Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 08-11 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ' Regular Meeting August 11 , 1977 • 1 . Call to Order: 8:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call : 3. Approval of Minutes: . 7-20-77 4. Chairman'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 recommendations to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions on the these matters . 5. Richard Rockstad 77033 Preliminary Plat approval for property at 7000 - 7006 Brooklyn Boulevard. (BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS) 6. Richard Rockstad 77034 Variance from Section 35-700 to permit parking in required 35 ft. C-1 district greenstrip at 7000 - 7006 Brooklyn Boulevard. PLANNING COMMISSION • 7. Richard Rockstad 77035 Special Use Site and Building Plan approval for office building in R-5 District at 7000 - 7006 Brooklyn Boulevard. 8. Burger King Corporation 77036 Site and Building Plan approval for- addition and site modifications at 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard 9. Nancy Shanahan 77039 Special Use Permit for beauty shop home occupation at 5219 - 62nd Avenue North. 10. Charles Boese 77041 Site and Building Plan approval for 4-unit garage at 4210 Lakebreeze Avenue North. (BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS) 11 . Ronald Blake 77042 Appeal from Building Official 's ruling, per Section 35-251 , relative to minimum separation between accessory buildings at 3812 Janet Lane. 12. Federal Lumber Company 76062 Amend approved parking plan for business at 4810 North Lilac Drive. • s 13. Cepco, Inc. 77023 Preliminary Plat for Ewing Square Addition (Tabled at 7-20-77 meeting) . 14. Cepco, Inc. 77030 Site and Building plan approval for 19-unit townhouse development at 62nd and Ewing Avenue North (Tabled at 7-20-77) . 15. Draft Ordinance Amendment of Chapter 35-530 Relative to Accessory Buildings in R-1 and R-2 Districts . 16. Rezoning Evaluation Criteria - Review and Adoption 17. Discussion Items: a. Joint Meeting with Council on August 15. b. Future meeting dates . c. Neighborhood Advisory Group Members d. Pending Items 18. Other Business: 19. Adjournment: • • I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77033 Applicant: Richard Rockstad Location: 7000-7006 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Preliminary Plat Approval The applicant seeks Preliminary Plat approval for the property at the northeast corner of 70th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard which is comprised of two un- pla.tted parcels. The area of the property is approximately .70 acres, and the zoning is R=5. We will be prepared to discuss the request including the proposed dedication of the north 30 ft. of 70th Avenue North as it abuts this property and the need for any additional easements . Approval would be subject to the following conditions: 1 . Final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . 8/11/77 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77034 Applicant: Richard Pockstad Location: 7000-7006 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Variance The applicant seeks a variance from Section 35-411 (4) which provides that in the C-1 District no parking shall be permitted within 35 ft. of any major thoroughfare right-of-way, and the 35 ft. area shall be maintained as a greenstrip. Section 35- 700 also mentions this 35 ft. greenstrip along major thoroughfares for developments in the C-1 District. The applicant proposes to use a portion of the 35 ft. green- strip for temporary visitor parking. This request is related to Application No. 77035 for a special use permit to allow development of a Service/Office use on the property which is in the R-5 zoning district. The City Council recently amended the ordinance to permit certain Service/Office uses in the R-5 zoning district, and the ordinance at Section 35-314 (3) states that such Service/Offices uses shall be subject to the C-1 District re- quirements . Brooklyn Boulevard is defined as a major thoroughfare. The applicant has submitted a letter to the file (copy attached) explaining the reasons for the variance request. The intent of the ordinance in establishing this setback for C-1 Service/Office uses along major thoroughfares is primarily based upon aesthetic consideration. The Comprehensive Plan which calls for ultimate development of C-1 uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, for example, recognizes the difference in parking for Service; • Office uses versus Retail uses, in that, retail uses typically generate short-term parking and higher trip activity than office uses which typically exhibit longer- term parking . The purpose of requiring a 35 ft. minimum yard or greenstrip is an effort to provide an aesthetic break or balance to a generally full and static parking area . The applicant contends that the proposed parking in the front of the office building would be for visitor or short-terns parking and thus, in that context, would be similar to the C-2 type of parking use. The plans indicate that sufficient parking to support the building within ordinance standards is provided easterly of the building in a large parking lot,and it is the intent of the applicant to designate that parking area for employees and tenants of the proposed building. The approxi- m.