Laserfiche WebLink
• 1. jy'} 84.i <br />CASE NUMBER: 1286 -80 <br />APPLICANT: Evenson Properties <br />LOCATION: : Northeast Corner of Trunk Highway 3 <br />and Snelling Avenue <br />ACTION REQUESTED: Approval of SPecial <br />Approval of site Plan In B -1B <br />Subdivision of Land into Two Parcels <br />Planned Unit Development <br />Variance to Building Height <br />Variance to off -- street Parking Size <br />Variance to Parking Location <br />(maximum 450 feet from structure) <br />Special Use Permit for Live Entertainment <br />with Restaurant less than 400 feet from <br />highway right-of-way <br />Variance to loo Foot Setback of Buildings <br />to Shoreline and 50 Feet for Parking to <br />Shoreline <br />Conditional Use Permit far plan Approval <br />in a Shoreline DeVelopinent Area <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS <br />The first development plan for this property was approved in 1972 for the <br />1. Zimmerman Fealty Company and consisted of a hotel and office develo ent <br />of approximately 205,000 oo square feet, The C 1. ty at that time rezoned the <br />lard as requested from F -1 to B -1B, and approved a variance to the height <br />g t <br />to a maximum of ten stories. Berne of the neighbors to the north objected <br />' <br />to this proposal and took the matter to court. T _ <br />The District court ruled <br />that the rezoning and variances requested were reasonable, in effect <br />allowing the City to issue the building permits when requested. It <br />�I was also <br />determined that the requirement that permits be issued within six months <br />did not apply in this case. our conversations with the City Attorney <br />indicate that the variances issued in the past do not necessarily the new pro �' �'p� -y t� <br />proposal inasmuch as it is an entirely di_f.ferent proposal. It is <br />pertinent, however, to the extent th' -it the land is now legally zoned B -IB <br />Find we are aware that a District Cotir t has. ruled tine ro )osed height t <br />reasonable- <br />The <br />p � g to be <br />Court decision was i ssu cd in 19� 4 , and due to a lapse of time and a <br />ch --L nqe in marketing and f inancy i ng crotid i ti one; , the applicants <br />�1 <br />with the project, <br />id riot proceed <br />You are all aware of tale f,-.c t: t11 s_x t i 11 1979 a new proposal � �. � � 1 wit s submitted by <br />