The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1972 10-05 PCP C171,1V OP BR00*,&ijY'IsJ' CENTER PLANNING COMISSION -AGENDA Regular Mer:!?ting October 5, 1972 1. Call to ordert 800 P.M. 2,. Roll Call: 3 Lp ..provill of Mini tes: September 21, 1972 4. Chairman' s x arn,-,�ion 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 Cortwtission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. consolidated Financial. gqz MiC.TL.P `� 72073 Rezoning 6. B.C. Development Co 2LO—- iA--c P- - 72075 Site and Building Plan Approval 7 . Gene Kasmar 72076 Variance • viewcon rat- I �a x�r hovel o�cent Corps 70012 Amend site and buildiftq plans 9. Discuqs�on xtemS-. a. Freeuay Zone Proposal b. Comprehensive Plan Review Sessions C. Reg ievi of Special. p-,orae occupation ordinance Provisions 10. other Bu2. .nessg 11. ha qj out nment • 1 i • • Apps_--4.cation No. '72073 A pp 11 c P t Conoolidated Vinancial Coro. Location-: i7orth of 1-94 West o- Shingle Creek, Riast of I*Kerx'es Av,-;.,*,Iue .fie scriptio" of Request: Rezoning BACITGROU11,TD: The app".-Lcant seal�s -cazoni.,ag from I...1 -to C---2 of a parcel ��r".dj ace nt to 01'a ---i-e recommended for the. same action, in the area bounded. by 1-94 an the south, and Shingle Cree-13-c- greeristrip (Dn the I'lortheast. Ti2e subject parcell Consists of 19.27 acrez. ANALYSIS AIM The Council tc,,blea the previous rezoning request to parMit COIIS4 tie ratjon Of a HfE,- w bich _eWaV eo Z, l would comprehend a ;:-.,dxture of Industrial and Commercial • fram-my-O.Ciented uses. The action by the Council c4as not negative, and ivaa dorle, 141-0 proment cirml-,ictancas �,fh-ich might Co?1,Qpj 4 Cate or vtdversely eff'ect -4�-he Possi"Ae establisyg"Ient OfFE a, freeway %one in tht- area. ic to table the, aprplic:atioa panding ravie'�'- and dispoc.i.tion 0-c'! a pr 0 P o S a 1 y 20ne Concept ry �r za C31. � . Aw y x aagp "D � +� �P i� vada l�RaT. -�.• 3i! a. ;� C �� Applicant-t. B.C, Development Corp. Location: of viunicipal Ga:,:nge on 69th Avenue Worth I)escription of Request% Site and building plan approval B A C-9(G: IT'he applicant Is seeking site and building plan approval proval for a !'Spec', warehouse on a parcel at the northern edge of the inCiustrial Park, east-erly of the nunicipal Garage. The size of the pxoposed building is approx.4-raately 113,412 4 - - 9 ac-2-0s. sq.Uare :Feet, and the site area is approximately ly ,ZMJ;*_0:'3IS AIM rZCQkSIrT-.,DAT37.0Iq Th2'.r. !�-iould be the rt Stith I'speall roarehou.s'e. Plans indicate 10,400 sq.ft. 11 initially be utilized for office space, Based upon, the 309 parking spaces provided, potentially over 45poOQ sq. ft. could go to office use. The applican'tt shculd further specify the e,Xteriox- finish • of ene stracture. Phe Engineering Department has revieved the be inn needs, particularly relative to the 69th Avenue frontage; the Director of Public Worhs be prepared to discuss these. Access till be frees Shingle Creek Parkway - LOT From 69th Aven-de. The plans appear to be in order and recommendation iS for approvall . S -o the fol.1oxvAng conditions: ubject It. - 1. Building plans are subject to tale approval Of the Building inspector i,.Uh respect. to applicable building codes; 2. Utill.-Itit atd drainage plans, including beriming specifi- cations ave subject to app_-�ovaj oz the city Engineer prior to r.: 4 ssuance of building pormits; J_ 3. A performance bond and performance agreement (ia an aiaount to be det-errained by the City IdanageZ-) shall be submitted to the C.-Lt.y to guaraniL ee `C he installat-ion of the si-t-e, as designated on Che approved plans. • J ' ar t�altc� �- 69 n p� f 111,jal MIAMI all' U b Iva- N. as er Jb ry N �y$ 17 0<1 � ($� lot .yz, •` asr��, .�„`are� i .� .'tea � �x ,a�mm�.,.�, � �3 i �y i P1X_11UQ1k\TG COil"'IMISSIOU 117IF-C2MMATI Oil S&.C-;LT 72076 Applicant-. Gene Kasmar • Location: 5559 Lyndale Avenue North Description of Request Setback and accessory building variance BACKGROUND-s The Applicant reigiuests variances from section 35-311 (Accessory Buildings in R-2 Districts) and Section 35-400 (Setback Requirements) to permit construction of a 484 sqP ft. addition to an existing 484 sq. ft. garage on his property at 5559 Lyndale Avenue Fortis. ANALYSIS AND RECONMENDATIOIST: The applicant wishes to double the present garage to permit the year -round enjoyment of his hobby of restoring classic automobiles, The present garage has a sideyard setback of 7.5 feet and the ordinance requires 25 -eet. Thus, the proposal to cause major • structura-11. alterations brings into play the variance of 17. 