HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 06-07 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
JUNE 7, 1973
1. Call to Order: 8:00 P.M.
2. Roll Call:
3. Approval of Minutes: May 24, 1973
4. Chairmaci 's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory
body. One of the Commission's
functions is to hold Public Hearings.
In the matters concerned in these
hearings, the Commission makes recommen-
dations to the City Council. The City
Council makes all final decisions on
these matters.
5_ 73012 D. Brandvold - Variance V
To build on substandard lot at 5649 Fremont (Tabled 5-10-73) .
6. 73014` Mork & Associates - Site & Building
48 Units (2 bldgs.) , 11236" FHA project, 67th & Emerson.
7. 7301 ` Fred Yesnes, Inc. — Variance
Street side yard set back, 6700 Camden Avenue North.
S. 73016 Super America, Inc. - Plan-Permit Amendment
Permit erection of structure`on pump island at station,
57th and Logan.
9. 73017 Word Aflame Church Special Use, Permit
Construction of Church in R-1 district, 69th & Lyndale
10. 73018 B.C.I .P. , Inc. - Site & Building Plans
Speculative Industrial Building No. 5, easterly of No. 4,
between Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th Avenue N.
11. 73019 Nolan Bros. , Inc. - Site and Building Plans
"Mini-Storage" and office facility - 68th at Lee Avenue
12. Discussion Items:
a. Land Use Policies in S .W. Neighborhood
b. Non-conforming Residential Uses in Commercial - Residential
Districts.
c. Comprehensive Plan Review
d. Home Occupations.
13. Cth6r Business:
14, Adjournment:
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 73012
Applicant: D. Brandvold
Location: South one-half parcel at 5649 Fremont
Request: Variance from Section 35-400
B.ACKGPDUND:
The items was tabled at the May 10, 1973 meeting, pending
disposition of Application No. 73011 (subdivision of the
property) . The latter was approved on May 21, 1973.
The applicant seeks to build a single family dwelling on the
newly created lot which is 71 feet wide.
ANALYSIS Al" RECOMMENDATION:
There is substantial precedent in this area for the subject
action. A recent example is Application No. 72066. The
width deficiency is four feet.
Approval is recommended with the stipulation that it is for
permission to build; no other variances are implied or'
endorsed.
.........,,...>.........,.....wn...v....,..._>.> ....- .., �� 3�--Y
F �r�
o.........._.......,.,... ...,....w........we....�..,.w ..�x.,-,....a.w....,._*.�..��a.�ws.vs+�-aa�r..wr..:+7:�.:mn.aa�uatuvwr.a�.rm-.r�s ,4� ,w•��da..`1rnb ..... ..w.,w�.....,.�..m...vw..aw�w�..+,+.a+.�w.,+...rw
tic 1 A„x" lrA 4,
.">r:.rn.>sn+:e;ww...'...v nn...a-..; ,N^own xavu..na..ac+�'FSwa-nr=..ru'..:.ew..i t..YR wd_xL a••.:,r..wax+rvmie�vu..vaxw...w7..vn:....rm>�.v....rwsw.....w...,ra:.«�« .e+...�......._.. ,_................�.--. �—..r+....:...a.�.."...�.......
t t
ti
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 73014
Applicant: Mork and Associates
Location:, 67th and Emerson Avenues North
Request: Approval of Site and Building Plans
BACKGROUND:
The applicant has been actively processing this proposal
at the Federal (and Metropolitan) level for over a year,
seeking approval relative to the F.H.A. 11236" program.
Attached are copies of various documents submitted by the
applicant and Metropolitan Council in support of the project.
The project was outlined for the City Manager on April 5,
1972.
Upon receipt of Federal approval earlier this year, the
applicant requested building permits. He was informed of
the review and approval requirements of the Ordinance, and
preliminary review of the subject plans by the staff commenced
• in March, 1973.
Initial examination determined that, contrary to statements
in the Federal application, the project was not in complete
conformance with R-5 zoning requirements. Deficiencies were
noted; and the applicant submitted revised plans as well as
an application for review and approval.
The plans were subjected to further review and analysis.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Review of the "revised" plans indicates:
1. Circumstances have changed notably since the applica-
tion for F.H.A. assistance, e.g. , the City has
authorization for an H.R.A; there is other F.H.A.
"236" housing for low to moderate income persons
under construction.
2. The density of the project (48 units on approximately
3 acres zoned R-5) is slightly deficient. This small
• deficiency is accentuated in that 15 of the units have
3 bedrooms, and the entire project is intended for
family occupancy. The sites are dominated by the
buildings and the parking lots; relatively little
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 73014
Page 2
•
effective on site open space is afforded for family
leisure and children play activities. There is a
potential population of up to 222 persons, including
a possible 126 youngsters.
