Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 06-14 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84015 Applicant: Byerly's, Inc. Location: 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant requests site and building plan approval for a 66,597 sq. ft. Byerly's store and restaurant and a 33,875 sq. ft. strip shopping center at approximately 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by John Martin Drive on the south, Shingle Creek Parkway on the west, Summit Drive on the north, and by vacant C2 zoned land and LaBelle's on the east. Retail sales and restaurants without live entertainment are permitted uses in the C2 zoning district. A proposal for a 90,000 sq. ft. Byerly's store and restaurant was approved by the City three years ago under Application- No. 81007. That concept was never built and this application is a revision of that original concept. The site layout calls for one access off John Martin Drive toward the southeast corner of the property and two accesses off Summit Drive, one east and one west of Earle Brown Drive which intersects with Summit Drive on the opposite side of the street. No accesses are provided onto Shingle Creek Parkway. Offsets of 125' are maintained on Summit Drive. It may be difficult to provide a 125' offset from the State Farm building access as has been the City's policy for driveways. Staff have requested that all accesses be at 900 to the street right-of-way. The plans must be revised to accomplish this standard policy. The Director of Public Works has also recommended a widening of the accesses including a 32' wide east access on Summit Drive which would exceed normal ordinance limitations. Based on the retail formula, the parking requirement for Byerly's is 415 spaces and for the strip shopping center 235 spaces. Parking spaces in the main central lot are to be striped at a width of 10' . Using the ordinance minimum of 8' 8" width, there is a potential of 435 stalls on the Byerly's property and 247 stalls on the shopping center site. The number of parking spaces based on 10 wide striping is 393 spaces and 223 spaces respectively. The proof-of-parking based on ordinance minimums, therefore, meets the ordinance formula for retail uses. The restaurant use, provided it is not more than 10% of the gross floor of the retail center requires no separate additional parking. . The landscape plan calls for approximately 50 shade trees around the 13.43 acre site including American Linden, Summit Ash, Norway Maple, Greenspire Linden, Shademaster Locust and River Birch Clumps. Nineteen decorative trees such as Amur Maple, Snowdrift Crab and Hopa Crab are scheduled along with 14 Black Hills Spruce. Over 200 shrubs and 750 flowers (all white and red. Geranium_s) are also scheduled. Staff have requested a few additional shade trees in the large greenstrip area along the easterly property line at the point where it jogs. We have also requested additional coniferous trees in the northeast corner of the Byerly's property to provide additional screening of the loading dock area behind the building. Finally, we request that the large parking lot island at the south end of the site near the access to John Martin Drive be landscaped with decorative trees and shrubs inasmuch as it is a very large island. The landscape plan calls for large shade trees in 6 sodded islands surrounded by integral curb along the front of the shopping center. There are also landscape islands adjacent to the shopping center and the Byerly's building with benches provided near the entrance to the Byerly's restaurant at the southwest corner of the Byerly' s building. Staff have requested additional benches in the large sidewalk area in front of the shopping center building. The sidewalk in front of the buildings is rather generous, from 20' to 55' wide. Under- ground irrigation is noted for the Byerly's site only. This must also be provided on the shopping center property. 6-14-84 -1 Application No. 84015 continued The grading, drainage and utility plan is not much changed from the plan approved three years ago, providing for most drainage in the main parking lot to be collected by three catch basins in the approximate center of the Byerly's lot and conveyed by a 24" storm sewer to the City storm sewer in Summit Drive. A smaller drainage area behind the Byerly's building also drains by storm sewer to Summit Drive and the southerly portion of the main parking lot will drain by storm sewer to John Martin Drive. The parking lot area will sit at a lower elevation than the surrounding streets. Therefore, although berms are proposed at 2' to 3' heights, it is recom- mended that berming be increased, especially in the larger green areas, along Shingle Creek Parkway and Summit Drive to provide more effective parking lot screening. There is also a need for an additional fire hydrant at the jog in the easterly property line to provide adequate fire protection to the loading dock area behind the buildings. The Byerly's building and the shopping center building will be connected, along a common wall , but there will be no opening between the two buildings. The exterior of both buildings will be brick with a brick soldier course approximately 6' wide along the upper half of the wall around the entire building. There will be no canopy over the front of either the Byerly's or the shopping center building, but there will be occasional wing walls coming out from the building. The plan shows screening walls for the dumpster and loading dock areas behind the bui,l,ding. Site lighting is provided by high pressure sodium light fixtures on 35' high poles spaced between 100' and 200' apart. No security lighting on the back of the build- ing has been shown, but it is presumed there will be such lighting. Altogether, the plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: - 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval 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 and approval 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 prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate si'te maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. 