5 feet - which is permitted as a non-conforming use. in effect, approval of- the application would acknowledge the major extension of a non-conformina use. The applicant, contends that the gar-age is structurally' sound and useable for its current put-pose of parking the family car; and, that to remove or relocate the structure w ould be a physical and unnecessary hardship. In this regard, the proximity of proposed 1-94 and the planned termination of 56th hvenue neAr the property are noted, i.e. there will be no detrimental effect upon the street (no through -traffic) or residential development upon the adjacent properby. Xn addition, the appi.icant seeks a variance from the ordinance provision requiring that- the ground coverage area of an accessory building shall not exceed 75 of the ground coverage area of the dwelling buildinq or 1,000 sq. ft. , whichever is lesser. The area of the house is 1,097 sq. :Nt. ; 1097 3e -75 = 823. sq. ft. The size of the garage with the proposed addition 'would be 1,088 sq. ft. ; thus the variance is for 265 sq.ft. . p.'t location NO. 72076 Page 2 The applicant notes the large ]cat size, the design of the proposed addition and the faot that adjacent property has been acquired as f.-eeway right-of-way. Also, the applicant maintains that a hardship is realized in terms of providing adequate enclosed space for the pursuit of the hobby providing a noise and sight buffer from the freeway; and, providing an aesthetic improvement of an older property. The uniqueness of the situation and location (us. others in the same zoning district) is apparent. There is no apparent detrimental effect upon adjacent or neighboring property owners. Staff opinion is that the request is valid, particularly in light of the uniqueness factor. While the property represents a non -conforming use (due mainly to the setback of the garage) , the proposal presents an upgrading of the parcel by the owner and occupant for a bona fide residential use. Given the size of the lo-%* , the effect of an accessory building 265 sq. ft. in excess of the Billowed maximum is not disproportionate. • lOj • A r 4'p ' yy s r 8 y vnFl�A�W YMMY. �,N�! V1W �4 ms r f lot. logo �, ,- �,._ ® '.;.ur.. . �s ..w. ,.._.p,a..s ds"'_,r� ...RtnNW''b�,�Y"° <„wu� �+*��rz'.l�t'.b` '.�w•�ir.-.._ P"MIMNG C01,UVIZSSION IFIFORD-%TION SIMET App"LU4;�ation k�o. 70012 Applicant: Darrel A. Parr Development Corp. • Location4 4300 block on 58th Avenue North Description of Request% A-mendment of Site and Building Plans BA CKO PIO ILTIND.. The applicant has submitted new conceptual plans for the townhouse project on 58th Avenue North ;formerly Chessman Townhouses) , which indicate site modifications, another building, and a reduction of the total number of dwelling units from 44 to 40. AMLYSIS AND RECOI\'RMNDAIIIIOW-. Staff has reviewed the submitted plans and feels they are satis-Vactory for conceptual XeView. The modifications affect Phase I of the two phase develoEmment (only the first phase has been approved) . Notably lacking from the new drawings is a landscape plan. Also provision for a tot lot has apparently been eliminated. • The :suture swimming pool has been relocated, ana indicated as an intended installation. Substantial concern centers around landscape alterations. A comparison of the nexi plan with the old indicates groups of trees (existing and intended) being replaced by buildings. Since no landscaping has been indicated at all, it is difficult to surmise the intended placement of new trees and the disposition of old ones . Furthermore, substantial berming indicated origiaally has been apparently eliminated and swails have been substituted. The commission and Council were particularly concerned with the provision of effective berming - especially along the east property line. The Director of Public Works will be prepared to comment relative to the drainage situation, given the _pzoposed amendment. The applicant has been contacted relative to these considerations and has indicated the plans were conceptual; furthermore, it was the applicant' s reeling that a revised landscaping plan • was not needed at this time. Application N-o. 70012 gage 2 Staff opinion is that the conceptual plans represent a major amendment to the original plans and merit full review. While the conditions o-J'.-" approval for the original plans would apply to the amendment, it is conceivable that those might require revision and that others might be applied. Recommendation is for deferral to permit the applicant the opportunity to submit further data detailing the substantial alterations of the townhouse project which arc- implicit in the conceptual plans. •