Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
File #: RES 19-361    Version: 1 Name: 589 Dale Street North BZA Appeal Memorialization
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
In control: City Council
Final action: 3/6/2019
Title: Memorializing the decision to deny the appeal of George Hark, d/b/a M & A Hark, Inc. from a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a variance from the zoning code's separation requirements for tobacco product shops for property at 589 Dale Street North.
Sponsors: Dai Thao
Related files: ABZA 18-7
Title
Memorializing the decision to deny the appeal of George Hark, d/b/a M & A Hark, Inc. from a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals denying a variance from the zoning code's separation requirements for tobacco product shops for property at 589 Dale Street North.

Body
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2018, George Hark, d/b/a M & A Hark, Inc. (“Applicant”), duly applied to the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) in BZA File No. 18-113695 for a variance from the strict application of the zoning code’s separation requirements for tobacco product shops in order to open a tobacco products shop at property commonly known as 589 Dale Street North (PIN No. 352923140242) and legally described as Chute Brothers Division, No. 3 Addition, Lots 1 thru Lot 5 in the City of Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant’s proposed tobacco products shop would be 2,311 feet from an existing tobacco products shop. The zoning code requires 2,640 feet of separation between tobacco products shop. Based upon the distance between the existing shop and Applicant’s proposed shop, the Applicant requested a variance of 329 feet; and

WHEREAS, on November 5, 2018, the BZA, in accordance with Legislative Code § 61.601, duly conducted a public hearing on the Applicant’s variance request where all present were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and

WHEREAS, at the said public hearing the BZA received a staff report dated October 29, 2018 which contained a recommendation to deny Applicant’s variance request together with testimony from the Applicant and others who spoke for or against the variance, as set forth in the BZA’s adopted minutes which are incorporated herein by reference; and

WHEREAS, the BZA, upon closing the public hearing and based upon all the records and testimony received, duly moved to deny Applicant’s variance request based upon the following reasons as set forth in BZA Resolution No. 18-113695, which is also incorporated herein by reference and which reads...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
No records to display.