8612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 6-14-84 -2- Application No. 84015 continued 9. The R. L. S. for this property shall be finaled and filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The plans shall be revised prior to City Council consideration in the following manner: a) The driveway openings on John Martin -and Summit Drives shall be widened to meet the recommendation of the Director of Public works and shall be revised to be at a 900 angle to public right-of-way. b) Additional shade and coniferous trees shall be provided along the east side of the site, north of the property line jog to provide better screening of the loading dock area and more attractive appearance. c) The exclusion of Tract B from underground irrigation shall be removed. d) Additional benches shall be provided in the sidewalk area in front of the shopping center building. e) The large parking lot island adjacent to the John Martin Drive access shall be landscaped with at least two decorative trees and shrubs consistent with landscaping by the building. f) An additional fire hydrant shall be provided at the jog in the east property line to provide adequate fire protection to the loading dock area. g) Berms in the Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway greenstrip areas shall reach a height of 3' above street grade, subject to a maximum '3:1 slope. 11. Traffic forecasts for the site including quantity and direction shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council in order to determine the possible need for traffic signals at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. 12. Plan approval acknowledges a waiver of the policy for a 125' offset for the access onto John Martin Drive and of the limitation of a 30' driveway opening for the easterly access on Summit Drive. 13. An as-built survey of the site utilities shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to release of the performance guarantee. 6-14--84 -3- . ,planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84016 Applicant: Byerly' s, Inc. Location: 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Preliminary R.L.S. The applicant seeks preliminary R. L.S. approval for a two tract subdivision at approximately 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by John Martin Drive on the south, by Shingle Creek Parkway on the west, by Summit Drive on the north and by La Belle' s and vacant commercially zoned land on the east. This subdivision is the location of the Byerly' s and shopping center development proposed under Application No. 84015. The property is presently described as Tracts A, B, C, E, F and part of D, R.L.S. 1325. The proposed legal description is Tracts A and B of an as-yet-unnumbered R. L.S. The total site is 13.,433 acres. Tract A on the north portion of the site for Byerly' s is 8.646 acres. Tract B for the shopping center on the southerly part of 4.787 acres. A 10' NSP easement is designated along John Martin Drive and along Shingle Creek Parkway. No other easements are indicated within the R. L.S. Cross access ease- ments and cross parking easements over the entire R. L.S. should be filed with the R. L.S. at the County. Part of the interior property line separating the tracts is also a building line. The R.L.S. will have to be finaled and filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits. Altogether , the proposed R.L.S. appears to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Cross access and cross parking easements over the entire R. L.S. shall be filed with the R.L.S. at the County. 4. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement with the City as required by the City Engineer. 5. Property irons shall be verified by the Engineering Department prior to release of the performance guarantee. 6-14-84 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 8401'7 Applicant: Evelyn Borgen Location: 1219 73rd Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel at 1219 - 73rd Avenue North. The parcel is zoned Ri and is bounded on the east and south by single-family homes, on the west by Fremont Avenue North and on the north by 73rd Avenue North. The surrounding area is single-family residential . There exists a single-family home on the northerly portion of the parcel . The existing parcel is 19,830 sq. ft. and is described by metes and bounds as part of Lot 45, Auditor's Subdivision No. 309. The proposed plat would divide this parcel into Lot 1 and Lot 2 of Block 1, Borgen Addition. Lot 1 would be a corner lot, 10,790 sq. ft. in area (the minimum is 10,500 sq. ft. ) and 90' wide at the setback line. Lot 2 would be an interior lot, 9,040 sq. ft. in area (9,500 sq. ft. is the ordinance minimum) and 80.85' wide at the setback line. Approval of the preliminary plat application is, therefore, subject to approval of a variance for lot area on Lot 1. No other substandard conditions would exist. The existing garage, connected to the house at the roof with an open breezeway, would be 3' from the side interior property line separating Lots 1 and 2. This 'meets the minimum sideyard setback requirement for accessory buildings. A portable shed would wind up just south of the mutual side property line on Lot 1 and must be relocated onto the applicant' s property (Lot 2) prior to final plat approval . The mutual side interior property line is to be at a skewed angle from the easterly right-of-way line of Fremont Avenue North. The location of the proposed property line makes Lot 2 wider at the front and narrower at the back and Lot 1 (the corner lot) vice versa. The proposed Lot 2 already has a separate water service to the property line which was installed in 1964, and for which the assessments have been almost totally paid up. There is no sewer service to the property line and this will have to be installed when a dwelling is built on the new interior lot. Altogether, the proposed plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The existing portable shed to the south of the garage shall be removed from the proposed Lot 2 prior to final plat approval . 