3. A comparison of the effective living area of the pro-
posed units was made with other apartment projects
(see attached) .
4. There is relatively little accessory storage space;
there are no garages. Apartment units designed for
family use generally require substantial storage
space for toys, tricycles, bicycles, etc. , as well as
space for miscellaneous property owned by families
of 4 or more persons.
5< Landscaping is minimal. Eight trees of a minimum 6"
diameter are provided - as required. There are two
clusters of creeping juniper per site. A six foot
redwood fence runs along the property line abutting
• the single family homes. There is some berming in-
dicated near the streets. A portion of the green area
for Building No. 1 is across two parking lots from the
building.
6. Parking is minimal, and may be deficient for building
No. 1, if appropriate fire lanes are provided.
7. The Building Inspector has noted several Code and
ordinance deficiencies, including lack of a security
system, substandard floors and ceilings and lack of
a wet standpipe fire extinguishing system (required
for 3 storey or higher buildings) . The applicant has
been informed of these points and, at this writing,
has not responded.
The recommendation most be for denial given the substandard
and mediocre quality of 'the plans and concept.
The applicant has had some contact with neighboring property
owners; the inquiries from them indicates many will be
• present at the meeting.
COMPARISON OF SIZE OF PROPOSED
(APPLICATION NO. 73014) UNITS
WITH OTHER MULTIRESIDENTIAL UNITS
The comparison was made with 5 other apartment complexes
in the City, including the F.H.A. 11236" high rise under con-
struction.
Dimensions are of "typical units" taken from approved plans.
Internal hallways, closets and storage areas were excluded.
There are no .other comparable buildings with 3 bedroom units.
Comparison was made of total effective living area; kitchen
area; living and dining area; and the bath.
The total area for the Chelsea proposed 2 bedroom units is
less than the others; the 3 bedroom units average about 100
square feet more than the other 2 bedroom units - this is the
approximate size of the third bedroom.
The relative size of the nonbedroom areas of the 3 bedroom
units is generally the same or less than two and, in some cases,
one bedroom units in other buildings. This is most notable in
the bathroom and living/dining room areas.
Notable too, is the comparison with the Shingle Creek Towers
F.H.A. "236" project. That development is intended for couples
and the elderly. The Chelsea project is earmarked for families.
It is evident that the dimensions of the proposed "family" units
1
are the same or less than the high rise units, except for the
total and kitchen areas of the three bedroom units.
The figures are not intended to establish an "ideal" unit
size. They do, however, demonstrate the substantial lack of
additional unit space which could be reasonably expected for
three bedroom units intended for families.
1
P
�•w...,_ � �v.Vey '4.,,�'°"
� � • `
.wy,ca+w...i.ustltT .u+w\'a��Ny: •�: + _ __ �y,�,.
INA,
+A w
ri�q�y
E ar4 �11[s
10 1
�A+f
Y'1
i,
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
• Application No. 73015
Applicant: Yesnes Construction
Location: 6700 Camden Avenue North
Request: variance
BACKGROUND:
This application was initiated by the City to acknowledge an
approximate 10 foot, street side yard setback deficiency
which resulted from an administrative error. The site is a
corner parcel normally requiring a 25 foot side yard setback.
The existing setback of the house now under construction is
approximately 15 feet.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The plot plan submitted by the contractor did not indicate
the setback; the distance was scaled by the Building Depart-
met at approximately 15 . feet, and a permit was issued.
• The error was discovered by the Inspector in the field during
a footing inspection. A stop order was issued and the
Inspector proceeded to revoke the permit, per the Ordinance.
However, it was learned the builder had sold the home, to be
built as is, shortly after the permit was issued. The City
was informed legal action would be in order to cover resultant
damages, should the permit be rescinded.
After thorough review, it was our judge nt that the con-
sequences of a setback deficiency of thi magnitude and at
this location, were substantially less t an the probable
expense of any legal action required to cesolve a situation
due in part to an administrative error.
This application represents an acknowledgement of the
situation, its cause and the disposition considered most
appropriate given the circumstances.
Neighboring property owners have been notified per normal
variance procedures.
•
:r
6
Lt
Lo
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 73016
Applicant: Super America, Inc.
Location: 57th and Logan Avenues North
Request: Amendment to Site Plan and Special
Use Permit
BA CKG ROUND:
The applicant seeks permission to erect a prefabricated
"pump island office" on the center pump island of the
service station at 57th and Logan.
The intent is to provide attendents with shelter in adverse
weather and to make the existing gasoline and merchandise
retailing operation "more efficient" .
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
The location of the proposed building would provide for a
setback of 48 feet. The ordinance requires a minimum 50
foot setback from major streets and thoroughfares.
