ��n • \\;�� , Q�`,� � P� ��'•. .� �tpf '�n ,�\ .� �1 Ot, P„ Z E`' , Y ' � ` , 1 . ! 1 � ci�y af saint paul board of zoning appeals resolution zoning file number $464 date July 10, 7979 WHEREAS, Prairie Chicken, Inc. has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61 .105 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to minimum yard setbacks and accessways in an ES zoning district, and � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing an June 26, 1979 pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203(a) of the Legisl3tive Code, and � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals, based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as reflected in the minutes attached hereto as Exhibit A, made the following findings of fact: . 1 ) The request for variance is not based upon any physical condition of the site other than a self imposed size limitation which would restrict the applicant from meeting the strict requirements� of the Ordinance. 2) Granting the variance, which would provide -fior a netiv curb cut, could hinder traffic flow and safety conditions on White Bear Avenue. 3) The request for variance appears to be based primarily on a desire for economic gain. 4) Granting the variance based on convenience rather than any undue hardship associated with ti�e characteristics of the site would be a de�i•iment to the surrounding neighborhood and to the public good, and wouid compromise the intent of the Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Pau1 Board of Zoning Appeals that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, Chapter 64.206, it denies , _ _ the request to relax the front, side and rear yard area requirements far property � � described in the legal description on the application for variance (Exhibit B) _ and the site plan (Exhibit C) attached hereto. C�OVed b�/� Parrish Decisions of the Board of Zoning Grais Appeals are final 5ubject to appeal seco nded by to the City Council within 30 days in favor � by anyone affected by the decision. against o �...�._.__. ._.. __.�.. , . J ` � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN CITY COUNCIL � CHAMBERS, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JUNE 26, 1979 PRESENT: Mmes. Summers and Morton, Messrs. Parrish, Peterson, Grais, Kirk and Woods of the Bo�rd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Terrance Sullivan, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Richard Amey of the Divi�ion of Housing & Building Code Enforcement; Nts. Fox and Mr. Jung of the Planning Staff. , ABSENT: � The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, the Chairman. PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. (#8464) : An appeal for variance of the minimum setback re- quirements and p�acement of accessways in order to establish and operate a fast food restaurant in an ES �Expressway Service District at the southeast corner of White 8ear and Old Hudson Road. � ' The appellant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Jung showed slides of the site and reviewed his staff report recommending denial of the variance request. . Mr. Robert Hurd, 3323 Ivy Lane, Minneapolis, represented Prairie Chicken, Inc. and said it is a licensee of Church`s Chicken Shups and is beginning construction of Prairie Chicken restaurants in a 7-county area of Minnesota. Mr. Hurd said he assumed it was safe to say that no one, proponents or opponents , was particularly concerned with setback requirements per .se in terms of where .the building sits. He said he would .rather address his remarks to the one or two specific uses of the existing parcel. He said Prairie Chicken wiil lease the amount of groand they have found from past experience to be most useful and necessary for their ease of operation and no more than that, particularly since t�e land runs $6 per sq. ft. He said they pian to change one of the curb cuts for purposes of traffic flow. He then discussed the findings in the staff report, saying �1 and #2 were okay. Re Findings #3: The ES district's intent would be compramised, according to the finding, and Mr. Hurd said this was _not so, but that the ES district is designed for their type of use. He added that Old Hudson Road is not a feeder road. To have �urb� openings 300 ft. from�.the freeway would mean Old Hudson Road would have to be closed, as well as curb cuts of service stations across the street. The existing cut onto White Bear Avenue is 180 ft. from the �reeway ramp and 20 ft. from the intersection and the Traffic Department would rather have curb cuts away from the inter�ection, Mr. Hurd said. Re Finding #4: Adjacen t to the site are gas stations and Winchell 's so there would be no adverse influence of traffic. Re Finding #5: Mr.Hurd claimed this was not a self-created size limitation factor but an economic factor. He said they cannot arbitrarily buy ground they cannot use for $6 per sq. yd, and this is not convenience but purely survival. Re Finding #6: He said this finding proves Old Hudson Road is not a feeder road. Finding #7, he said, was true. Finding #& He said they hope to make a profit, that there is no proof of Prairie Chicken being detirimen�al to surrounding uses and, actually it should penefit everyone. Mr. Hurd continued, saying two buildings could be put on the site and� provide a better tax situation. He said the ES district has arbitrary�setback limitations, and if the Planning Dept. were honest, they would admit thi�s is an inappropriate setback requirement within this ES district and are contemplating asking for removal of these setback requirements because they are inappropriate. Ne said the ES district is designed to be flexible as possible for businesses such as Pra�'rie Chicken. Mr. Hurd then presented a map, pointing out the various uses within the district. He said Taco John had been issued a Special Condition Use and they had split the� land. �5,000 sq. ft. will give Prairie Chicken, Inc. sufficient room to do all they want to do and they cannot a�ford to buy more land. . , f ( , � � PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. MINUTES . PAGE TWO ► Ms.Morton noted that entrance would be on White Bear Avenue and exit on Old Hudson Road. Mr. Hurd said they hoped to utilize the same three curb cuts now existing. Toni Baker, 19 � North Park Drive, representing District 1 Community Council , said a meeting had beenf;held and a vote taken to deny the variance for Erairie Chicken. She said access closer than 300 feet from the freeway ramp and traffic demands of the Ordinance must be upheld. She also said the Zoning Ordinance wa written to protect the neTghborhood from too many structures on too small a space, so she objected to the sideyard variance. She said two structures could not take place without granting two variances and the whole piece of property should be purchased and a viable� business put on it. If no buyer can be found for the property, the price will come down. The traffic volume on White Bear and the proximity of I-94, together with Ramada Inn's proposed expansion and the location of Taco John and Winchell 's to the north and the business at the diagonal corner being tripled all denotes lack of good land use, so District 1 wants the variance denied. There being no further public testimony, Ms. Morton closed the public hearing. Gladys Morton stated that traffic off I-94 onto White 8ear Avenue is extensive during the rush hour and she could not see another business opening up onto White Bear. She said that adding business that would enter and exit on White Sear Avenue would be a little too much. , Ms. Sumners moved denial of the variance request, based on s taff findings 3 thru 8. The motion was seconded by Mr. Woods and passed on a 7 to 0 roil call vote. Submitted by: Approved by: �uM�KGL �" . Laurence J. Jung Gladys Morton, Chairman � � /1�'!'L7� 111U1\ rur��vn.uRaa VIIY��avi. •.+t .■av.. . , � _,:�_, CITY OF SAI� PAUL .S(e•3��'. � • - ZONING BOARD 6 /� 7 � A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER {O t , SECTION L��Ai�A�A�H�'S IS REQUESTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POWERS VESTED IN THE ZONING 80ARD TO PERMIT.THE��S��r��s. O��- /��Sl�v-�.id�.�' _ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. . A. Applieant; NAME: �t b.ri..t/ G��ck�L �.-h-G.- ,�,�># �� w� .. ADDRESS a2 �33 If�/.G O 1�l�' 14"'v /�'f,�,�S-.3.� 'S�� ' ;+5.' ��IR�d6 �� 8�y a��j �� 1. Property interest of applicant: (owner, coniroet purehaser, efc.) ��,�'` Co�.f.�...t tcs r.� .��;;i i ; 2. Name of owner (if diffe►enr) ��L -r��r`�� B. Property Description; A!DDR�S� �D�,Ro�� sO"�{' /�[ �� r�~'`t �!a�� j✓.str j✓�If<Wa�7 0� � �.�.�� T�/sy pf' A�y�i�'�+�^ p� 'r�fl iS - �0�+.+}zf vf�.�1+�1 -, l. Lego( description: LOT BLOCK ADD. � Z. Lot s�Ze: ��,•,.� / ;Joa� j�dp'X � 93 /��r,.�) ! 3. Prossnt Use �L�+�"i �'^" �`��'Prosent Zoning Dist. C S C. Reasons for Requast: 1. Proposed use t , Sr1Gt.r��y ��-S�u��-i.�-a.T _ � 2. What characteristics of the property prevent its being used for arty of the permitted uses in your zone? �Kws�� /`��Ow ��r �o� �,L ZOtG ��. tccsss �a t�.. r..►p-� i..� �. tc.� �.,.•,1�:� vf co. 3t3t1J f S �i if'�natf;6�� S.��.c.. t✓i��,.Tr i s o.E /� Jf?v �t w..�.G._ n 3� ow do the obove sife eonditions prevent ony reasonable use.of your property under 4he terms of the Zoning Ordinanee? . ,tot :s Ioo ' wi:,t�. Ord.��...�.� r..7a....�,� /SO� �f . ' S.�J�y.-..(s r'�. �►.•..( ..kd F-m�.t y...l rs1..,,t 7s �.�.�,/�. 00 ' 4 STate the specific vcriation �equested, giving distances whero approprioTe. yr�i..aat p� .'!2; �io�. �E"-sf..... Ts�'L /e/` /��K L �✓ari.aa�.C. •f �7, fs��► 1 w/�sr�o.� Si�� Lr r' /i1 t . r,�......� •< /3 � �ie�. iP..k. [..t /�i c. C �P�l.s�f.a� �.o...:.��t �Explci.n how your case eonforms to each of the followirrg: �f 4d. S�3�b� ; �'r.o' That the striet application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result � " y � in peeuliar or exceptional proetical diffieulties, or exceptional undue hardships. ��` r��# � �,t/pA:,ly� �Ii�.✓ti..�' �tl�/�..�.��L. Af L�► �.�� O�G f4t t►Orii� '�f r... t � ��j7` , s�.