Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 03-01 PCP PLA)NNY2,7G CO�NNISS-AG14 REGULRR W.-TTING marob 1, 197,-� OK.C�Iez- 53- -00's ps, CEO. c,f j-n i eis Tebmary 1.5, IS;-73 5� art of 1-3 -;e 1 7 c-,v.e s Occupation and WA i� r i_r once ,Revi(�Fvl Of 0, -P s • • PLANUTING ONAMISSION 1_NM- _R:i4ATM-),W SMUT At -plicationg NO. 73002 Applicant: marvin Gordon Location: South of F194 and North of 66th Avenue North from Noble ,Avenue to Approximately 400 Feet Easterly 09 Lee Avenue North. �)es, .criptio.n, of Re•-quest- Special use Permission to Construct Attached Single Family Dwellings on the Subiect P.-coperty. ne, ,?*ar ago, 1--he app l J4.cant requested rezoning for the subject from R-1 ik*-o R-Z, to pe-I.Mit the coinst.vactiov, of 24 town- 'ts,, The ­eq�vest, was denied after extensive -,use un-�, It at that time, hmiever, that the applicant har-4 -.m-et iAt_'h the -sttcafU re-lative to alternati-ve methods of developing Itt.,he -TpS.-opez-41--y and the discussion had ensued concerning IC-31 e of- d"�WO-3.030AP-9 a q_r0uP Of single family h0usii19 U!Pits at aq n­!. Bilice that tjn e, a t informal ry.)JJ,,aar.t, has me. ly with the s�.ich a development.. and the current pro- poF;al of 12 sing-le-fantily attached div., 11.1 t7h.ree sep_oorate clusters on the site. The densi-z--y of is roli-,_-.hin the xreTiirements for the The 4S ar_,pzova.' -if special use permission as S-2ation 35-310 2 1,'g) of the ordinances, which prov.-Wes for 7-1', - J. eI7 uses rp_quired 'or the public we. I- in car; R-1 -ict: , -as by the City Council". The hal- C',one s ide :a.t ion in tvla stages.- cb�,:-Imissima and, secondly, at for. the special Application No. 73002 Page 2 AMLYSIS AFO M-CMRMENDATIONs Ile will be prepared Oto present the conclusions of our analysis of t,ais application at the first meeting. The application has Been accepted as a valid request for a special use in the R-1 district* While the design and layout may be relatively un- orthodox for dwelling construction in this district, it is notable that specific variances are neither requested nor required in the n€ex of a special use'. • The applicant has subjuitteC survey data, site and landscaping plans, and conceptual boil Ting plans w-viich will be available for review. The recommendatic-a at this -,Cirla is to 1--able the application uv:ti l the Match 115th meeting at which 'che public hearing for the special use permit request will lie scheduled. COPY OF WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATION DATED JANUARY 5, 1972 Subject: Rezoning No. 71052 R-1 to R-3 Present: Mr. Ewert, Mr. Hintzman, Mr. Rasmussen, and Mr. Sidlo. Not Present but contacted 1/4/72, Mr. Neseth, Mr. Ritan It is the opinion of those present and contacted regarding the above mentioned rezoning request that without definite information the property as shown remain R-1. We, as a group, feel that apartments in such close proximity to the homes abutting the property would be a detriment to the immediate residential nature of the area. Without definite information as to building size, distance from home owners property, landscaping, etc, we cannot offer a positive answer as yet. We do agree, however, that a type of multi-dwelling arrange- ment is feasible for the property provided a buffer of trees and bushes were included between the homes and the new units . We also feel that the homes in the area would find a develop- ment of this type would act as a shield from some of the freeway noise. Signed R. S idlo Secretary t.._,. ' ;�' �` .` !' k -. j � ��i;;, .....�,,,,,,,,� s �` � ,r' t .}� i 7 � � "a-714/j' ,�` � �9 ,�, � C? < � .' r i �, r.�s... �».., ..._..� j � _�.. .. ._ _ .,... j. >� .. �„ ._ i � r; _ ... ,,,,y ..._.......,.,....... � �� ;� s }.r � 5^ � . a � f i $ i p p> • � .... n....,...... ..�. ,..� ...,....,..,..e,«..� L �I•n 7` � .._ i .: .„., __.. «...H.... .....M�..� .F,.�.. :;-_ .�,._..,.t �,.�x..m use-�xaw:,et� = '^,-,� ��.,...,. � � `�. f ..,. ..� r. � s t '� ..�.� „awn', r y' l � � 4,... c..�,- . .... � iti„ n�,.r......a sy�A �� #� t I, , 5. ,.. �.k.�, r �x ,� ..,.. ' � .....-,... ,y ,. 4 1 3 � ..,,,._. - ._.. _ _ _.,..m. .� ¢P r .. ... -i PLANNING ODMMISSION IHPOW4ATION SHEET IffINORANDUM.- Various study items currently before the Commission February 27, 1973 1. The proposed modifications of the Sign ordinance will be presented to the City Council at' tyre first meeting in March. Purther analysis of the proposed ordinance amendment indicates that additional consideration might be given the proposal in light of the following: a. The initial concern of the sign subcormittee was that multi-story affice buildings would be permitted signery only to identify the building. The initial draft sub- ntitted by the staff proposed that the owner of a multi- story office building could exercise the option of either having signery identifying the building or signery identifying individual tenants, but in either case said signery would be limited to 30% of the ground floor ex- terior walls. • b. Following commission deliberation, a draft was developed xejjic!b_ compreiiiended identification signery for a multi- story building -kr thich could be located aiaywhere on the exter.Lor via?t,Ls, but vas Uklrkited to 10% of the area of those wEJUs. !