In addition such a structure would diminish what "open"
space there is at the subject station, given the large
amount of merchandise which is stored, displayed and sold
outside the main building on the 132 feet by 110 feet site.
Recommendation is for denial.
•
�k
m
� 6
� ► fit° �., �„ ?�, r � F �J
G„A p L\VE f ` —
+-,,
r t+9 A pA f' S7/2z
Aw
P
aa��- w
' 2
v.r 1 U P
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 73017
Applicant: Rev. Farris for Word Aflame Apostolic
Church
Location: S .W. Corner, 69th and Lyndale
Request: Special Use Permit
BACKGROUND:
Churches are a special use in the R-1 district. The applicant
seeks a permit for a 216 person capacity church.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
While the main issue is whether to permit the proposed
structure at this location, the applicant has been instructed
to provide the substance of site and building plans for the
project.
Preliminary sketches indicate an access onto Lyndale Avenue
and one onto 69th Avenue. It appears that the site can
contain the proposed building and parking within ordinance
requirements.
The final plans have yet to be reviewed; further evaluation
will be made at the meeting.
Neighboring property owners have been notified.
Approval would stipulate, among other things, that building
plans are subject to review by the Building Inspector prior
to the issuance of permits.
f`w.
4
��
� P
V:�� 3,
f#�� ��`
�� ���_�.n...._.�,..�_..�_._...�..�.._._.�..�.
� F �'
a!'�
aq#
i j i j `�, ti
11 ,�
,� �:� � . ' i�� 1 �"
� � � ._.�
..,__,.,..._....._..v.a�,�..,.,e...�n �.....,�..N_a.�».,..�..,. ��...� .���fl��� �� ��
,..........,�.............. ...��,.„,. ..,.�,....,�....,�......�,. .,.... �,'� � t�� ,�
:v �
�> � �
x:,
.� �,
I
c
•
t
F
a
1
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 73018
Applicant: B.C.I.P.
Location: Easterly of "Spec. Bldg.' No. 4, southerly
of 69th Ave. N. and northerly, ,of Shingle
Creek Parkway.
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
BACKGROUND
Plan approval is sought for a 127,176 square foot speculative
industrial building. This is the 5th such structure and the
proposed 9 acre site is easterly of the recently completed
"Spec. Building" No. 4.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
Plans indicate about 10/ of the area (12,700 sq. ft.) is to
be used for offices. Sixty-four parking spaces are required
for that use, and 144 are required for the remaining industrial
area. 347 spaces are provided, leaving an excess 139 spaces.
This would indicate that potentially 27,800 more or a total
of 40,500 square feet could be used for office purposes.
The Director of Public Works will be prepared to comment as
to the site and utility plans. Particular attention should
be given to the berming along 69th Avenue.
Initial plans indicated a fuel storage tank located on the
northerly side of the building (69th Avenue frontage toward
R-1) . The applicant was instructed to relocate this facility
to the interior of the site or southerly of the building.
Unlike "Spec. Building" No. 4, there is a north-south driveway
from Shingle Creek Parkway to the interior lot of the building.
Assurance should be made as to provisions for effective land-
seaping/screeni.ng along 69th Avenue, particularly at LI1e and
of said driveway.
Approval would be subject to the following conditions :
1. The exterior finish and color of the building shall
harmonious so to blend in with the over all neighborhood;
2. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery, and no
signery shall be installed until approved by the City
Council;
Planning Commission Application Sheet
Application No. 73018
Page 2
• 3. All exterior lighting shall be of such design so to
be directed away from the residential areas northerly
of the site;
4. There shall be no access point onto 69th Avenue North;
5. Building plans are subject to the approval of the
Building Inspector with respect to applicable building
codes;
6. Drainage and utility plans including berming specifica-
tions are subject to the approval of the City Engineer
prior to the issuance of a building permit;
7. A performance bond and a performance agreement (in an
amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to the City to guarantee the installation of
the site improvements as designated on the approved
plans.
•
0
t
co
aC /
ty O-LPA 3 . 1
rya AA l
x )
ol
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 73019
Applicant: Nolan Bros. , Inc.
Location: South of 68th Avenue at Lee Avenue N.
Request: Site and Building Plan Approval
BACKGROUND
The applicant presented his concept of a "mini storage" and
office facility to the Commission on March 1, 1973. The
concern at that time related to an automatic fire extinguishing
system and the prohibition of residential occupancy in the
commercial district.
We have met with the applicant several times since that
meeting.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION:
We will be prepared to discuss the proposal in detail. The
concept is presented as a C-2 type enterprise.
Items to be considered include:
1. Parking - provision should be made according to C-2
standards; although a deferment of actual installation
may be in order.
2. Design of the "main office" space. The floor plan
depicts a living unit - with a patio, sliding doors,
a number of rooms including a bathroom with a tub.