• ' {,N �' /t�'� .i fiAG1�' 4GbLSt �� TAs. �p�a,�„�� s3�� :'•f . d� ��,�� • That ths granting of avariance ASHIERS USE ONLY 1��t? � `will not be o substantial detri- /� � �ment to �the publie good or a I�S�+ ' ';�4� � substantial impairment of the (J � � ` � a intent ond .purpose of the � �} Zoning Ordinance. � � �• . S s" f - ' . - / - �t Signaturo T [ Cas� Number Date Reeeived ,._ _,- .._..-_ - �:-- ..__ . , -,... _ City Clerk �, CITY OF ST. PAUL DFPARTMENT O� FINANCE �iND MANAGfMENT S�RViCES � � ASSESSMEfVT DiVI510N 773 CITY HAIL 5T.PAUL,MINNESOTA 55702 July 13, 1979 Fi1e X2319 Page � 2oning File 8464 � The Council of the City of St. Paul will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and Court House (third floor) at � 10:00 a.m. on August 2, 1979 on the: Appeal of Prairie Chicken, Inc. to a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals relative to property located at the southeast corner of White Bear Avenue and Old Hudson Road, being legally described as the south � of Registered Land Survey ��254. If you would like further information about this hearing, contact the Current Planning Section of the Planning Board, Room 1202 City Hall Annex 298-4154. WhiTe the City Cnarter requires that we notify you of the hearing, we want to help you to learn fully about any improvement that could affect you or your cotuminity. Therefore, I sincerely hope you can attend this hearing, so that you can make your views about it known to the City Council, whether for or against. J. WILLIAM DOI30VAN VALUATION AND ASSESSMENT ENGINEER � � . � , . - . . ' . . � �. . . . . . . . ./ . � . � � .. . � . �� !.;,. _ � . . . � � . . . � . � , . , ..� _.� . _ . _ ' . . � � � • � � � . ' . � . � . . � ' . � � . . ' . . . . . ' / . . . . � . � . . i . � , � .. , � . J�► 3� r979 � ' . � � � , � � �� Mr. Aernard Carlson , � Dir_�-eator, Finanee & Mana;;ement $ertrice� �Room 113, City Iiall . 5t. Paul, Minnesota � � , Dear Sirt _ The City Couneil set a date of hearing for Au�ust 2, 1979 to eonsider tha apgeal qf �Prairie Chicken I��c, to a deciaion of � the Board oP Zonin; Appeals af�ectin� pxoperty at White Bear . Avenue and Old Hudson Rd. Will y^��z please Send notices to 4 prbperty o�ners as required by law? ' � � . , Very truly yours, � Pose Mix . , � , City Clerk � ' ABO s l'a ; � c�s Planain� 9taf`t, Zoning S�ection , Building Dept. , � . , . • , ( , ..� � � � � � �� i`� � �rc � T� . 1 -`r °�.�.r'Y�,�,W,��"%�"��r ��q':��+�"'v"aa 5a >+' � a y � a �.� �. •a.�-�`�. z��a a a ��n t•�. .k _ . ��*i�.!��> �� .°#� �d +w c� „ u`�� +r�� - ,� � '�� a,t„- er :.�� > w�vw �w,-A 'c''S'^:. . 1W'�.�e"�y., 4 3`'' � .& � ♦ j�l�� 4i if,S � Y .:aia �� 0.r� t �� _ ' "` ` � �� M. aa .a'� t < ^�a. �' F,�. ; �� # sF w Y.�. wa �c f s-.�+"�-� � � � � � � R 4 { �ah� � ��.?�.. .w� �� w-��. �,° *��,� t4 A � ,� �� ' �hx� ta, ;+x �'-' -.r r. �k= tM l� ;. Ft.,2J� �. , `°� Y' . '�C' � ,� 5 +f.�z a5,�"+ ,# ; ,, . t ....� u„ , ._� ' .. - � � ` .o-. �, x � .#"!� ' _ ' °�:r� �v r ,h F `s� � a�"Ai .� - . 'z..:' �`S'. � �� '"' �.� M� �a.. �z} t'e � ?a.,� t_. €� ��A . . � w ,� ,�°o �;,. , a.,�:� . , _, �- . ,i , i,� ; _., .. ,.. .,. .. . . .. .,. .. �� .F�,-. . . ;6 i . .. . ,�. ., ' ' _�. ': '. .� � _ ;.-.. . .. .. .,. . - ...�. . .:.. � . ::• � � i.T. ; ..c -s �� 2"`�'�'' y _ _. _ � M- 'L+' N }.; � .4 � .. � � '. . � t'.. � Y� .. . �'r ��"�'� +3''E � � T � x�,Y� �':«� ,� �.T _- �'3, 4`4i.... „!�-� i = ' • K, . }F - �� '' �'�l��4.�4 �m��j �^��f ti3 :Y' . ... za� . s � : :: ,.� .c;.. ,.. '�r La'�' � �� _ . � � � z r„ ' � -' :� ��z„ '�w`',� � �I lli!'iq4 u ��'�� ta �:M' . ^ 4 1'i� r{�.� � C� i .:.. g . e'. .e .. �g ��4 �c. . . - Y.: '#. ��-! ,F �s. ' .R' . " .. �,.':e'... � - <.:w - � .' . '��.� � ' ':.� . :, � .. �( � � � �� _ „ee } � � � � � '.:. �._' ,z. - .�t r „r�, m -: �3� 3 ,'� .�.*r�. � ?+��, � j,� � �: , "�* .. . ,. . � � < .w . �y ,e� . : -,�-. �' a� ��;� L �:'*`�' ��.��a��'-�t�.�� -.� . . � ��: "'.�;°�• - a.•-:� � �` ,� r�:' ��"�`� ��r. . ^c`�""%� � ,. . `r . ��.. : . , � . �iy� � i . `•�a ��i'iiN` ,�ii�-E• � . ��q� -_ i:� .'R -�� C�- tt' �y� '�'" �-s� � ,� 't A Y�.Ntt�:3 g. �} _ _ � , ._ " . x . a � � �." ��= ' A. � .h� .".... . 'x_ " �F . :y i � �- '- ....` . ��._ . �. �` s � . � «. ,... �'_-.- .. ,�_.r, � ._ ,ak� : , � ; Y= ~� � ' „� � '�� , :�R� '� � �� .�.x.'�., �� 7fv74R� - _ `�} v� ,t ,.� .'°Y ��'�r� �,,:tY y� :,r 4`` fr to-: -'�}' ,_ - - .._ < ,- :: . • .-� .;_ �� ..,,,, �"'�x- .i � � 4.``� `��w��5°�`^`�'. , : � . �, - '^_��. � �, � "� � i`_ ` � ��.,A- � � � ��y.:�'R - _ _ �. .'�j, �, 3 3y. TMY ' � � ' :#.� �) �� 3 � µ4 .YSp,g 4?c'- a�+n,.� �e�.E E i .e.'3".; # � . � _, t � � � ��.�g�� s �� a��. � •1 � �� 'swf � ` �t� , � x �$�. 1�3�!9- � � '�" �r � ' ��. ; x � �� " � �� .� } � �c$�� '� ��Q tt?l'! '�l�et�;��A�� i� . � .� � tiy �. '°��'� \ y�g�7�� ` "��' sw w� ..rtt �aa.^<i . ,. .c . .� VY/<i ♦ � . �^ ` _ ' � \ .� � � �- � � ... i' � � � �� - 3 �w. �� . � � '"�..," " �' - � '� ei � 9 ° �' �. e.w1` :x a, .,.4�e 3 T' s,�� ._. .. . . T � rr.'i�„�±f y�^� a�::li�� i F .. y. Y � �� . pr ' � ' $_' W'%a� �4 _ ,y ��a` � �- .. . ' �,� -� a . . '�'� . . .:,�. �, , << �. .- r^�.M �"e;�. '� 1 �s+' � w�.;;.. �£ ,. � � ':_ . ''�` � -kq°ais '�'''�� A ; � � �� y- � _ . � � �- "� �'�`g�.. K" ;£ - . a�h, t^'.`_ '4 r F� 'EC'�Py .'r„T, - . {�� T'� �i . .�c. . � y �''�H"ri,7`8 __ # . . . �. , -4 n � � i4 �i'_ i`FS�� :d'k �L! :� � h ae i •^K�`$ � H � 1M a .. ,. :' . ., , .' . ;r.,� .. i,t :.. � .. ' r ;.,. - �'.'�S �l`�+t .`ta -.! ,�. , y b ` �_ - `ys. �' . _ �-� ... �'yr n_ .. .:� i. .-. ,. _- , ,... .�. ,.,., R, . . .. . . � �� ' -. . " , '� . ' .� :s. ,..� ..�� -: .. ; '- � . . � .�'�. .rr,R��> _ �,x,.<�� w: r .q'aat" "�,'�" 4 t�� - �r"`' r y,�:�o .� � ^�. •,s . �. „: -� �. � . ;`� k ;.�� . �.e.., .�. ry�.., +�� `.,%� y'¢r �.. 4'k � _ �a ^`a "a ,4 .��.r"r" � `C. '�� . �� Ys-ir 's„' . `�" �' �t "y� � �. ��+E r " �: �s. ,.� F � r f/ �: � �- a4 ?� �� , � 'v.. 'x',. . i s_ri. - d , v'� YF � � _..d}.a,� t� YL`.^ - . . . K�q�� 4 "4 Y^ � +'�^ � ° i>+4MF �� { 'rt . �a!:k�� s 5..�6: xfl �'�JLq,.Y F .-. ^�X "�c v` *X 7 34 '�. � �.S '� �s' ' _ r � .a � - � �� ~�� 1 �� F .� ` `4 .. -- _ _.�`c� 3+fia� � `�-X.2F'" . � �Fr 1*�{}� � . .. Y.�� .. � LL��"'�` . �� — . '. , �� R �� 4 � �,�y F�� ' . . � - 4'`r' s+ . a�, i`MF 'x an :.:F�`s� "` e z � v. � "i � •v�� u"'v `y ,� :f' IC �.r� �4�'4{ s _ � . :�� ,, ., � _ ,�^, i.r�' :+:� b' y �' 9+ auT,2 'Ky. Ay. M' '4\ -> 'a .,.:I" !".`J' -t _ �` 'g Y§Y :. Y\ � w�. '+ � �' `z ' -�' ""�'d x r �� } ',� '��- �'��`_�s , _ ; ; ,,. .. � " '�' :, >,�. ' :g ` �. ` �"`�# 4. :� .' , .� - `"�: :.+ ;: , .. ,�� ,r�a � ,�;. � �.. . :, .- _)_ ,- ; _, �:. ,. . - . .,,, . �� , '., - .. ;.�.- ' �� - . . "'� � � ' � ' � �'� "_°:� _ ,_, , . . . . > ,.. , . - . ' .. . . . ,�, . � , ._`�:. s . �..:,, _. ,rd°`s+. x` M�' '�-- V w�4�,T� o, '' CITY OF SAINT PAUL � � DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT o n � � -""� 1 DIVISION OF PLANNING < - . J' ^e 42'i Wabasha Street,Sai�t Paul,Minnewta,55102 ... 612-298-41 1 George Latimer Mayor July 26, 1979 Rose Mix, City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minn. 5510� Dear Madam: Re: Zoning File No. 8464 - Prairie Chicken, Inc. This is in response to the appeal of Prairie Chicken, Inc. for variances pertaining �o setback and accessway requirements in an ES (Expressway Service District) in order to lease �nd develop the south half of a vacant gasoline station site on the southeast corner of White Bear and Old Hudson Road for a fast food restaurant operation. At a public hearing held on June 26, 1979 the request for the variances was heard by the St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals. Planning District #1 was represented by its Community Organizer, Ms. Toni Baker, who informed the Board that the District 1 Corr�nunity Council had voted unanimously to oppose granting these variances and sub- mitted a letter to that effect. Basic concerns were traffic congestion and crowding too many structures into a small area. Staff recommended denial of the request, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, on a 7 to 0 vote, concurred unanimous]y. This matter is scheduled to be appealed before a City Council public hearing on August 2, 1979. Sincerely, � Laurence J. Jung City Planner LJJ/gf Enc. . ♦ � - � � , �s :� ., ,� . . �� , � ., r�� - p �••, ` � �i t f A p�p�,;;, o�,•.O>�� s,l . o •. , �� c� s� �- �P� , �j. s�o� � q � d>i� ° ,z . .'�,>C'��.`L �' ° � p�' �. >• '�e �'f„ � �•.�L'•, v ! a � c� � c� �' • I� � � �� 6 '• • ,, ;•. � o �''•.,v�.. �� . l��•, �n` /'J>. .dy�'•.. '•..r .,.�/�•. � °o. �'••.�� '��`�P�'•• �'��,�y,� lQ�, �i �'V4 ��'.,�N� J �'', f� O� , �f` "'0,��4�`� r `�� .. �.�� °� �� o��. �P♦t'II� �ro, �P�+ c��L'� J��'•. . `��':� '� a Q' �CA �°� .>.. a'. � P •, � � ., p� ' ,,,N '�s ,°a '•..9'•• �• �} P � �• P0� "G � ' O`, �� PP,' + . �� 1'9�°� °r,� `�.��.. �- �� . `o`��..�`�..,, 1 y� • P '• '�j��s�°�� ,r�� ,`j j °�,o (orc p��'•, � �P'•., , �%i�c1 �'a9�`• '•:1`.f'•. y 9� o ` ••..o P `' ''•� � � •. .o��G�r�y Q��il .� � �,` `d�••, �. P�•�, fJ. �� J T'•4�1 -� �' �•�.P o� L G�: '�q � Q' '�J �p o�, �'•, ?� #+ ��, a f �.�p ' m o � �, ,•. ,� ,�C� o o �� .��.P •. � b �' ,��C`- r�. s � r,f?', t'�' �° S`� �to�,, `. e�� p� � ,`��'., .P ,�� ,O,'. . P,y� -9� �r '�G�'•,. ., P � L l�• �� P� •'��L '`;'•�� ?`! �O � ;1 � .a 6 � °�� o�, y �. �f '•,l �� +i .� �� S ` �� pr. � ;'~ \ �� y .�\^� ') r�!'� y,' o�O.e � P \ � �, ,rdQ'•, .�� '?ft �r,�� , � � �`S ?z '�C�� r Q}' • N Pt,PN �P'. •� , �P. r� '•,ti � '•� ,�t 01, P i / . � ' � .t� � � ' s � � city of saint pau� board of zoning appeals resolution zoning file number 8464 _ date July 10, 1979 WHEREAS, Prairie Chicken, Inc. has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61 .105 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to minimum yard setbacks and accessways in an ES zoning district, and - W�iEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on June 26, 1979 pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.203(a) of the Legislative Code, and � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals, based upon evidence presented at the public hearing, as reflected in the minutes attached hereto as Exhibit A, made the fallowing findings of fact: . 