-,tely 6 spaces in front of the building would accommodate visitors and customers to the real estate offices and would be so designated. Access to this parking would be from 70th Avenue North and would be one-way in design with exiting onto Brooklyn Boulevard. The variance would be for 15 ft. since a 20 ft greenstrip is indicated on the plan and is possible due to the provision for parallel parking spaces rather than di- agonal or 900 spaces. A public hearing has been scheduled. The applicant indicates .in the letter submitted to the file that he would be willing to apply a covenant to the property (which could be filed with the related • plat:) which would be in a form satisfactory to the City and which would stipulate the specific use of the area for visitor parking related to the real --state use alone. It would further stipulate, according to the applicant's letter, that should the use of the building change, the area would be restored as a greenstrip. 8-11-77 'Application No. 77034 continued: The Commission should evaluate the request in terms of the standards for variance listed in Section 35-240 since a specific finding must be made that there is general compliance with those standards, and that the request is within the intent of the ordinance. A final consideration would be that this variance is not essential to the compliance of the proposed site and building plans with ordinance parking standards. The ap- plicant has submitted a site plan reflecting full compliance with the ordinance standards, and a site plan reflecting the proposed parking with a variance. The Commission may want to take the variance matter ender advisement and review the ordinance standard itself and the feasibility of amending that standard as a pos- sible alternative to granting a variance. • 3-11-77 i .,�NETONKA, MN 55343 16121933-8111 M W z 3 Q = J � 'mow, T 25 July 1977 LAIRSEN ASSOCIATES ARCHIT'6) Mr Blair Tremere City Planner City of Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Center MN 55429 Re: Lowry Realty Building, 70th Street @ Brooklyn Boulevard Dear Blair: Please consider this letter our formal request for a variance from the reouire- ments of Section 35-411(4) of the Zoning Ordinance regt!iring that no parking be located within 35 feet of a major thoroughfare, in -this case, Brooklyn Boulevard. While we have sufficient parking to the east of the building to satisfy the re- quirements of Section 35-704(28. ) , we feel that, due to the specific use of this office building, i .e. , real estate office, we require extra spaces for customer parking. Since this customer parking is of short duration,, rapid turnover nature, similar to that provided for in the C-2 zone, vre feel justified in ask- ing for a change from 35 feet to 15 feet in the required setback distance. It is our opinion that the parking shown on the west side of the building, ad- jacent to Brooklyn Boulevard, v,!ould not be necessary for other uses of the building, and we are prepared to agree to limit the use of this .area to visitor parking only, and to place a covenant upon the land agreeing to remove the park- ing surface and landscape the area in the event that. -the use of the building changes. The covenant would be in a form satisfactory to the City. We contend that the granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare in any way. The facility will be used primarily during the off- peak traffic periods, and will serve to lessen pressure on the curb-side park- ing in the area. Very truly yours, and J Larsen AIA Encl : site plan cc; Rocky Rockstad • • I I • 'Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77035 Applicant: Richard Rockstad Location: 70th and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks a Special Use Permit and Site and Building Plan approval for a 2700 sq. ft office building at the northeast corner of 70th and Brooklyn Boulevard. The application comprehends adequate parking for a general office building of this size and a 6 unit garage and accessory building which would be located on the east side of the ,property. This request represents the first one under a new section of the ordinance (35-314) which allows certain Service/Office uses in the R-5 zoning district. That section of the ordinance provides that in each specific case, the proposed use must be demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1 . Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as those uses permitted in the R-5 District generally; 2. Complimentary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the R-5 District generally; 3. Of comparable intensity to permitted R-5 District land uses with respect to activity levels ; 4. Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities, the immediate neighborhood, or the community. The section of the ordinance also states that the Service/Office uses shall be subject to the C-1 District requirements and other applicable ordinance standards • for Service/Office type uses. The site and building plans submitted indicate an alternative site plan which would require a variance as requested under Application No. 77034. The site plans are in order, however, without the additional parking comprehended under the variance request. A public hearing has been scheduled. We will prepared to discuss the details of the plan at the meeting. Approval would be subject to the following: 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior to issuance of permits. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements . 4. The property shall be replated according to the requirements of the City Subdivision Ordinance and said plat shall be filed prior to occupancy. 5. All rooftop mechanical equipment and outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. 8-11-77 Application No. 77035 continued: 6. Approved parking areas shall be screened from the abutting residential properties on the north as required by Ordinance Section 35-711 , and the site plan shall be appropriately amended prior to City Council review indicating the 6 ft. high opaque fence or wall . T5), PAoP� � TV -20 70 TNT._A 7701-7 f c _ c c— _. -- -�o+�.—�w�-_qua=-.i....: �n•r�'a+.—�,�ut-reW 1p Ilc�dr 4j 410 _.. �G•ol o•��l � c•iZ i o jo-7 a r 11 M ��a e 3 ,� to Olo _ � to II Q plt N O'iN o sa 'D j N :rte• i-• .-1 cfj / �: �. ���� I �� II .c 0:1 �(•,�� '� o.•.�,' � i �LO ��O it M O Al e. Iwo A i - 0.51 X b..L o•SL x N-71 f p o th k 1 4 €i I.s z ♦ 1• I • 1 J pl 1-69 • v-,v�mat#;B +I I rd ol, ,j OL Y Q i i� _ ►- � <ZL I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77036 Applicant: Burger King Corporation • Location: 6110 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks approval of building plans and site plan revisions comprehending a small addition to the north side of the building, and a canopy which would allow automobile service carry-out. We have reviewed the site plan and the building plans, and find them to be in order. The concept is that as one would drive around the building having entered the site from the south curb cut on Brooklyn Boulevard, one could call in his order from a remote station and proceed to the carry-out window under the canopy paying for and receiving his order at that point. The concept is similar to the auto banking facilities using remote teller and the drive-up window concept used by the Poppin Fresh Pie Shop on Xerxes Avenue North. There is substantial revision of the existing curbing to the rear of the building and the provision for landscaping and new curb and gutter including delineation of the drive-through pick-up lane. We will be prepared to review the plans in detail at the meeting. Approval would be subject to the following: 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes . 2. Grading, drainage and curbing plans are subject to review by • the City Engineer. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements . 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which shall be subject to the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. 8-11-77 -- GARDEN CITY A 4� SCHOOL -� I ! Cl yA R K r ;F AD — r cc AVE M . (1 413ND FIRE 2 STA. q J--I I 621 MD A TT AYE H f11 R ',jam ' � r WANG STAR PARK id AVE IL uwf I -- -- a rr p rrt I I S�Ta AVE - - �ih "'11 iJ NORTHWAY OR. c -- �—-- i a --- CIA / W.7--H- AVE. C2(Q s - }--- COUNTY: w AYL hL T H �. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77039 • Applicant: Nancy Shanahan Location: 5219 - 62nd Avenue North Request: Special Use Permit The applicant seeks approval of a permit request for a home occupation involving a one station beauty shop. A letter submitted to the file indicates: I am interested in having the salon open approximately 25 hours a week, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays . I will be working entirely alone, and have no intentions of employing another operator. We have a split level home with an entrance to the salon area at the back of the house. There is ample parking without having to use the street. The Building Official has visited the premises and has discussed applicable code requirements with her. A public hearing has been scheduled. Typical concerns of the Commission involve off-street parking and hours of operation. Approval would be subject to the following: • 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is not transferable . 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. A copy of the current State Operator's License shall be kept on file with the City. 4. The hours of operation shall be: I W Q Z cr Y WIN C H E 8 T N r _ ELL '�'O , t3 5 A`E. - � o a'L z _ —_ V -- liJ � cr I _- _ ELF► OR LA i 63 RD Ave y d 1-77-11 Z r�' V1 I ' Y J C • ! – -- W �- ® I ofzcHAD o - �— LANE C4 SCHOOL �— <Y - oil No 7 70 3q \ \ �° �R��\ K L Aw N CRYSTAL AIRPORT rx Li I • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application 77041 • Applicant: Charles Boese Location: 4210 Lakebreeze Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks site and building plan approval for a 4 stall garage and general upgrading of an existing parking facility behind the four plex which he owns and occupies . The plans submitted by the applicant have been reviewed and are basically in order. There are several circumstances with respect to this property and ad- jacent properties, however, which should be considered by the Commission. The subject four plex, as well as a four plex by Mr. James Simcox at 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue North and a four plea owned by Mr. Robert Urbach, 4806 Twin Lake Avenue North, all share a common parking lot located on the applicant's property behind the ap- plicant's four plex. Access to the parking lot is from a dedicated alley east of the applicant's property. This common parking area was apparently approved when the 3 four plexes were built by the same developer in 1960. The Zoning Ordinance at that time required one stall per unit for a total of 12 stalls, which are pro- vided, versus the two stall per unit requirment of