Assurance should be made that only office facilities
are approved.
3. Landscaping. Consists mainly of shrubs and some trees.
Submitted parking layouts do not provide for 5 foot
greenstrips. ' The landscaping plan shows plantings in
lieu of parking spaces - apparently in anticipation
of a deferment of required parking installation. High
landscaping quality is essential here, given the
extraordinary lineal mass of the buildings.
4. Details for exterior color and lighting should be
provided.
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 73019
Page 2
Approval would be subject to at least the standard conditions:
1. Building plans are subject to the approval of the
Building Inspector with respect to applicable building
codes.
2. Utility drainage and elevation plans are subject to
the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance
of the building permit.
3. A performance agreement and performance bond (in an
amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to the City to guarantee site improvements
designated on the site plans.
.: � ,1Cwx , �,
_....,_....�.__..v.....___...._.__....._.._� -tea �• ,_,.•__��.o��.s._....._�..._�...._....._......._..,.......,.,.�
y 4
S "FF •q '
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
JUNE 7, 1973
The following amplify the analyses and recommendations made
in the agenda:
A. 73014 Mork and Associates
1. The applicant has consulted with the Building Inspector re-
garding technical Code requirements. The Inspector- is not
prepared to recommend approval of the application, and he
will be present at the meeting.
2. Notwithstanding Code compliance, however, the negative .
recommendation remains: the density requirements are not
met and the proposal in general is not representative of
the quality, multi family residential development -this
community has come to expect.
3. Based upon the areas shown on the site survey, and upon the
total number of units (48) in the two buildings (including
12 three bedroom units in Building No. l. and 3 such units
. in Building No. 2) , there are density deficiencies of 332
square feet and 359 square feet for Buildings No. 1 and
No. 2 respectively.
4. Substantial experience has been the foundation of the City's
consistent demand that multi family dwelling complexes pro-
vide a reasonable quality family life environment. Design
features reflecting this policy include: effective open
area for aesthetic and recreational purposes; effective
living unit space and accessory acconodations as necessary
ingredients of a home; and additional amenities which con-
tribute to the best possible family life environment, in a
multi residential context. These considerations are vital
for the welfare of the tenants as well as for the best in-
terests of the community.
5. The subject proposal does not meet these planning principles
and community development standards. This family oriented
project features minimal open space; minimal effective
living area; minimal common facilities and accessory storage
space; minimal landscaping; and minimal construction. It
does represent an attempt to maximize to extremes the
physical rentable space for a maximum number of families to
the extent of exceeding the established density requirements.
-1- 6-7-73
6. The parcels are zoned R-5, for well planned and designed
multi residential apartment homes - not for excessive high
density institution-like multi person compounds.
• B. 73017 Word Aflame Church
1. The issue at this meeting is the special use permit for
which the required public hearing has been scheduled.
2. The applicant has yet to produce the complete set of
documents required for site and building plan approval.
3. Since this is a "combined" application (special use and plan
approval) the recommendation is to table, should the special
use receive affirmative action.
C. 73019 Nolan Bros. , Inc.
1. Further detailed analysis of the submitted plans requires a
recommendation for denial of the proposal as presently con-
stituted.
2. It is virtually impossible to perceive the proposed use as
anything other than a single purpose use, which would
severly limit possible future commercial use of this C-2
parcel.
3. Since the applicant is asking or a waiver of most
g of the
parking facility installation; and since it is doubtful at
best whether this use is "commercial" (vs. "industrial") ,
staff analysis has centered around the potential use of the
buildings for other commercial (including retail) purposes.
4. Unfortunate past experience with "single purpose" commercial
uses and "deferred" or waived parking, dictates close
scrutiny of projects such as this (reference is made to the
now vacant Stamp Redemption Store and the defunct car wash
which is now an office building with deficient parking) .
5. In this respect, the submitted plane do not conform with
ordinance and planning policies. Provided parking space
(intended to be deferred indefinitely) does not comprehend
future curbs, proper width driving lanes or sidewalks, all
of which would be necessary for development of the required
parking for virtually any general commerce facility which
might adapt to the proposed buildings.
6. Because of the building design (and use for storage) there
are serioun quca4zions of zoning and possible establishment
-2- 6-7-73
of an undesirable precedent. It is cbnceivable the only
reasonable use of the kjuildings is warehousing-storage, or
even production line mnnuka`turin4. Not ,only would the
parking problem peirsist , if this change in "occupancy"
happened, but there would also be a virtual de facto rezoning
of the property# Themassibe Consumption of this C-2 parcel
by the structures could be repeated in other similar re-
quests relative to other C-2 sites.
7. As proposed, this facility would more appropriately be
located in the industrial district - subject of course to
pertinent site development requirements. The recommendation
is for denial.
I
•
-3- 6-7-73