1 } The request for variance is not based upon any physical condition of the site other than a self imposed siz� limitation which would restrict the applicant from meeting the strtct requirements� of the Ordinance. 2) Granting the variance, which would provideYfor a new curb cut,. could hinder traffic fiow and safety conditions on White Bear Avenue. 3) The request for variance appears to be based primarily on a desire for economic gain. 4) Granting the variance based on convenience rather than any undue hardship associ ated wi th ti�e characteri s1:i cs of the si tE woul� be a de�r•iment to the surrounding neighborhood and to the public good, and would compromise the intent of the Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, Chapter 64.206, it denies ,r__ _ _ the request to relax the front, side and rear yard area requirements for property described in the legal description on the application for variance (Exhibit B} _ and tfie site plan (Exhibit C) attached hereto. m OVed by Parrish Decisions of the Board of Zoning Grais Appeals are final subject to appeal seco n d ed by � to the City Council within 30 days in favor � by anyone affected by the decision. against o .__._ _ .._--.--__ ____.Y__._._._.__._. _.___._. ___.,.__._______.�..�..._.______._ �.�_�_._._._.._.__-- -..--.r...._._, � MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE �BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN CITY COUNCIL . CHAMBERS, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JUNE 26, 1979 PRESENT: Mmes. Summers and Morton, Messrs . Parrish, Peterson, Grais, Kirk and Woods of the Bo�rd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Terrance Sullivan, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Rich�rd Amey of the DiviSion of Howsing & Building Code Enforcement; Ms. Fox and Mr. Jung of the Planning Staff. . ABSENT: Q The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, the Chairman. PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. (#8464) : An appeal for variance of the minimum setback re- quirements and placement of accessways in order to establish and operate a fast food restaurant in an ES �Expressway Service District at the southeast corner of White Bear and Old Hudson Road. � ' The appellant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Jung shawed slides of the site and reviewed his staff report recommending denial of the variance request. Mr. Robert Hurd, 3323 Ivy Lane, Minneapolis, represented Prairie Chicken, Inc. and said it is a licensee ofi Church's Chicken Shops and is beginning construction of Prairie Chicken restaurants in a 7-county area of Minnesota. Mr. Hurd said he assumed it was safe to say that no one, proponents or opponents , was particularly concerned with setback requirements per .se in terms of where .the building sits. He said he would .rather address his remarks to the one or two specific uses of the existing parcel. He said Prairie Chicken will lease the amount of groand they have found from past experience to be most useful and necessary for their ease of operation and no more than that, particularly since the land runs $6 per sq. ft. He said they plan to change one of the curb cuts for purposes of traffic flow. Ne then discussed the findings in the staff report, saying �1 and #2 were okay. Re Findings #3: The ES district's intent would be compromised, according to the finding, and Mr. Hurd said this was not so, but that the ES district is designed for their type of use. Ne added that Old Hudson Road is not a feeder road. To have curb� openings 300 ft. from:the freeway would mean Old Hudson Road would have to be closed, as well as curb cuts of service stations across the street. The exis ting cut onto White Bear Avenue is 180 ft. from the �reeway ramp and 20 ft. from the intersection and the Traffic Department would rather have curb cuts away from the intereection, Mr. Hurd said. Re Finding #4: Adjacent to the site are gas stations and Winchell 's so there would be no adverse influence of traffic. Re Finding #5: Mr.Hurd claimed this was not a self-created size limitation factor but an economic factor. He said they cannot arbitrarily buy ground they cannot use for $6 per sq. yd, and this is not convenience but purely survival. Re Finding #6: He said this finding proves Old Hudson Road is not a feeder road. Finding #7, he said, was true. Finding #& He said they hope to make a profit, that there is no proof of Prairie Chicken being det'rimental to surrounding uses and, actually it should penefit everyone. Mr. Hurd continued, sa�ying two buildings could be put on the site and� provide a better tax situation. He said the ES district has arbitrary�setback limitations, and if the Planning Dept. were honest, they would admit this �s an inappropriate setback requirement within this ES district and are contemplating asking for removal of these setback requirements because th�y are inappropriate. He said the ES district is designed to be flexible as possible for businesses such as Praa'rie Chicken. Mr. Hurd then presented a map, pointing out the various uses within the district. He said Taco John had been issued a Special Condition Use and they had split the land. 15,000 sq. ft. will give Prairie Chicken, Inc. sufficient room to do all tbey want to do and they cannot a�ford to buy more land. • ' r .. 1 . . PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. MINUTES PAGE TWO � Ms.Morton noted that entrance would be on White Bear Avenue and exit on Old Hudson Road. Mr. Hurd said they hoped to utilize the same three curb cuts now existing. Toni Baker, 19 � North Park Drive, representing District 1 Community Council, said a meeting had beenr�held and a vote taken ta deny the variance for Erairie Chicken. She said access closer than 300 feet from the freeway ramp and traffic demands of the Ordinance must be upheld. She also said the Zoning Ordinance wa written to protect the neTghborhood from too many structures on too small a space, so she objected to the sideyard variance. She said two structures could not take place without granting two variances and the whole piece of property should be purchased and a viable� business put on it. If no buyer can be found for the property, the price will come down. The traffic volume on White Bear and the proximity of I-94, together with Ramada Inn's proposed expansion and the location of Taco John and Winchell 's to the north and the business at the diagonal corner being tripled all denotes lack of good land use, so District 1 wants the variance denied. There being no further public testimony, Ms. Morton closed the public hearing. Gladys Morton stated that trafific off I-94 onto White Bear Avenue is extensive during the rush hour and she could not see another business opening up onto White Bear. She said that adding business that would enter and exit on White Bear Avenue would be a little too much. . . Ms. Sumners moved denial of the variance request, based on ,staff findings 3 thru 8. The motion was seconded by Mr. Woods and passed on a 7 to 0 roll call vote. Submitted by: Approved by: �� "�" � Laurence J. Jung Gladys Morton, Chairman i J �� 3�� .� � � �� ''`, � v • � �'l P �.• r��t� '�� s :.:.� , A Q'? `� o� �'4�' � �J .S Q'�'�P � , CJ'�°�r ��c•�'�i r. dy o 'Z ••lif C��p�e, a � P�. ��, � P�•.r�•. .,,t1•'•. � � � . 4��'. !�t (� "tr ��, f• J" � �° . . /1 ` c. O ��'.V�'. �� r �c�6 . ��• +ay��•, J ��} � ��iy e� � '.V�� r �''�, •�9�� P �i P ' � � .��"��'. ��`t, � f�• � �� . J ..,� N�'.,,Q,�� r r�,•. o � �� o �� Q•. . � �'•, •.. ��y��'• ?��:. ,?�P'J ��G . . J�i9 . ` �;� 6 � �� P� .J 1 ��,�i�a �, �' � �S � , .,�•, q'� � • p A P •' �' �,.. "�. P�. � ,. � a,•. •, . . •� j,'��jD �� '�.'.. Pr��Of)�N`' ,'•�'• . / P � � � �� • '. O �.� . �ji'Py��.°GQc�` � .9 .;Jj, °�r �1� �'•• � ��., �t`=. �ih 9�t+�` `,�`.f'••., �P '9G o � '•,o P., �C� �ii O�s -L� N a'` `,s, p.` I v�, �li �Z� �y p � �,�• .,�,h`�. n 2j, �J +� +� 't � ' �'� `•. o� L G�. 'I,� 'F P� J •.�p 9�. '• ?� �+ �o � f •.�p� '• � �. ��.;. 4 �.��J •,/�.? . � r "!� I p. •' . 6��,� � ss '•. '�L�•. •, 7" •. �' a°'1, SjO '••, �� `i,`• _ _ � � �'r��O o� q��, �� JG ' . � � • �J,O�� +�a` .`M� jr f �� Jf �"��r � y � `�-f '•,l r � c O�P �iS � � Z '•:� . �Pa `�� '>� .,� �� s; °r� 'y � p. 1� � r��P ,'�, O�O�n , � �Ql� 4�� . � �,• �N ,�\`\�C� � 4`"', � :� pN ��', � . �lQr! ,' � :ti � .,� '\� o� Q� s ��,. . j • � . , � , �' " � , � city of saint paul � board of zoning appeais resolution �oning file number 846� - - �aie Julv 10, 1979 WHEREAS, Prairie Chicken, Inc. has applied for a variance from the strict application of the provisions of Section 61 .105 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code pertaining to minimum yard setbacks and accessways in an ES zoning district, and - W7iEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a public hearing on June 26, 1979 pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements af Section 64.203(a) of the Legislative Code, and � WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Board of Zoning Appeals, based upon evidence present�d � at the pubiic hearing, as ref7ected in the minutes attached hereto as ExhTbit A, made the following findings of fact: _ 1) The request for variance is not based upon any physicai condition af the site other than a self imposed size limitation which would restrict the applicant from meeting the stricL rnquirements of the Ordinance. 2) Granting the variance, which would provide >for a new curb cut,- could hinder traffic flow and safety conditions on White Bear Avenue. 3) The request for variance appears to be based primarily on a desire far _ economic gain. 4) Granting the variance based on convenience rather than any undue hardship associated with tl�e characteristics of the site would be a de�►�iment to the surrounding neighborhood and to the public good, and wauld compramise the intent of the Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul B�ard of Zaning Appeals that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, Chapter 64.206, it denies the request to relax the front, side and rear yard area requirements for propertjr�� described in the legal description on the application for variance (Exhibit 8� _ and t�he site plan (Exhibit C) attached hereto. I�OVed ��/� Parrish Decisions of the Board of Zoning Grais Appeals are final subject to appeaT seco n d ed b� to the City Council within 30 days in favor � by anyone affected by the decision. agains# � _ ._ .._ _ .