today's ordinance. While a formal joint parking agreement was not required or confirmed by the then Village Council , there is, nevertheless, a private easement agreement between the three property owners . Among other things, it calls for the use and maintenance of the parking lot jointly by the three owners with cost of such upgrading and maintenance improvements to be shared equally among them. Independent of the applicant's site and building plan request, the Housing Inspector has determined that basic maintenance improvements to the parking are are needed under the provisions of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Code. All three owners have been so notified. The joint private agreement also allows the owner of the subject property, in this case, the applicant, to erect at his discretion, a 4 stall garage behind his units . This application then, is that owner's effort to exercise his prerogative under the private agreement. During our review of the site and building plans , we have informed the applicant of the standard upgrading, such as repaving and curbing, which is required of all site and building plan approvals in similar circumstances, notwithstanding the private joint agreement among the three owners . Therefore, the site and building plans should be reviewed on their merits, including the necessary improvements related to that development. Should the applicant not proceed with the work due to the lack of agreement by the other two parties to participate, the essential result world be no development of curbing and no con- struction of the 4 stall garage. The general upgrading of the paved parking area, however, will be enforced under the provisions of the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance if the approved development does not proceed. The consideration then, under this application are not those raised by a private joint agreement among the property owners, but rather are those allowable and re- quired by City Ordinance. Approval would be subject to the following: 8-11-77 Application No. 77041 continued: 1 . Building plans are subject to approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes. 2. Drainage and grading plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements . 4. All outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. f 1 • F T- A 8 T A bl SY AVE M. A"f -2 vi: tj oil J , 1 1 TWIN �! if LAKE aREEZE —arAU e Ir uj 1�� LAKESIDE AVE Eta;, �, LAK G-- 1 / f----. - ' ROBBINSDAL.E m I r T • • i i ___.. 7133 a o 00 I !Y � to �N coo f ' ! l . --- ----- ----- -- ' 133.3�_• ...- _..._. � .. . `3 g. . LA�,kBRE� �e �vC APPLii.ATio1J 0 77,,)gl r 1 I I�I i �, it ICI, (I j ',j'I �i l I �I O �� �', r, �I Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77042 • Applicant: Ronald Blake Location: 3812 Janet Lane Request: Appeal The applicant has filed an appeal according to the provisions of Section 35-251 , where a ruling has been made by the Planning and Inspection Department which has resulted in denial of a building permit for a proposed second accessory building on the applicant's property. The proposed second accessory building is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance sideyard and rear yard setbacks , and the applicant is permitted an accessory building of the proposed size as a second accessory structure under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed structure, however, is located less than 6 feet from the existing accessory structure, and the Building Official has applied a long standing City policy that the minimum separation be- tween all buildings in the R-1 and R-2 Districts be at least 6 feet. The applicant's intention is that the City Ordinance does not specify this minimum 6 foot separation and furthermore, that the Uniform Building Code comprehends structures which are less than 6 feet apart (by specifying that special fire re- sistive materials be used whenever structures are located less than 3 feet from one another) . The Building Official 's position is that the 6 foot minimum requirement, while not formally written into the Ordinance has been established City policy which is clearly within the intent of the Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance does require that accessory buildings must be at least 3 feet from the property line, thereby resulting in a minimum separation between two buildings, each on a separate lot, of a least 6 feet from v!all to wall . The Zoning Ordinance also specifies that accessory buildings must be a minimum of g feet from the dwelling building on a residential lot. The intent of these ordinance provisions is one of fire, safety, and access . In addition, the Uniform Building Code requires that such structures must have extra fire protection provided through the use of special fire resistive materials whenever the buildings are closer than 3 feet at any point. The City policy for requiring a minimum 6 foot separation between all buildings is based upon the above and a common sense interpretation of the building code requirement since a typical feature of residential structures is a 12 foot overhang from the exterior wall thus, resulting in 6 foot separation wall to wall (12 ft. overhang for each building = 3 feet plus 3 foot separation = 6 feet) . The applicant -is correct in that the minimum 6 foot wall to wall separation is not forth in the Zoning Ordinance or in literature distributed by the Planning