�Ivulcthermore, distinction was made between ground floor uses and tenants located elaewhere in the building, and this was refined to distinguish between retail ground floor uses and nonretail commercial uses 4stinction, of retail versus on the fffl ground cor. This d.:. noiirdtail uses, has generated substantial concern by 'Loth the com. mission and the Council. c'. TI-tere is a general inconsistency with other portions of the Sign Ordinance, in tl at a C-I type, nonretail commercial use located in a single story building on a parcel zoned C-1 or C-2, could have a certain amount of signery; yet, if same un:e were Located on the ground floor of a multi-story of-f.-'I.ce building, specifically one located in a C-2 zone;, no signe-t-y whatsoever would be permitted even ,though a neighboring retail use on that floor could have signen% This seeming inequity is the crux of the concern • regarding One standards oi: the proposed ma4ifications. !a order to re.,Iolve this inconsistency, it is recommended that several of v1je un6erjyJ%2­g factors relative -to proposed signezy standards buildings bo reviewed: memorandum • page 2 1. A re-evaluation might be macl� as to the desirability of jgny tenant :igrnexey on multi-story office buildings. in Other werds, per!-laps o_._.sX signery identifying the build- ing should be permitted. 2. In the same context, a re--evaluation might be made of the merits of providing for signery for certain tenants, i.e. # generally ground floor tenants, and specifically retail tenants. 3. in followi.ngr a re-evaluation would be thus in order as to the merits of distinguishing between signery deeds of and permitted signery for retail uses versus nonretail uses in multi.-story office building.. it is our p®siti.on gnat provision should be made establishing general standards or critera for pormi.tted signs for multi-story office buildings. These standards should be consistent with other sign ordinance requirements, comprehending the type, size, and j1-%giber of such signs. The decision as to the user or message of the permitted signery, is appropriately within the discretion of the building owner or management. 2. regarding 'the proposed creation of a freeWay oriented business district, our position is essentially the same as that indicated- at the last meeting. The proposal would establish a A reeway oriented business district comprising the various c-2 uses as spneial uses in the 1-1 zone, Each proposal for such a commercial development would thus be subject to the required 'public. hearing and evaluation given special use permit requests. The concern of -tae Commission was testri.ct.i.ng ccaumercial development from that po t-ion of the industrial pares abutting residential zones, and it was the subsequent determination that such restriction could best be effected by the controls provided for under: rezoning procedures. We have reconsidered the freeway zone concept in light of this concern, and have concluded that an effective control measure could be realized, with the special use function, using the in- clusion of a standard eor standards) , which ,ould prohibit com- merci.a" development €gin any parcels abutting residential districts. • memorandum Page 3 it is our opinion t-he only feasible means of achieving a freeway oriented business distract. is via the special use procedure. We have discounted for the most part, the concept of creating a new zone, per se, in that the intent of providing for such a dis- trict is to allow foa: a flexibility in the industrial park develop- ment, and not to open up all land abutting the freeway to com- mercial and industrial development a Also before the commission is another natter remanded bAI the Council,, namely, revierw of ordinance provisioAS for home occupations and special home Occupations. SeVeral vital policy matters are involved. ao An evaluation should be made as to the adequacy of the present ordinance provision for home occupations and for special home occupations. Asp6cts of this would be the relevancy: the effectiveness, as well as the enforceability of said b ovisions. • v The matter of retail type uses in residential districts is a most cogent related issue. consideration should be given to the game factors noted alcove �relevanoe, effectiveness) with regard to the ordinance prohibition of retail uses in the residential district, as well as to the relationship of- purely retail uses versus per- mitted special uses. c. in other; wor0s, are controls in this area desirable, and if so, holz,= can. t1wey best be Provided for. particularly in :fight o3 the administrative and enforcement requirements of the ordinance? Consideration of thin issue is imperative, not only due to those situations in the «orm of applications for special use pe=a its, but also due to the realization that many retail type uses do currently d xist throughout the city,, alIvai.t unlawfully. 