---..__.__r_ ._---V__..___._._. _------ ---__.________ �_.� _ -----_-_..�...., . � Y .,� � � . . ' MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE �BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS IN CITY COUNCIL - � CHAN�ERS, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JUNE 26, 1979 � PRESENT: Mmes. Summers and Morton, Messrs . Parrish, Peterson, Grais, Kirk and Woods of the Bo�rd of Zoning Appeals; Mr. Terrance Sullivan, Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Richard Amey of the DiviSion of Housing & Building Code Enforcement; Ms. Fox and Mr. Jung of the Planning Staff. � ' _ ABSENT: 1� The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, the Chairman. PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. (#8464) : An appeal for variance of the minimum setback re- quirements and pfacement� accessways in order to esta6lish and operate a fast food restaurant in an ES �Expressway Service District at the snutheas t corner of White Bear and Old Hudson Road. � ' The appellant was present. There was opposition present at the hearing. Mr. Jung shawed slides of the site and reviewed his staff report recarmiending denial of the variance request. - Mr. Robert Hurd, 3323 Ivy Lane, Minneapolis, represented Prairie Chicken, Inc. and said it is a licensee of Church's Chicken Shbps and is beginning construction of Prairie Chicken restaurants in a 7-county area of Minnesota. Mr. Hurd said he �ssumed it was safe to say that no one, proponents or opponents , was particularly concerned with setback requirements per .se in terms of where the building sits. He said he wAUld .rather address his remarks to the one or two specific uses of the , existing parcel. He said Prairie Chicken will lease the amount af groand they have found from past experience to be most useful and� necessary for their ease of operation and no more than that, pa"rticularly since the land runs $6 per sq. ft. He said they plan to change one of the curb cuts for purposes of traffic flow. He then discussed the findings in the staff report, sa,ying #1 and #2 were okay. Re Findings #3: The ES district's intent would be compromised, aecording to the finding, and Mr. Hurd said this was not so, but that the ES district is designed for their type of use. He added that Old Hudson Road is �not a feeder ra�d. To have curb� openings 300 ft. from�.the freeway would mean Old Hudson Road would have to be closed, as well as curb cuts of service stations across the street. The existing cut onto M[hite Bear Avenue is 180 ft. from the �reeway ramp and 20 ft. from the intersection and the Traffic Department would rather have curb cuts away from the inter�ection, Mr. Hurd said. Re Finding #4: Adjacent to the site are gas stations and Winchell 's so there would be no adverse influence of traffic. Re Finding #5: Mr.Hurd claimed this was not a self-created size limitation factar but an econamic factor. He said they cannot arbitrarily buy ground they cannot use for $6 per sq. yd, and this is not convenience but purely survival. Re Finding #6: He said this finding proves . Old Hudson Road is not a feeder road. Finding #7, he said, was true. Finding #& He said they hope to make a profit, that there is no proof of Prairie Chicken being det'rimental to surrounding uses and, actually .it should penefit everyone. Mr. Hurd continued, saying two buildings could be put on the site and� provide a better tax situation. He said the ES district has arbitrary�5etback limitations, and if the Planning Dept. were honest, they would admit thfs is an inappropriate setback requirement within this ES district and are contemplating asking for removal of these setback requirements because they are inappropriate. He said th� ES district is designed to be flexible as possible for businesses such as Praacie Chicken. Mr. Hurd then presented a map, pointing out the various uses within the district. He said Taco John had been issued a Special Condition Use and they had split the land. �5,000 sq. ft. will give Prairie Chicken, Inc. sufficient room to do ail tbey want to do and they cannot a�ford to buy more land. . � . � .: � , . PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. MINUTES PAGE T4�t0 ` � Ms:Morton noted that entrance would be on White Bear Avenue and exit on Old Hudson Road. Mr. Hurd said they hoped to :�tilize the same three curb cuts now existing. Toni Baker, 19 � North Park Drive, representing District 1 Community Council , said a meeting had beeni;held and a vote taken to deny the variance for Erairie Chicken. She said access cioser than 300 feet from the freeway ramp and traffic demands of the Ordinance must be upheid. She also said the Zoning Ordinance wa written to protect the neTghborhaod fram too many structures on too small a space, so she objected to the sideyard variance. She said two structures could not take place without granting two variances and the whole piece of property should be purchased and a viable� business put on it. If na buyer can be found for the property, the price will come down. The traffic volume on White Bear and the proximity of I-94, together with Ramada Inn's proposed expansion and the location of Taco John and Winchell 's to the north and the business at the diagonal corner being tripled all denotes iack of �ood land use, so District 1 wants the variance denied. There being no further public testimony, Ms. Morton closed the public hearing. Gladys Morton stated that traffic off I-94 onto White Bear Avenue is extensive during the rush hour and she could not see another business opening up onto White Bear. She said that adding business that would enter and exit on Whit� Bear Avenue would be a little too much. . Nls. Surrmers moved denial of the variance request, based on._staff findings 3 thru 8. The motion was seconded by Mr. Woods and passed on a 7 to 0 roll ca11 vote. Submitted by: Approved by: �� . � Laurence J. Jung Gladys Morton, Chairman i , �p/STR/CT COMMUN/TY COUNC/L � dune 26, 1979 � � : . N ' District 1 Community Counci! E f989 North Park Drive St. Paul, Minnesota 55119 739-588i City of St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals 25 We9t Fovrth St. St. Paul, Mn. 55102 Dear Boasd Members: The Diatric� 1 Community Council voted unanimou.sly against the granting of variances to Prairie Chicken, Inc. at the Southeast Corner of White Bear and Old Hudson Rd. The St. Paul Zoning Ordinance (60.563) states that there should be no accesaway closer than 300 �eet from the exit ramp of a freeway. We ��el the traffic at thia intersection demands that the ordinance be upheld. This curb cut must be denied and if aossible, the existing curb cut ehould be closed - thereby limiting access to Old Hudson Rd. We are also opposed to the location o� any business on the site which requires side and rear yard �variances. �'he zoning ordin.ance was written to protect neighborhoods from the crowding of toa many structures into too small a space. Our hope for this corner is for the eatablishment of one buainess. We realize that it can be legally subdivided but we question whether construction can take place without the granting of variances. The owners o� the paxcel ha.ve got to realize that the size and loeation o� the lot probably preclude the construction and aafa operation o� more thaa one business on the site. As you make yovr decision today, please keep in. mind this particular cor�ter, the traf�ic volumne on White Beax Ave. , and the prox3.mity of I-94. Other factors we believe you should be aware of include:Ramada Inn expansion directly to the East of this parcel; the dual location of both Taco John's and Winchell�s across the street to the North, and Super America�e intention to triple the size of their operation on the diagon.a.l corner. Plea.se help us to insure good laad use of this corner by refusing,� these variaaces. Stnce ely � � ..C�-��'( Will am Dorgaa, President Dis riCt 1 COm��r�'t� COUnCil � ... _._. __ _.� __........._.,._........_.._.,..�.__�_,_ ___._ ._,_�.....,....,.._.�_.�....,�....,,.��._.._.._..__,....._�._..�. ....��.....,...,w,.. A�r� (� �Vn �'1.11S�iV17.1��7 YRYII�AIIVG 1N� .RVG , � . .;;,yv^��;,;,a:,. . . � � :., ;,r.r:.:«_. . .. . _ . . . .. � ' '"' r CITY OF SAINT PAUL , ZONING 80ARD �I SG.3 � ,a�N�-S A VARIANCE OF ZONIN.G CODE CHAPTER , SECTION l��AF�A� 15 "REQUESTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POWERS VESTED IN'THE ZONING BOARD TO PERMIT:THE�3�S¢�•'#�'�. ��6- I�eS��.��1' ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. � . A. Applieant; NAME: �t 4.r/..C/ G�Ic��'� 1-n.<.- ,�� /�1 �S..S.S y� ��s* 02 fS3S �� o Ilct-A�� /11 ` ,� ADDRE55 #'�� d� ,��.d ��y-��» ,�� 1. Prop�rty interest of opplico�t: (owner, controct purchaser, etc.) �� Gp h�r�.a.lf' �„Gs LL :�� i� 2. Nam� of owner (if differont) Q�4` 7xF�.�/��l... F! � — B. Propsrty O�scription; ADDR 55 ,�,�o S��- �� mf _�•�-t R,a�s SEts�►.scrw4:fc!'S�r+.r� O� K�"�s° � ri�`33'� f%l..: oF r?y,st.�..- pf Ti t/as - CO..a�,�f ��+�+.1°� � t. Legal dexcription: LOT BLOCK ADD. ' e9 ,.,.� /y 300� l I dn'K t 93 � ,,.,�) 2. Lot size• �0 �T— ' i 3. Pres�nt Use Y��'� 'r"" �"�im'Prosent Zoning Dist. C S , C. Reaio�s for Requast: . 1. Proposed uss //. y�/� .. .. ��L�+��/�•Z� n�'<l�LLi�/f� ..-- . . . . 1 • l . _. w . . ; -:,:-.-.�, � .__ . � . 2. What eharacteristics of the prope�ty prevent its being used for cr�y of the permitted uses in your zone? �Kw��,wl//� /�/,o,��ow /�'t �•� �L ZokG tccs.ss !�� tc.. r...,�.�r �.�..1,�, fw.... p.,�.j,:,� oF to, sc3��t.� !t s h�t'��Ss�6�s 5.,.�.c. �o�9r,.Tr i s ot !7 /Do Ft sr.:/� 3 How do the above site conditions prevent any reasona6le use-of your property under the t�rms of the Zoning Ordinancs? _ '�o fi i s !Oo ' ��i:�l�. Qrd...•c��.c v'�s.�,.s,t /S O��f . � „(S� r<►. �►.•.� a+.� f�s�t t/....� r.�...-a 7S ��,�t► � � Sicls-}/.�� 4 S"tate the specific variation requested, giving distances where appropriate. y�.ii..��t, �� 1?; �.o�. �E'�t��.:. ti.f�. /o ir' l.��a,t �y�<r�.ac�.e. •f M7, f►r.