and Inspection Department regarding construction of accessory buildings . His contention is that he designed the location of the garage according to the ordinance standard set forth in that literature, and that he did not intend to circumvent the require- ments of the ordinance. The plans by the applicant's contractor, however, did not provide for the extra fire resistive materials as specified in the Uniform Building Code even though the proposed building was two feet from the existing garage. We have met with the applicant and have discussed the Uniform Building Code re- quirements for structures less than 3 feet apart and we have discussed the basis for the policy which has been uniformly enforced over the years . The applicant has submitted a revised plan which would provide for a minimum separation of more than 3 feet, but would be less than the 6 feet required under the policy. 8-11-77 i � I �",'� ,i 'I {',I � { �I i i i �,I i�V �, '. i �,' I �I. i ��I �- l' Application No. 77042 continued: It is the applicant's desire to have the new accessory structure in a specific location adjacent to the existing garage for design and access purposes , even though there is adequate room on the site for locating the second accessory building in such a manner that it would comply with both the ordinance written requirementsand the unwritten policy. The applicant has stated that he would prefer not to relocate the building, however, in consideration of an existing tree in his yard as we'll as for access reasons. The basic issue then, is whether the Building Official 's ruling, based upon un- written albeit common sense policy, should be upheld and the applicant's request denied requiring a relocation or redesign of the proposed structure so that it complies with the ordinance standards and the unwritten policy. Our concern goes beyond the immediate application especially since the applicant has made a good faith effort to revise the building design so that it technically conforms with the Uniform Building Code minimum separation (and therefore does not require special costly fire resistive materials) , and so that it conforms with the written Zoning Ordinance setback standards . We have prepared for this agenda a draft ordinance amendment of Section 35-530 which would establish the standard of a minimum separation of 6 feet wall to wall between accessory buildings in the R-1 and R-2 districts . It is our judgment that this particular circumstance is indicative of a large possible number of similar requests which will be made in the coming years . The existing standards were developed at a time when new houses were being erected on vacant lots and when a single accessory building was being erected at the same time or some years after the dwelling had been built. Now that the community has developed, we are being confronted with numerous requests for remodeling and for additions such as the applicant's on the established properties . Our position at this time, then, is regardless of the disposition of this individual appeal , we recommend that the minimum separation between buildings be formally established -in the ordinance. It would also be our observation that if the applicant has revised his plan so that a minimum separation of 3 feet is provided between the structures, he will then technically be within the intent of the written ordinance and Building Code standards . The specific appeal should be reviewed on its individual merits and we will be prepared to review in further detail with the Commission. We emphasize our full endorsement of the Building Official 's interpretation and ruling, however, in that it clearly has been uniformally enforced in similar circumstances and has been soundly based on the written established codes and ordinances . Our discussions with the applicant indicate that he does not question the intent of the Building Official ' s ruling, but rather questions the technical enforceability of an un- written policy. • I ii r S� ' ��� all i '; i I y q 9 ail i i • I �.F' i, �� ''. i I � ', i ICI I ' • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Nos . 76062 and 76066 Applicant: Federal Lumber Company Location: 4810 North Lilac Drive Request: Amend Approved Parking Plan and Approved Off-Site Accessory Parking Agreement The City Council on December 20, 1976 approved the two applications which comprehended a structural addition to an existing building on the site and a special use permit for off-site accessory parking. One of the conditions of those approvals was that the applicant would enter into an agreement with the City acknowledging the re- sponsibility of the owner to provide for adequate off-street parking as stipulated by the Zoning Ordinance. The off-site accessory parking was proposed for property owned by Cook Paint on adjacent land to the southeast of Federal Lumber Company property. The applicant did provide an agreement and the building addition has been completed, however, as an alternative to the installation of parking spaces on the private property adjacent, the applicant has, in the meantime reached an agreement with the Minnesota State Highway Department for use of State owned land across Lilac Drive from Federal Lumber. This request, then, is for approval of a parking plan which comprehends the in- stallation of 42 parking stalls, including paving, curb and gutter, and landscaping on the Department of Transportation property. A