4e Vhe Council has ashad that the latter two issues be con- sidered and evaluated in prepaWati.on for the joint meting to be scheduled soon. :.t may use desirable therefore, to consider scheduling a special itee"ing prior to the March 15th study session. PLANNING 001AMSSION INFORMATION SHEET �v!E,2t1ORhND1M s Pronesed development involving residential use In COMMercial district, as suggested by Mr. Charles Nolan DATES February 26, 1973 Mr. Charles Nolan of -r-Tolan Brothers Inc. , general contractors, has inet with the staff over the past month regarding a proposed develop,ment of an "Easy Mini Storage" facility comprised essentially of several long buildings containing garage-like compartments and small offices which are rented to the general public. The proposed site is a 4.7 acre tract located easterly of the Northern States %3-o-wer facility at 66th and 1,ee Avenues Worth. The land is currently zoned c-2. ,k� significant aspect of the proposal is the provision for an apart- Ment or single family residence intended as the dvelling for a full til-pe rental manager-caretallter. Conversations with Mr. Nolan have made it apparent that the developer considers the residential vnit to. be essential to the Project., • In that regard, Mr. ,,-,Ta�lan has been informed that no residential use wou].6 be permitted in a commercial district, and he has con- sec paently requested an infonnal discussion with the Cormission concerning this matter. This of"-Uce is not prepared to accept an application with the in- clusion eg the residential unit, and furthermore, it is our de- temytinat-ion that a variance applicatian to permit Such a use is not technJLca1lv possi*bleo a1ha ordinur.%ce sDec-12-Jes that the Planning Coo imission shall not %�eaowalendl and the city Council shall in no -'t as a var4 3. case perm any use, -kth-at is not ipermitted under the or&11.nance in the district whexe the affected person's land is loca-ted. in other v-,orOis, a variaticn. to 'permAit residency oil this C-2 site rwould b--- illegal. Any effort to construe the ox-d1:1-ovance to allow for residential occupancy in th--', s zone or any other non-residential zone would not Only be it as th-e laws are cloinstituted, but would also establish a precedenit contrary to the fundamental principals re- gard_in�jj- compaxt-ibi-lity of Lend us,-es. Furtheratore, if residential uses were perni-ttecl .in acamrercia2K or indusll-,-rial zones, the converse situation could logically be argued Le. , proposals to integrate • commar0J..'1. luses into resider it-jial Zones. Memorandum Page 2 • At the very least, any ordinance -modification authorizing re- sidential occupancy in non-residential zones would certainly diminish the validity of the position that commercial and in- dustri.al activities are inherently incompatible with residential occupancy. In short, formal consideration of proposal suggested by Mr. Nolan could generate highly undesirable ramifications for any legal grounds the City has established in its planning efforts, relative to compatibility (and non.compatibility) of its land use districts. Even if it were legally possible to consider a variance in this case, there is. ago evidence that the standards for variance are even approximately Met: There is no hinderance because of the parti.c3,alar physical. surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcel; the condition upon which the application for the variance is based is not unique to the parcel of land for `3hi.ch the variance would be sought, and furthermore, is common generally to ogler property within the sane c�s:sifi.cation; the alleged hardship insurance costs) is not related to the require- ments of the ordinance, and has been created by the present • developer; finalty; in tel'ms of the ramifications stated above, there is little ga�castion .hat the granting of such a variance would be detrimental to t"he public welfare. It is fuitile to debate °:-he merits of the type: of development or its design uiltil this cetatral basic issue is resolved. Mr. Nolan has indicated that the propose-S res-idential use is vital to the Prbject, and our response has consequently been negative for this particular developrtent, Xt should be noted also that this office has received proposals from two other developers for sSmilar developments in other portions of the City and the response has been the same, re- garding residential use in a conwaercial or industrial zone.