� 1�firio.� Si.lt Lr t' /��ot . - 9r.e.,:...� •� /3 � �rm� If�ak. L.f /qi:L ,_ /pi,1.s��ia� 'riorrs�s�t,G �Explain how your case eonforms to eaeh of the fotlowidg: •f Go= .f�.�r6J - �..a� Thot the strict applicotion of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinonce would redult { . " in peeuliar or exeeptionol practical diffieulties, w exeeptional undue hordshipsJ. = 1Z�,��if � • p,�;/�[ �/r�-�+w�' �A�tlt,rr�f�a. Of L4 �r.�� 5. ��t rofir� � � . � .. � O'l /L��Y./ s TIl d! J. �6�/O�N�y�. � : � � ��.'� �. 4oaLSS, 7 � , ti � . f �� f �#{��: � That the gronting of avorianes ASHIERS USE ONLY t� �;�: +� . will not be a substantial detri-: - } �>q�:�� meM Yo 'the puP lic good or a �� e • : � substantial im airmsnt of the �.� M1 � intent an d ..purpose- o f t he �¢ Zoning Ordinanee. � '� ' • " �` t , . ! _ I � - � Signature T � Case Numbec Dots Received — �_.�_..._ - -�.�... - � .,_.....`...._....,...._.......P..�....._.._.....�,.....,......�..-,-_�..._..�.-..._..c .,,.._,..�_..,_..»... .. .. .�.._.....�,..,�..z.,,,_.�� -- . �r -. _.... . . ._ .. . �. . � _ __ . . . .. .� .. _ _ . .... . _ ._ . . . � _ . _. .� _.._a ' \ ,, . 46 • � ZONIN� -S�AFF REPORT � . .. • � N 1 . APPLICANT: PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. DATE OF HEARING June 26, 1979 r 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COM�4ITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ezoning ❑ Variance � Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other ❑ Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: Southeast corner White Bear and Old Huason Road 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: South 1/2 of Tract A, RLS #254 files of Register of Title - 5. PRESENT ZONING: ES ZONING CODE REFEREPdCE: 60.563, 61 .105 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 6�18�79 gy Laurence J. Jung -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. PURPOSE: Applicant is requesting a variance of the minimum setback requirements and placement of accessways in order to establish and operate a fast food restaurant in an ES Expressway Service District. . B. FRONTAGE & AREA: The subject site would occupy the south half of the above described property. Frontage on White Bear is about 110 ft. and is 193 ft. deep for a total area of 21 ,230 sq. ft., less than a half acre. C. SITE/AREA CONDITIONS: The entire site is occupied by a former Standard station. A large paved area surrounds the vacant brick building and all pumps have been remuved. Grass areas forming a planting barrier surround the paved areas; large evergreens are situated on the south side to separate the property from I-94 and the westbound off-ramp. The statian had three accesses (one off White Bear near Old Hudson Road intersection, now blocked off, and two off Old Hudson Road) . Terrain is fairly level but slopes to the north, east and south. The property is about 5 ft. above the vacant Highland Chalet Motel to the east, now part of the Ramada Inn property. Gasoline service stations are situation on the southwest and northwes.t corner of Old Hudson Road and White Bear Avenue and the site on the northeast corner is a vacant gas station as well.. Winchell ' s Donut Shop is situated just north of this site. Single family residences are to the north and multiple family development is to the northeast across Old Hudson Road. White Bear is a feeder road handling very heavy volumes of traffic in this vicinity since full access to and from I-94 is just south. It is currently four lanes with no parking any time posted on either side. Old Hudson Road also carries large traffic volumes since it functions as a frontage road in both directions. 1'he White Bear-Old Hudson Road intersection as well as White Bear and I-94 ramps are con- trolled by traffic signals. D. VARIANCE: Under Section 61.105 of the Ordinance, 75 foot setbacks are required from buildings in all directions in an ES district. Section 60.563 also places restrictions on where accessways may be located. The restrictions are that no accessways shall be located closer than 300 ft. from where a ramp merges with the feeder road (White �ear Avenue is considered the feeder road in this instance). The variance request is to relax the set- back requirements on the north, east and south sides from 75 ft. to 30, 62, and 53 feet respectively and to open a new accessway onto White Bear Avenue approximately 90 feet north of the westbound ramp and White Bear Avenue interchange. � E. FIN DINGS: 1. Applicant wishes to p�a�°�tras�-e only the south half of the subject site in order to operate a fast food establishment of limited size. 22 parking spaces would be provided on-site which would meet the requirements forf this type and size of use. /c c�(d� 2. Applicant indicates that the �b�se price for the entire site would be prohibitive for his needs. 3. Although the proposed half acre site is of sufficient size to accommodate the needs of the applicant, it appears the intent of the ES district would be compromised. The faur basic and special reasons for establish�ng an ES district are: 1 ) to serve the needs of automobile highway traffic at interchange areas , 2) to avoid undue congestion on feeder roads , 3) to promote smooth traffic flow at interchange areas, and 4) to protect adjacent properties in other zones from adverse �nfluences of traffic. 4. The Schedule of Regulations does not require any minimum lot size or frontage in an ES district. To meet the setback restrictions , however, the minimum dimensions of the site to acco►mn�date the proposed development would be 179.5 ft. by 201 ft. The entire parcel would conform to these dimensional requirements, A variance to reopen the one accessway - � • ..� _ , � . PRAIRIE CHICKEN, IPJC. STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO f. FINDINGS (continued) onto White Bear (approximately 180 feet from the ramp intersection) would have to be granted though. 5. Aside from the self-created size limitation factor, there are no physical conditions of the site that would make it unique and thus be a basis for justifying subdivision in order to accommodate the proposed development. The resulting hardship would be self-inflicted and for convenience sake rather than any undue hardship associated with the characteristics of the site. 6. ADT volumes on White Bear south of Old Hudson Road now exceed 20,000. Adding a new curb cut closer than the required 300 foot distance could seriously impact con- gestion and safety factors in the area. 7. The request for variance appears to be based mainly on a desire for economic gain. 8. Granting of the variance based on the above findings would be a substantial detriment to surrounding uses and to the public good. F. STAFF RECOP�IMENDATIONS: Based on Findings 3 thru 8, Staff recommends denial of the variance request. � � ;� ;:�,�. <� , :.;>. . � �. . . .. . �w. . . . � � . - . . .. ��':�2_ � . . . �- . . . . . � � � .. �._ � � . .. � . . � . . .. . - Y..� . . . � . »"^��,^' :�1 . . .. � .. . t e1�T.< _ . '�2. . . � . . � � . � ' � " � �� . . � . . . . �. . . . . . •... ....'. , D/STR/CT COMMUN/TY � COUNC/L June 26, 1979 �� ' N j District 1 Community Counci! E 1989 North Park Drive St. Paul, Minnesota 55119 739-5881 City of St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals ' 25 West Fourth St. ►�ti e PCL�.� �• �J 1 02 _ . _ Dear Board Members: The District 1 Communit� Council voted unanimously against the �rantin.g of variances to Prairie Chicken, Inc. at the Southeast Corner oY White Bear and Old Hudson Rd.. The St. Paul Zoning Ordinance (60.563) states that there should be no accessway closer than 300 �eet from the egit ramp o� a freeway. We �eel the tra.ffic at thi9 intersection demands that the ordinance be upheld. This curb cut must be denied and if possible, �the existing curb cut should be elosed - thereby limiting access to Old Hudson Rd. We are alao opposed to the location o� any business on the site which requires side and rear yard variances. The zoning ordinance was written to protect neighborhoods from the crowding of too many structures into too small a space. Our hope for this corner ia for the establishment of one business. We realize tha.t it ca.n be legally subdivided but we question whether construction ca,n take place without the granting o� varianceso The owners of the pascel have �ot to realize that the size and location o� the lot probably preclude the construction and safe operation o� more than one business on the site. As you make your decisioa today, please keep in. mind this particular corner, the traf�ic volumne on White Bear Ave. , and the proximity of I-94. Other �actors we believe you should be aware o� include;Ramada Inn expaasion directly to the East of this parcel; the dual location of both Taco John's and Winchell's across the street to the North, and Super America�s intention to triple the size of their operation on the dia�onal corner. Please help us to insure good laad use of this corner by refusing ; these variancea. Siace ely � � ...�-�1 Will am Dorgan, President Dis rict 1 Communit3r Council _ . _ _. _ _ . . . >�:a : i � - - --- . a . I � . � � ;. _..__. , � _. ._ t . � .. � . ' � � � . .. . . ' . ' . . . . . . a ``�� _ ' . I . 1 . f i ;! - 1 1 1 "s �e " � �,. y � ' i : _ , � -;-� � . � � � _ � f � i ; i • _ - � + , i _ ,— . . 'i �� } ' - ,� . x ! + .� • : � � . f+ { � 1 � / i � 4 . � '� � � �Q �� . .,� � - u� �J �. �T . ; ; � _ . - .T " - � `- .. _ . . . ' . � . . � - _ Y� . . � . . ' � � - . . . .� �' .. _ . -yJ - . . � , � . . . � ' ' ., . . .�. � •'� . .Z . . � • t • � . . � � __ _ ' . . � •. ! ' :��'�. �� !� . 1� ( - � r � �� D 1�� 1�T �1�� L--� �'� � �;��:� t..r �� L � � . . . ,r � � . � � : - . �1. . . � . � � � . � , . I - _ _ �-- � _ , J` . . , . . ." . .. � . � � � . . � ;... �•.. . • . . � ''.•� � . . ;. . . . , . . . . �' � ....- E .. .�. � � . . " . . . � . . . . n��,, i ' '�C � . � ,4 � • , . . p� . w; : : : : . : . , � . • . -- J�� : : Cn .. . - " � � - - _ . . . i -t.- ,. , � - • f � � • , . ' : � � ! � , � _ ` � ' 1 i �. '� � ' � � � � ; � . . _ _ ; . .__. ..�.._.----. . . . . ._ __ . --- •—,.�-�.>�.: -:._ . . _. - Zo H�� i/r �S�G y , � �t��f � . ��+ i �'e 13�r�r 4 � . � . . . � . . .. � . . � �� . . . � � . . . . � � .