copy of the proposed lease agree- rient with the Department of Transporation has been submitted to the file, and a condition of approval should be that a formal copy of the completed signed agree- ment should be submitted when it is executed. It would be in order to also require the revision of the agreement between the City and Federal Lumber Company to clarify the present situation and acknowledge the use of public owned land for off-site parking purposes . The plans are in order, and the request complies with the requirements for off-site accessory parking. One concern involves the proposed landscape treatment for the parking area, in that, it may be appropriate to provide additional plantings along the west side of the parking area towards Highway 100. Also, the applicant has indicated a preference to install crushed rock and, presumably some ground cover vegetation, in lieu of sodding in the required 15 ft. greenstrip abutting Lilac Drive. The specific approved landscape treatment should be indicated as a con- dition of approval . Approval would be subject to the following: 1 . Grading and drainage plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The approved site improvements shall be comprehended under the Performance Agreement and financial guarantee executed by the applicant on December 28, 1976 under Application No. 76062. 3. The parking provisions agreement entered into by the applicant on December 27, 1976 and by the City on January 24, 1977 shall be appropriately amended to reflect the authorized use of public owned land as an alternative to the previously approved use of private property owned by Cook Paint Company. 8-11-77 i i I i i I I I i �� '� i I i I�'' '� � I� I�� !�� ;i �� �� I,, tii�l li Application Nos . 76062 and 76066, continued: 4. A copy of the fully executed agreement entered into by the applicant and by the Minnesota Department of Transportation relative to the use of the subject property shall be submitted to and kept on file with the City. i it �® i I I ii I i I i � � ��� i � � il�` 1 "I .� • n ' 1 cv rl i t i � � i�v� .�j�.— -- fir_ EJ°• !--.�— I 1 ' i i ;� � ', L �; '� 4 i � ' ', i II 1 ' •� A K IT 51 ST AVE N. t \ HAPPY HO"01W 1-2 - --- / DARK LR\174 \Y' -- - �� S T M .� J �Y I TF ` I I U-7 o T -• y am. G vo X C. j z V c. �I• o_lv i 1 �� � i•" -R LE , RYAN AKA ♦ Y r . _ r P d 1 Y w z ) � a i �+ 4 6 Toi AVE H r o � ' oin K Ll X Z W �t II,',I �" li�'�� II!I�' ��''. li��� I' i Idl,'I I,I� illy I'i I� ,'�, ,i �, Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77023 Applicant: Cepco, Inc. Location: 62nd Avenue North and Ewing Lane Request: Preliminary Plat This item was tabled at the July 20, 1977 Planning Commission meeting pending approval of Application No. 77030 consisting of Site and Building Plan approvals for a townhouse project at this location. Approval would be subject to the following: 1 . Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . 3. Plat approval acknowledges an approximate 215 sq. ft. area deficiency for each of the two R-2 zoned lots; said deficiency being attributed to the location of the zoning line established by the City in 1968. 8-11-77 l �r ` Planning Commission Information Sheet Application Rio. 77030 Applicant: Cepco, Inc. Location: 6200 Block on Ewing Lane Request: Site and Building Plan approval This item was tabled at the July 20, 1977 meeting to permit further review of the site and building plans with respect to applicable codes and ordinances and to permit the revision of the landscape schedule to indicate a more specific distri- bution of the proposed trees, and. to amend the minimum diameter of the Red Maple variety trees to 2 to 21 ", Further review of the plans indicates that the allowed density is 19 units versus the 2.0 units indicated by the applicant. Apparently the applicant had not accounted for the extra density land area required for bedrooms in excess of two, and it would be necessary to eliminate approximately 16 bedrooms from the three and four bedroom units in order to achieve the area necessary to support another two bedroom townhouse. We will be prepared to discuss the revised site and building plans in detail . Approval would be subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the building official with respect to applicable codes. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits . 3. A site Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in • an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of site improvements . 4. Adequate steps as approved by the Planning and Inspection Department shall be taken during the construction period to provide security screening for the purposes of inhibiting unauthorized access to the construction site. 5. All outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. • 8-11 -77 I I I���` � � � �,i, � �. �'�.,�i ' I�� ,, i ,� ,� i I����� �i I,, � :� M I .4 I';', � � � , �� °,��� ' i '',�� i � ! � ii�,I f i�,!,'J i �� j I '�I';�,I �'`' � ��'I° i �,I, � „i, �';,�, I'�I �I , ELI ... �� j ; ��l,,l�� � , � �� � � � ���;Ir ; I III������ � s I i��,i ,�� � �, �' ,�I � �� , ,�f �� �; � „i �! � '''� pf i s'� ,,� :, ��"'`' II li (I''I � . li �� i i I;U '',j '` L � � ��,' i 'i , �IiiiC_i tt1�tt / r yr,� { m-i CArto.q Nos .royc , R z 770Z3 , X7030 OGE MAN'S --------r--,---, I,,_ f - tN� PA R K / kij t i • .. �, I� i'�� i ij �I I� �i Ili . !, �I .....Iii �i • ,'� ;, f I � I '' '� ', �� I i� �I '� 1. i u �I II I�� � , � �i , 1.