� , , . . . . . , ... __. ,, .... _.__. .,. . _ . ,,,.,.. _ • ._ _;;�x:_., , . . ,. . �. . r , y„ , _ __. . , . ,� _ - . . ..r .. � � . . . . . . . . .._..� _ . . . . .- - . � � . . � . � `_.. .. � . - .. . � . _ . . .. . �•.;.�,� .. ,.�,,,�:� _ . . � . . , -- , :,. , .___,... . .. � __ ___ , _ , _ , r--. � ,... _. ...� � � '. . . i < f,;�t I i , /,:�t,4 t.. , .J I rX�:....;-. �n ( _. ._� �_ _ � �• � - ___ . .._._ _. .... ..__..�. (� I� �� _ iI � . �: , i; , !I s. ' i� � . r � � � . ry� � - � . . : i t . . '-t/-��'_ --.��_..�_..T�.�y'��..?�� _.._.�..��..�._ . � . . . . . � " � .. ' . , � �' � . .. �{ - � � - . . . . � l . -.. . . , . ..� � .. . . - . -.� ' ,�, � . �� . � � ( . �-� .. .. __ ±__ �._._ -_;�_ ' i-_��I .. . +~� . . � � � . . . . .. . .. � . -j�•�� '�.) . , i . . .. � . . � .� .� , � : ,� ; � .,� ; i ;� --------� . �;. j �, � .j , - � -1 ' • ^ • �. J , ��. � � � ' ,I 5 � � j t _ .il�::i�G;�� ' � .. � . � . � - � �-- - � _ `� � " iHi �GFy � i 3 � f ` 7�.��1�%ti':i ,�� --- T -� G `. ' . � `.,�� t - � i :�� : , � , . ; , � ;. . ,� � .._� . . �� o .. _ ,i � �: � �— �, _ � a �` �. > ' � : i ' �:' , �- . �i , i , � y�� . I ;! �---} _ ._ � � , ! : _ ._ _ ;: - � . � ; . � _ � '( � . . . 3 .i � �1. . ;� _ ; �—;—�. ._ ____._ �T..1 • . . • ` . I, j � t�' � I ,.L' .,c 4. S � , ` t ' _ � � ! � _ ! — . I � • - i _ c�' i. ' �' 2S� {, � : i1 �. __ _ __ _ . j : -- - .__. _ --- ._ _...�. 'i . - : � � _ if �? . ` i; ' . - f� � ^ � � - � {! i ` , - . :: . �Y . � �� - �, ,r �, . �} � �� : , , , � " ; � � � f .� ;� . ( 1 ; i ; ,r , ,'�_ __�! ji , � ' �f T. I ! ; i+ j I � ,, � . . �; K " ' � w_a.,,._ �,. _�. ,. . „ _ . , ;:,, , �,...:. •u-... _.. . . _ :. _ , . _ ;--- . .,.-_ . . ,. < . �_. . , . , . .., ;. ...,, .,�,._,.. : . w�,f�t �Pwr . , . . . __ _ _ . Z -•�--�-- �'�.L� 2 , � ..rr�H/N' �/'�� C�/ L,/ � . �. .O o �� o o ! o � oio � � � � � � � � . .., w .. . _.. o ! � ' � � � . ; `� �"� �'�E' � , O � v . ; { , O � �p Ij0 i0 � O O O O O O O O O , � ST . � o o ° o � oo 00000000 0 o v o °--- -- - - --- --- 1 O Q � � � Q � � � O Q 0 � � � � VV��.SON AVE. � � c� oT � o 0 0 0 ' o00000 0 , � o � - _ -_ �c � � iil d � � i ' v + i i � ♦ I � � O �3-------- )L-1- - - Z� - --- � � -�-T- - - J --� �R � � � � � � o � ' � i �v -- � � m i2 ' � ♦G �t� ,Hu�sdn� R� � _ _ i � �G O t Q ; � • H • v R�}MAj�A � � ' a � _ ��" - - ► � f"'8� _ _ - - - - - - - - � . _ . � � � �R � , , � - _.. — — a R •H Y . � ---�--P-- --.,�`�V`' � ! i , ,�, -� 0 � T�l R ET� , ?�� `�,.�` ,. R � ;� � � � i ~ s .�� n _ _ f4 � '�.:� , .. . , v � . -� AREA MAP APPLICANT PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. LEGEND — — ZONtNG DISTRiCT 80UNDARY Variance for restaurant �Ll//a SUBJECT PROPERTY PURPOSE O O N E FA M i LY PLANNiNG DISTRICT 8464 ¢ TWO FA�VIILY ' FILE N0. � DATE 6-26-79 ��' � MULTIPLE FAMILY . • � n COMMERCIAI. SCA�E � i" = 200� NORTH � � �"� �NDUSTRIAL , nnaP nro. � „� ,. , ,,-. - �3 _ _ .... ,_.. � _ _ ... _._� _. �.._ .. �.... _ �� Y............� . _ , 46 � ZONIN�r -STAFF REPORT � . . . , • " � 1 . APRLICANT: PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. DATE OF HEARING June 26, 1979 � � 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ezoning ❑ Variance � Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other ❑ Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: Southeast corner White Bear and Old Huason Road 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: South 1/2 of Tract A, RLS #254 files of Register of Title 5. PRESENT ZONING: ES ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 60.563, 61 .105 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 6�18�79 gy Laurence J. Jung A. PURPOSE: Applicant is requesting a variance of the minimum setback requirements and placement of accessways in order to establish and operate a fast food restaurant in an ES Expressway Service District. . B. FRONTAGE & AREA: The subject site would occupy the south half of the above described property. Frontage on White Bear is about 110 ft. and is 193 ft. deep for a total area of 21 ,230 sq. ft., less than a half acre. C. SITE/AREA CONDITIONS: The entire site is occupied by a former Standard station. A large paved area surrounds the vacant brick building and all pumps have been removed. Grass areas forming a planting barrier surround the paved areas; large evergreens are situated on the south side to separate the property from I�94 and the westbound off-ramp. The station had three accesses (one off White Bear near Old Hudson Road intersection, now blocked off, and two off Old Hudson Road) . Terrain is fairly level but slopes to the north, east and south. The property is about 5 ft. above the vacant Highland Chalet Motel to the east, now part of the Ramada Inn property. Gasoline service stations are situation on the southwest and northwest corner of Old Hudson Road and White Bear Avenue and the site on the northeast corner is a vacant gas station as well.. Winchell 's Donut Shop is situated just north of this site. Single family residences are to the north and multiple family development is to the northeast across Old Hudson Road. White Bear is a feeder road handling very heavy volumes of traffic in this vicinity since full access to and from I-94 is just sauth. It is currently four lanes with no parking any time posted on either side. Old Hudson Road also carries large traffic volumes since it functions as a frontage road in both directions. The White Bear-Uld Hudson Road intersection as well as White Bear and I-94 ramps are con- trolled by traffic signals. D. VARIANCE: Under Section 61.105 of the Ordinance, 75 foot setbacks are required from buildings in all directions in an ES district. Section 60.563 also places restrictions on where accessways may be located. The restrictions are that no accessways shall be located closer than 300 ft. from where a ramp merges with the feeder road (White Bear Avenue is considered the feeder road in this instance). The variance request is to relax the set- back requirements on the north, east and south sides from 75 ft. to 30, 62, and 53 feet respectively and to open a new accessway onto White Bear Avenue approximately 90 feet north of the westbound ramp and White Bear Avenue interchange. E. FINDINGS: 1. Applicant wishes to �only the south half of the subject site in order to operate a fast food establishment of limited size. 22 parking spaces would be provided on-site which would meet the requirements for this type and size of use. /P�C� � 2. Applicant indicates that the p�=s#�se price for the entire site would be prohibitive for his needs. 3. Although the proposed half acre site is of sufficient size to accommodate the needs of the applicant, it appears the intent of the ES district would be compromised. The four basic and special reasons for establishi.r�g an ES district are: 1 ) to serve the needs of automobile highway traffic at interchange areas , 2) to avoid undue congestion on feeder roads , 3) to promote smooth traffic flow at interchange areas, and 4) to protect adjacent properties in other zones from as�verse in'�luences of traffic. 4. The Schedule of Regulations does not require any minimum lot size or frontage in an ES district. To meet the setback restrictions , however, the minimum dimensions of the site to accommodate the proposed development would be 179.5 ft. by 201 ft. The entire parcel wouid conform to these dimensional requirements. A variance to reopen the one accessway _ _ . , � f!. . � . . - � . PRAIRfE CHICKEN, INC. STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO E. FINDINGS (continued) onto t,lhite Bear (approximately 180 feet from the ramp intersection) would have to be granted though. 5. Aside from the self-created size limitation factor, there are no physical conditions of the site that would make it unique and thus be a basis for justifying subdivision in order to accommodate the proposed development. The resulting hardship would be self-inflicted and for convenience sake rather than any undue hardship associated with the characteristics of the site. 6. ADT volumes on White Bear south of Old Hudson Road now exceed 20,000. Adding a new curb cut closer than the required 300 foot distance could seriously impact con- gestion and safety factors in the area. 7. The request for variance appears to be based mainly on a desire for economic gain. 8. Granting of the variance based on the above findings would be a substantial detriment to surrounding uses and to the public good. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on Findings 3 thru 8, Staff recorrenends denial of the variance request. : . , ... -:�_.. : D/STR/CT COMMUN/TY ' COUNC/L June 26, 1979 �� O !�� • N � District 1 Community Council E 1989 North Park D�i ve St. Paul, Minnesota 55119 739-5881 City of St. Paul Board of Zoning Appeals 25 West Fourth St. St. Paul, Mn. 55�02 Dear Board Members: 2he District 1 Community Council voted unanimously against the granting of variances to Prairie Chicken, Inc. at the Southeast Corner o� White Bear and Old Hudson Rd. The St. Paul Zoning� O�diriance (60.563) states that there shonld be no accessway closer thari 300 �eet from the exit ramp of a freeway. We feel the tra.ffic at this intersection demands that the ordinance be upheld. This curb cut mu�t be denied and if possible, �the existing curb cut should be closed - thereby limiting acceas to Old Hudson Rd. We are also opposed to the location oi any business on the site which requires side and rear yard varianees. The zoning ordinance was v�rritten to protect neighborhoods from the crowding of too man.y structures into too small a space. Our hope for this corner ia for the establishment of one business. We realize that it can be legally subdivided but we question whether construction can take place without the granting o� variances, The owners o� the parcel have got to realize that the size an.d location of the lot probably preclude the construction and safe operation of more than one buainess on the site. As you make your deaision today, please keep in mind this particular corner, the traffic volumne on White Bear Ave., and the proximity of I-94. Other factors we believe you should be aware o� include:Ramada Inn egpansion directly to the East of this parcel; the dual location of both Taco John's and Winchell's across the street to the North, an.d Super America's intention to triple the size of their operation on the diagonal corner. Please help us to insure good land use of this corner by refusia�,; these variances. S�nce ely , � .�a.'�'( Will am Dorgan, President D1s rict 1 COm*m�n�ty Cout�cil Hrru4 ►� i�n rurip..vn.u�u v�«+u■.,�..�.. ..,� .....� ..�.-'�. ,�;',_ • . ' �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL _ ZONING BOARD �o SG3 �,,, b - : A VARIANCE OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER �O1 , SECTION��ARA6RA'PH�'S IS REQUESTED IN CONFORMITY WITH THE POWERS VESTED IN THE ZONING BOARD TO PERMIT THELa�t�'�.-�.R. o{d- 1�sS�ua..�.=�' ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW. A. Applieant; NAME: �/"4.ri..[/ ��IIa�Cs�.. „L,.h.G� �+`. :l,� ,�j�:`_,.x ADDRESS e2 �S3S /�/.� olfcf-Ar� /�'I�r�S.SS '`�� `:li �4' k�dG ,yuvd 87�7777 ;��_� 1. Proparty interest of applieont: (owner, eontroct purchaser, etc.) ,�� GO ti��.� �.Gs t-` !1 3:;� •t ! .. � � 2. Nome of owner (if differont) Q��L 7-��,Y`D� FJ �,.t t i� �f ��.,�t�r a�s B. Property Description; ADDR S$ K�o��p� s - ! 5�,,,C[ps t/'W�i�� O l� ��.�� :t.3� �i/a! o� �y i sfi�.i � rj f�iy � �Q'n� �Fi..tl� . _ 1. Lsgol description: LOT BLOCK AD0. n /' i 2. Lot size: i�T�d/�io� `y�s3�a � ( f d�'X � �3 �/T �� 3. Prosent Use ��+�"� � ��'Prosent Zoning Dist. C � � C. Rea3ons for Request: 1. Proposed vse , Sp,��;,1 y ��-s��..fwf- :� 2. What charaeteristics of the property prevent its being used for arty of the permitted uses in your zone? u��s�wl j/r �/��o w /i r �� .�. Zg"�L <<�csss i�a tu. p...,�...�y �..�,T.�, t,�. r.,..,J�:� d� co. 3c3�i� l�s A,f�psss;b�� s,. �� 'r,.Tr ;s o4 !y �t�o �t�...;./.,c,._ 3� How do tha obove site conditions prevent a�y reasonable use.of your property under �. the terms of fhe Zoning Ordinanee? . ;Lot :s /oo ' w.:,lx Ord...c..s•4 r...�s+...s,f !S[7� •f � ` Sr�l c�/r�..�s� 1'c... �rs-..� a ti.� f�m�.t t/.,.� r'.�....c 7S ty.�. , � 4 S'tate the spscific variation requestsd, giving distanees where appropriote. � ti�'L /o�` /i�ti� rr��:.�.c. pt �?; t.m�.. �F'�s1�..�. �✓L��at..�t. •1�' y7, fsr*► .t..F�r�o... Si.�� Lr r /it t . , 9vt.a.�:..�<. �< /3 � �i�.. Ra�.� �.f I+i.c, s �P../.s�f.a�.. P.o...i�a�c �Explair� how your case conforms to each of the followirfg: O f GO, .SL,�jb) �-.a i That the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would rosult ,;,� in pseu lior or exceptiona l prac tica l di f ficu l ties, or ex c e p t i o�a l u n d u s h a r d s M i p s. r',�r�� ' " s-i ' �+7 . ��r� r's-✓�w.�' C✓Ltf�w.��t Of I-y� �.��iLq O�. 1��t �O�+ir� `.� '� ! ..�.� �,�(. ��..rw� s f..e.t �c�.ess 7', fA��.o,..,.ty : i�� . �^.� . . .• � f ��. � � . 7hat the granting of avariance «r�+i�� will not be a substantial detri- ASHIERS USE ONLY ,�� }�' � � � ��:� jmenf to the public good or a ' '' : � substantial impairment of the � �� 4 � intent ond purposr of the � , Zoning Ordinonce. � � � . . S s' j� � - / -- ► ; Signature T 1 Case Number Date Received _.. _ _— :_..._.._�..�.�.._..._.�..Y.......,,_�.,...,.�-- .__,_... ._ _..-�.._t,_-,. , _.,.>.�.. ,. .:� . ,._,. ,.._ _. ., .. . �. _ . ,,.�, . ._ .._ . . . . _, ., __ .:.r., _._ _ ; ,,_�,, _._ , ..... .,,, _ � _ � i - - -..._ .. 3 � ! � � 1 i � tj _ _ . . _. _ � � � � � � - f, ' � # � ' . , i t - ' _ --c -�, •� �, i , � _� { � . : � p � _ . � . . . . .. .. . - .. . ' . _ � � .. � �. / � / . . . � . . � .. . . �.... . .� . . � , . � . . � .. � � � � . � . • . � f . - . . .:' 3 . ,� l� � ' : -� - �� . . ' . � � � '�- _ - I ' � _ �' i '- , : 3 r �-- T� � � �� _ . _ _ .� � 1,,. �1 �. _ . , �; p - . . _ . . . . . . _ . - . . - . a . ` . _ .. ,� ., _. . , .. . ,. _.... . F _ . , , . , � . � ; - i � :�� ' ' i`� t } - � �� r �� L� Q� �➢ �� i� 10T �1�.� ��`� �" ��' � . _ � ,�.y.� � �.� - (``�`�- � i . , � . ; � � _ - � : �-.1...`.r � � . _ � � ; , + _ . � - : . 1 ` - :: ... � ,_, - . . _ _ � _� � . . � , � . � , � . _ - _�; . . � . . �, _ ; �_---i : r � - _ . , � : . - . � Cn � : � - . ` �. . . . � _ , : . . _ . � ; � . " . � � . , : � . ; �' _ ' ' � ,� t . ( O i ( I. � ' ._. . ,, ._ _..,_..:�,-. . , ,..,_ , . _ �.4,.,_. . ,. ',' -" ` _ ... +F1 ��..«.:o.L:� . . .. . . ,.,: _. . .-.:. . . "��. ...�..��.�.. .. . ...��,.S.u'.:• _ '.. . .. .. . . . ,:...��ba. a:�r:�..... ...... . .--.. � ' �i/� �YG y � �T �H'� � . t St'�r � t ti � e /3��,� . � . ... .,,.. ., �, ,.. .. . . ., .,, , , , � . . , _� �- . ..r . _ �''_ . __ __.� .. _...��. . - '� .: , � � . .; . .,-:.;.�r• , , ;�.��r= - � i . ._. _ � ._ _ _ --- – . __ ___- , __...._ . ._ _. -- , , _ . �. .. --- �1 _ _ `_r __ . � , t�:; I i ; �'��'- :.t' - J � t�?'...:.T. :+� _ �-i- .... _ �_ ..._ � (. 1._.�.___ � . .. _ . ._.,. .. ._ -- . ' �� i� ( � . . . ' �i , . . . � ' fi . .L • . . _ , _j . � � . '� i �i �� .--y____ _.__.._.-------`��,_.�_ --- - ----�- �� : -. �} , �==—. + . •�- , , , ---------------� . �' ;-- —., . - ; --��+ -rt � , �a�_ r ` if � . . � ! _ - �' � � ; ; �I �---------.-� � �. ., : , _ � , . �� , ; •.; - _, � s' I + � •, 5 _ , i s - : I �'' . ( ; t _ .;t��;-i'� - - . f { . = � � ' '-- ,k;�`�,y - i � I � _ � � l 7 J�'ltii;;:r ,;��- � � : � � _:� :r ; � r.,- , � } � � .r. .� . - � -� . � � _ ; : s ; �. . ;� � �. �, ., ---- � — ,r ,� �� !� � � � �. _ _ �; a :j = �. > � � `� ', r �� y• j 7 : . . � i' .1 � . , ,. . . . . . . . •� jA 1 � ! . ' i'' �__i .- � .' . . j 7 ' .. � . ^ . . . . . . 3. � _ .... _ . .. .. . _ . _ . . .- . . . . . . .. � L � v �-�, � . � � � �Y_ . • �_ .r.l . ' � . . �. ' � � _ ._ . - . . �� . . .. ". ' ! 1�' �, ,.`-^ '.. , ' - I} � � , �, 4, S . � � j � � � , � _ i , ;� : � i _ f U. � � � . . � � � ::.f- . � � , ► ,I 2� � { 1. ..._._ . - -- .. _ .,_ � �'� , ..._ _ _... ._ ...__L. � . :. i� . . , ; , .. � �� I4 �� 'p _ • '. !, � . . j� � �� _ ; n - �� - . } � �: � _ . , � � - � � � �� , ( � I ► , , , (.: , < < < �� , : -_- _ _ � i . � ,, ` �`� � ` : , �j T, i ; ; j� � .,�;.;� ! _ _�'' � � � � . , ..;..�.. .... - �...��... -� , _ _ . � �.�.. .- - �.� ..: . �- �,, ,. , - - -�•. , .. _ _ s...�, . ...;:.: -. ._�,;.,._ . w��l'�t' �P� x. .. . _ . _ _ . , � z. ."�..—�-- S'l..L� ,2 �oH�.�� F��/P �cfi c/ " . �` ��ip p � p � p � p � v � v � u v � , .,: � .. , ,-, , � � i � � ' � �"JlF' ' � F ! j . ' ' -.. � O . ,i o v ' O �C j0 i O � O O O O O O O O O , � ST , � O 0 o � oo 00000000 ° p ° v : 4 �__ — - - --- ---- I O O 000 Q O 00 � p O 00 O O � W�[.so� AVE. � . � o � � o 000 ' ooa000 0 � � o �- _ --_ �r � �- � � a o -o- ' v � i i 0 ♦ I � � O -4------- )L-�-- - - Q _ � O � -�-7- - - � __i •R I I I � I � i i � f �V ' _ � � � 12 ' �►G � �t� �u,osd�' R�D � _ � � �, �G <� -r v i i � + V R�Ma° A I � � � - � N .' - i i �MB� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - � i �A � . _ i , i � 1 �� •H Y , �...� � " i ___._-.-_, .�;� �-_ _ � _* �. , . �_. � � TIt R ET� ! �, R . � ,�i� Ei�'�'Y � ', � �� . . � ,, � ;� � � ��, '- , �/. � � AREA MAP APPLICANT PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. LEGEND -- — ZONING DtSTRICT BOUNDARY Variance for restaurant �� SUBJECT PROPERTY PURPOSE O ONE FAMILY PLANNING � DISTRICT 8464 TWO FAM{LY t FILE N0. � � ' 6-26-79 �' � MULTIPLE FAMILY DATE . ♦ n COMMERCIAL SCALE = 1" = 200' NORTH � � � �NDUSTRIAL MAP N0. , „� ,. , .,_ � � �3 . �� ' �,t, o, CITY OF SAINT PAUL '' ��` '�� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT • �, 0 : ::� ,� DIVISION OF PLANNING �� ^c 421 Wabasha Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota,55102 ... 612-298-4151 George L�timer Mayw �� - ;.� �j,�� E�....-:,1 t..� tf i,� . ��,�y 2�, �s�9 'J U�. 3 r� 1979 C� i � r�� K��'Y Rose Mix, City Clerk 386 City Hall St. Paul , Minn. 55102 Dear Madam: Re: Zoning File No. 8464 - Prairie Chicken, Inc. This is in response to the appeal of Prairie Chicken, Inc. for variances pertai�►ing t� setback and accessway requirements in an ES (Expressway Service District) in order to lease and develop the south half of a vacant gasaline station site on the southeast corner of White Bear and Old Hudson Road for a fast food restaurant operation. At a public hearing held on June 26, 1979 the request for the variances was heard by � the St. Paul Board of Zon9ng Appeals. Planning District #1 was represented by its Corr�nunity Organizer, Ms. Toni Baker, who informed the Board that the District 1 Community Council had voted unanimously to oppose granting these variances and sub- mitted a letter to that effect. Basic concerns were traffic congestion and crowding � too many structures� into a small area. Staff recommended deniat af the reques�, and the Board of Zoning Appeals, on a 7 to 0 vote, concurred unanimously. This matter is scheduled to be appealed before a City Council public hearing on August 2, �979. Sincerely, U Laurence J. Jung City Planner WJ/gf Enc. _ _ ._ ._.. . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ � .a __ ., . _. . _.�w ,......._._ _..._..._ ___.._..._._ . ...�..� . � � 8 64 � ZONIN,�-Si'AFF REPORT � , • � ry 1 . APPLICANT: PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. DATE OF HEARING June 26, 1979 � � � 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLASSIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PLANNING & ZONING COMMITTEE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS Rezoning ❑ Variance � Special Condition Use ❑ Administrative Review Determination of Similar Use ❑ Other ❑ Change of Nonconforming Use ❑ Other ❑ 3. LOCATION: Southeast corner White Bear and Old Huason Road 4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: South 1/2 of Tract A, RLS #254 files of Register of Title � 5. PRESfNT ZONING: ES ZONING CODE REFEREPdCE: 60.563, 61.105 6. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: DATE 6�18�79 gy Laurence J. Jung -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. PURPOSE: Applicant is requesting a variance of the minimum setback requirements and placement o� accessways in order to establish and operate a fast food restaurant in an ES Expressway Service District. . 6. FRONTAGE & AREA: The subject site would occupy the south half of the above described property. Frontage on White Bear is about 110 ft. and is 193 ft. deep for a total area of 21 ,230 sq. ft., less than a half acre. C. SITE/AREA CONDITIONS: The entire site is occupied by a former Standard station. R large pave� area surrounds the vacant brick building and all pumps have been removed. Grass areas forming a planting barrier surround the paved areas; large evergreens are situated on the south side to separate the property from I-94 and the westbound off-ramp. The station had three accesses (one off White Bear near Old Hudson Road intersection, now blocked off, and two off Old Hudsan Road). Terrain is fairly level but slopes to the north, east and south. The property is about 5 ft. above the vacant Hi�hland Chalet Motel to the east, now part of the Ramada Inn property. Gasoline service stations are situation on the southwest and northwest corner of Old Hudson Road and White Bear Avenue and the site on the northeast corner is a vacant gas station as well_ Winchell 's Donut Shop is situated just north of this site. Single family residences are to the north and multiple family development is to the northeast across Old Hudson Road. White Bear is a feeder road handling very heavy volumes of traffic in this vicinity since fu11 access io and from I-94 is just south. It is currently four lanes with no parking any time posted on either side. Old Hudson Road also carries large traffic volumes since it functions as a frontage road in both directions. The White Bear-Old Hudson Road intersection as well as White Bear and I-94 ramps are con- trolled by traffic signals. D. VARIANCE: Under Section 61 .105 of the Ordinance, 75 foot setbacks are required from buildings in all directions in an ES district. Section 60.563 also places restrictions on where accessways may be located. The restrictions are that na accessways shall be located closer than 300 ft. from where a ramp merges with the feeder road (White Bear Avenue is considered the feeder road in this instance). The variance request is to relax the set- back requirements on the north, east and south sides from 75 ft. to 30, 62, and 53 feet respectively and to open a new accessway onto White Bear Avenue approximately 90 feet north of the westbound ramp and White Bear Avenue interchange. � E. FINDINGS: 1. Applicant wishes to p��`� only the south half of the subject site in order to operate a fast food establishment of limited size. 22 parking spaces would be provided on-site which would meet the requirements for this type and size of use. ie�cd� 2. Applicant indicates that the �se price for the entire site would be prohibitive for his needs. 3. Although the proposed half acre site is of sufficient size to accommodate the needs of the applicant, it appears the intent of the ES district would be compromised. The four basic and special reasons for establish°i.r�g an ES district are: 1) to serve the needs of automobile highway traffic at interchange areas , 2) to avoid undue congestion on feeder roads , 3) to promote smooth traffic flow at interchange areas, and 4) to protect adjacent properties in other zones from ac�verse :fin'�luences of traffic. 4. The Schedule of Regulations does not requi�re any minimum lot size or frontage in an ES district. To meet the setback restrictions , however, the minimum dimensions of the site to accommodate the proposed development would be 179.5 ft. by 201 ft. The entire parcel would conform to these dimensional requirements. A variance to reapen the one accessway , • � .,i-'�:I' . . . .. . . � . . PRAIRIE CHICKEN, IPdC. STAFF REPORT PAGE TWO E. FINDINGS (continued) onto White Bear (approximately 180 feet from the ramp intersection) would have to be granted though. 5. Aside from the s�lf-created size limitation factor, there are no physical conditions of the site that would make it unique and thus be a basis for justifying subdivision in order to accommodate the proposed development. The resulting hardship would be self-inflicted and for convenience sake rather than any undue hardship associated with the characteristics of the site. _ 6. ADT volumes on White Bear south of Old Hudson Road now exceed 20,000. Adding a new - curb cut closer than the required 300 foot distance could seriously impact con- gestion and safety factors in the area. ?. The request for variance appears to be based mainly on a desire for economic gain. ` 8. Granting of the variance based on the above findings would be a substantial detriment `- . to surrounding uses and to the public good. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on Findings 3 thru 8, Staff recorr�nends denial of the _ variance request. � _ _ _ ;,;;,�: � .��.�. �,�. � �� ' . . . . . . .. � ��N T�'�` � _ � . a.U � . . � . � � .. . . . . .�`�� ^ .. . M:�. � . ' . � . � . �. . . . . . . . . . . .. . � . � . . .. �. ' . ... � . � � - �� . . ,.�-.� , . . _. . . ��_. . ,_, _. .., .�. _ . .. . . , .�-:-.�-,_ __:�•�-- ,. , ., .. - _ ._ ,;:.-. _. � _ _ _ .,.�. , . . �.., . . , _ _:.�.:.. ....�....:., _ ._.. _ . _,.��.�.�>... . . � , 1 - i - - — _ - ._ � � � � ( , . � ; �- .. _ �____. . . , � 3 t ► � ~` � ' ' a i _ ; � . ' $ . : ��e - � � y. � _ ; � i , � _� . { � , le . _ _ 1 � � I e � 1 � T - � i :.a , . . . � . � � � .. �: . . �- �. � 3 . � . , � i . . � � . . . . . . . . �� . . _ . � _ . _. 1 . . . .�. . . .. ... . . . ��.�• �,... � � , _ � � - � . .... . . - � � . .. . . . . �: . . -. ; . .. ' � � � . ' .. � _ ... � ' . .___ . 1 .. _ .. . - � . � . .f � , . .._ _. � . . . , . � � . t - . . . . . . . � � ' .{ ' . - : . . .: • : . . . _..� . . ::�. . . � .� . � ' . . . " .. . .. �. . . . � .. ' {! . .C. _,.�, . .. . . . . . .. . ' . ..- . . .. � . ..'. -_ ... - ..: . ... . . • . . 7 , ` / ' , . . . � ' } } / :� � � � � . ._ � � p �----- �� Il. �1 i�� _: . . � ; � Q _ . � . .; _ ::: � . _ .; ; ,F . . . .� : Y - � °-:—� __ _ - . . . � f ,{ � • _ � � :�i ,� .' l2 � T. � T T � �� . ±. � - � -- f��-:�.� $ . _ ¶ � � �� L� Q� �D 1�:� �� . �—� � - _ _- _ 1J� �� - j + : � , 4 , f:-. . . � : � - f �. t ; : f _. � .. _ : . . , . . - . _ � : _. - :.�_ �� .. . -` i , , . _ - � � , _ °� . � , � � ! � E _ . . . ' .. . _ � . . . . _ � - � �oi �_. ' �. . . . . . . . . . . _ � ,� . • K. . , . . d1 E • , � _ .-: ._--''� ' . , � � � ,. " � _ - '': I :.:` � � . � � ' � . � '� • � � � � ` � , � I r.... '� i �l � f � .:;, ; � ' . � . � � . � � _A _ ___ � _ -�...,_._._ _ _ . .. <.. _, „.. . . ---,.....,._ � ,: , - J � �...< > -.�.;.t.,.,�.. �...�,.. - . - � �' :-�.ti - _. ��».,.. . :.4;��...,: ::��.�>�:> - ...; . ...__ .. _..3.�.....�.._. _.k.�.>_. � i � �/ &'YG � �- Zo H r� �i r �/ . , S't�iQ r / .: Gll�i � �e ��r�r' , • `��„ . . .._..._..«,,,,�-...,,,._.. . ... -..._::.._ _ -:-��-_ .. ,... .. :.... . ..... .. . �..J:r`.-.- -. � -;r.-q•s , .. .. - . � �. • . . ... � i;c�:t . _ .. .. _. . - _. . - _'r�. .... .._ ;1.�..4- .. J _� .. � . _ -.. . .. •J�._. . � ._ _� _ . ._. . .y�:�i:�� +�`� _.•/`f\'✓':� "' . i .. , ' . � : . . . '.�... . . � ' , �... . .. :'_. :_ . . . . _Y. ..._._. . . . - _._.� ....__._.. _. ._ _.�_ . ''' .. .... .' " .:�.. � .�..-.... . .. .. .. � _ :i'.".' . „_� _'__• _.._... � . . � - ' � . . � ._ .. � i��s�.!'. � . . } � /'.•��- Lif�f: J cfis...:;•. •..� � - ; + • �- � � ' ' ; , , � . __�. . � � ._. � . . _..._ _ _� _ . , _____ ' �� . . - . 1; � - �, � � - . . : ;� `L � � _ _ - - �; � , „ I� � � __ ��s�-�_ _____.� � -�--- ---- . _ �: �� . , - . � ; ., : - - i . . . .. . . : . -- --� ,_---1--; � - i--•�� —' - . . .- . ' .. . .. - . , � . . � � �� , � .�j s ! ;_ - g ;l �, , � . _ i. � .__�{ _ _ � 1 `� � , � ,.� , j .� . � i . .. . _ . . . 1. . . , _ ' . � ; � - . :►. 5 ' � � - � ' ,�►��;��;+�� . _ .. � _ , . . . f � . ; ;� ; i ; � ! ( _ ,�� :,F�,� d : . _ : . � _ f I ; ?�J i'�Gt;;:� . :� � � _ � ''�' 1 ! ; . � � � � ` . - . . . .�'� .. - . �_ . . - . Y . - , . . . _ j� l � . .. , . . . - . � . � . _ ,. .. ' . .�.. � . . ._ � .. � • . •�, � . . . . . . � � . . .. ..-:. • . . . . . ..J '. . ' ..,; , . ___..._��-..'.Q-_... .. •: j _ ; ' � �� . � . .. �' ' . . _ . . •; �.. . . 'i ;. �;, ( - f ,•f , �- _ <; ,, i - E - -- �.� . . � � � � i?_' � �.' i! _'_j '" - • _ � • , f � . .: . : ' . '.�.„. . . ... .. - . ;...... .� � : . _ ' .� __,-i, . y . . . - f � ' : ; ,� � � _ _. �� . .., �-,-� ._-,--- -- _..-. �.�....1 . _ • , ,' ; . . �i k � �,, ` � � � � ` � � � � � - � � - f i.. � � 'i-� '' 4. S �� ..� • . � ` � f � ' : - � � " � � � � : _ _ ; � � . ,! ' �. . - _ '. :-� _ , � 25� � ;_ .---� �_� _____ __ .. ..' r . . �. - . . � .,....�.... �_.. .� ��. _,� � ' •. .. .. � . . . , � . _ .. . ' _ ', '� .` � .. �'. . . . � . "�� . . _ : : . , . � _ . � _ - . - , � . �F , - , _. �l . . �� . f � � . ' _ � r _ �E ' I � � f ' I '?- I� � � � � , : _. .__.J , � � � ; �,-._ ---� � i , ; ; � � !r �: � -- � . . ; i _ , f, � �_,��:...� , . � � , . . .-�� . . _,, , _� --.Y.,.,.>...,��.�.,, ,�.:.�'''.�� ' ,, - : . .�,� ,�, ,.,,.,. ,r . ..�: -- �� :�:: .. ,�.�, ;�.t _ . _ .." " . � _ - --- �� . . r;,.,,�.:>: .z�:a.-a.3._:: -w �x•. �/V 1'�'� �P�— , � Z. ."�—.--- J t�t ,z S : �;� Z4H�N +� Fi�P ��lvL/ . . ; . t . ,�. / � 4�p ! � ; - !p ! O ' O I U � v ' v v v � ; , ., w . . , 0 � .. � � i � ��i,�� ' ' __-i--�--=' � � O �►�� . . 0 1;� , � o � l� �o � 00000000 0 � � ST. . � o o ° o ' oo 00000000 0 o v o °-- -- - - --- ---- - f � o - 000 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 W�L.so� AV E. � �ao � � o 000 ' o00000 0 � i � � o �_ _ i __ � ' i- � � - d o -a ' v � i , � � I � � -0-------- >L-�-- - - Z --- O a _ ,R M .�-T- - - � --, ► � � ,�� , � � o ; ; � ; Iv � _� 'y ,2 � � �G �t� �Iuosdn� RG� � _ ; � .� a t a ; • N . � � R�4MAjPA � � � � 1!'�N i � �� _._ _ - - - - - - - - - - . � i -A � ` � , . , - _ - -._ . . -w�•_.. D � .H � _ . • -, '. �'� � � ---._�.� �,, � '� � '. ' • � � � '`��_��.,, � � � �� ,�R �r, ,z� � . , �� ,� ;� �i? F-�I',Y . ..f�� E� - ` ` �, .�� f � v '`�,;�..... . t-1 ��. � � ��;'.k� � �... , U �� ► � __ � � � . � � AREA MAP APPLICANT PRAIRIE CHICKEN, INC. LEGEND -- — ZONiNG DISTRICT BOUNDARY Variance for restaurant � SU6JECT PROPERTY PURPOSE O � ONE FAMILY PLANNlNG � DISTRICT f ILE N0. 8464 TWO FAMILY � 6-26-79 �� MULT(P�E FAMILY DATE • � n COMMERCIAL SCAI.E � I"= 200� NORTH � � � � �NDUSTRIAL MaP rvo. _ _ _ _ _ � , „�,. ., .,T � . • �3