6-14-84 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84018 Applicant: Evelyn Borgen Location: 1219 - 73rd Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 15-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of an interior single-family lot in the R1 zone with less than 9,500 sq. ft. of area. The proposed lot is located on the large corner parcel at the southeast corner of 73rd Avenue North and Fremont Avenue North (see Application No. 84017) . The proposed lot meets the width requirement of 75' at the property line and the average depth requirement of 110' . The area of the proposed lot is 9,040 sq. ft. , 460 sq. ft. less than the ordinance requirement of 9,500 sq. ft. The variance is subject to the standards set forth in Section 15-112 and 35-240 (attached). The applicant's representative, Mr. Jim Merila, has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a Variance. The letter reviews the facts outlined above and proceeds to point out that the proposed interior lot is 95% of the required area and meets the requirements for depth and frontage. It is argued that the strict application of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of her land. The letter also states that the variance is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner because the existing parcel has beeen assessed for two water and sewer services. The letter also states that there will be no detrimental effect on the public welfare or to other property because the development would have little effect on traffic and use would be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Finally, the letter notes that the proposed variance is not inconsistent with City policy in a number of similar subdivisions. Of the four cases cited by Mr. Merila, three involve area variances. These three were all granted in the early to mid 1970's. In fact, there has not been a variance granted for area deficiency since 1976. The policy which the City has arrived at over the years, especially the last 10 years, is that subdivision variances can be granted if two of the three lot requirements (width, depth, and area) are met and if there is no excess area available on neighboring lots. We are not certain, but there appears to be a slight amount of excess land on the neighboring lot to the south. However, we do not recommend that the requested variance be denied on those grounds, in light of: a) the fact that the proposed interior lot does meet two of the three lot requirements: b) the extent of the variance is slight; c) the benefit, public and private, of transferring a small amount of land from one lot to another seems unreasonably small relative to the cost involved; d) the neighboring property owner may be unwilling to sell land at an agreeable price, thus preventing an otherwise reasonable subdivision. In addition, we agree with the applicant's representative that the prior assessment of the property for a second water and sewer service certainly indicates an acknowl- edgement by the City that an additional lot was feasible. The letter submitted addresses the standards set forth in the Subdivision Ordinance, but not the standards in the Zoning Ordinance. The latter standards do seem more related to the requirements pertaining to structures or improvements on land than to the land itself, though it must be added that lot size is a zoning as well as a subdivision requirement. The Zoning Ordinance standards would seem to be met in this case. We believe a hardship would exist if the reasonable use of the applicant's land were denied (and this subdivision does seem reasonable to us) . The circumstances of this application are fairly unique in that a second water and sewer service are available to the existing parcel . 6-14-84 -1- Application No. 84018 continued The insufficiency of land was not created by the applicant, but is related to the requirements of the City Ordinances. The requirement for a 10,500 sq. ft. corner lot was not in effect when the existing parcel was created and the assumption at that time may have been that adequate land existed for two standard lots of 9,500 sq. ft. Finally, the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding property. In conclusion, then, staff agree with the applicant's request for a variance and recommend that the application be approved on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met and in lieu of the conditions attached to Application No. 84017. 6-14-84 -2- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84019 Applicant: John Guider Location: 5115 E. Twin Lake Boulevard Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a two-part variance to allow expansion of dwelling space by converting an existing garage located less than 5' from one side property line and the construction of an attached garage less than 10' from the opposite side lot line. These variances are from Section 35-400, footnote 3b, of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) and are subject to the Standards for Variance set forth in Section 35-240 (attached) . The property in question is zoned Rl and is bounded on the north and south by residences, on the east by East Twin Lake Boulevard, and on the west by Upper Twin Lake. Footnote 3b of Section 35-400 allows dwelling space to be. less than 10' , but not less than 5' from one side interior property line, provided all other setback require- ments are met, that there are no windows or doors along the wall less than 10' from the side lot line and provided there are no accessory structures in the side yard where a 10' setback is maintained. Staff have interpreted this last provision as requiring a 10' sideyard setback for any garage that is placed in the other side yard between the dwelling and the side lot line, when dwelling space is set back less than 10' in one side yard. The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage to dwelling space 4' from the north side property line and to build a new garage 7' from the south side property line. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a Variance for each part of this application. We will review and analyze each portion separately. Part A: Dwelling space less than 5' from side lot line. The applicant argues, first of all , that the 4' setback of the existing garage is a result of an improper action by the builder and the City Inspector in 1953 when the garage was built and the minimum sideyard setback for a garage was 5' . (The building permit for that garage does indicate a 5' setback, but a recent survey of the property reveals only a 4' setback) . Secondly, he argues that the topography of the lot places the garage below the street level and that water can drain from the street into the garage and from there into the lower level of the residence. Thirdly, the applicant argues that the existing garage space is unsuited to its use because it is too small to accommodate two regular size cars (part of the garage is only 14' deep) . Finally, the applicant points out that the neighboring residence to the north is 50' to 60' away and there will be no detrimental effect on neighboring property as required by standard (d) . In response to these arguments, staff acknowledge that the appliant has little control over an error made over 30 years ago. We would ask, however, whether this argument would seem as valid if the garage had been built only 1 ' from the side lot line or even over the side lot line? Difficulties of this type were taken into account in 1982 when the City amended its ordinance to allow expansion along an existing building line ( for 1 or 2 family dwellings) if that building line is set back at least 70% of the relevant requirement (Section 35-400, footnote 12). The proposed conversion of space, which incidentally was commenced without -permits and has been halted pending action on the variance request, does not really fall under the governance of footnote 12 of Section 35-400. 6-14-84 -1- Application No. 84019 continued However, we believe that that footnote does provide a guide as to what would con- stitute an unacceptable setback encroachment in this case. The existing 4' setback is more than 70% of the normal requirement of 5' and would, therefore, be considered an acceptable encroachment using this reasoning. s The topography of the lot does appear to present some hardship in this case in that the applicant cannot feasibly raise the garage, which is attached to the dwelling, above the level of the street and reverse the flow of drainage. There may, however, be alternative ways of diverting drainage away from the structure beside the plan of the applicant to disconnect the driveway from the existing garage. The appli- cant's concern over the size of the existing garage cannot really be the basis for a variance hardship since City Ordinance does not require a two-car garage nor recognize it as a necessity. As to the effect, on surrounding property, we would reject the existing location of the neighboring residence as a basis for making a favorable finding with respect to standard (d) . As long as the neighboring property owner has the right, under ordinance,to place dwelling space as close as 5' or garage space as c ose as 3' from the property line, the detrimental effect must be guaged on the basis of those property rights not existing conditions. Neverthe- less, we concur that the effect of the proposed variance would not noticeably injure those rights. In general , staff feel that standards (a) , (c) , and (d) can be said to be met. However, it is difficult to find that standard (b) regarding uniqueness is met in light of the large number of garages that have been built less than 5' from a side lot line since the setback requirement was changed to 3' in the 1960's. Moreover, we are not prepared to offer or recommend any ordinance change to allow dwelling space as close as '3' from a side lot line. The ordinance change which allowed a 5' setback for dwelling space on one side was not supported by a community survey; nor was it arrived at quickly by the City Council . The Commission may, of course, wish to consider or recommend such an ordinance amendment as a means of resolving this and other similar situations. Because the present situation does not seem unique to us, we cannot recommend approval of this part of the variance application. Part B: Garage setback of less than 10' ' on south side. Regarding the second part of this application, the applicant states that a garage meeting a 10' sideyard setback on the south side would be only 17' wide (too small for a double garage) and that a single garage is inadequate for a house with 5 bedrooms. A 20' wide garage would have a sideyard setback of 7.4' at the closest corner. Mr. Guider states that the hardship is created by a pie-shaped lot. If the lot were rectangular, no variance would be required since the front of the garage is 11 .3' from the south side lot line. He argues that there would be no detrimental effect on the public welfare or neighboring property because there is a garage between the neighboring dwelling and the common property line. tie concludes by saying that denial of the variance would be an extreme hardship for him because a 17 ' wide garage would be inadequate for his home. He adds finally, that he has worked to improve his property and that his property taxes have increased accordingly. Staff agree with most of these arguments as far as they go. It is true that the shape and topography (a detached garage behind the house would be below the 100 yr. flood level of Mr. Guider's lot prevent him from building a two-car garage. 6-14-84 -2- Application No. 84019 continued It is still a question of whether the lack of an extra garage stall constitutes a hardship or a mere inconvenience. The circumstances of this case, taken together, are fairly unique. We also agree that no detrimental effect should take place since, under normal circumstances, a garage could be as close as 3' from the side lot line and the minimum resulting opening between garages in this case would be 101 , ample for reaching the rear yards. It does not appear, however, that the hardship of being unable to have a two-car garage (if that is a hardship) south of the dwelling is unrelated to the original decision of the owner to put the dwelling where it is and an attached garage on the north side. It is partly caused by the shape and topography of the lot in conjunction with ordinance requirements and partly caused by the historical circumstance of the house's location, a circumstance created . by someone formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. On its own merits, the second part of this variance request may be justified, depending on what is judged to be a hardship and what is ultimately causing that hardship. C. Considering both parts. It should be obvious that these two parts of Application No. 84019 are very much related. Part (b) is definitely subordinate to part (a) . If part (a) is not approved, then the existing garage must remain a garage (and the remodeling begun will have to be reversed) . If the existing garage remains, there would probably be little need for an additional garage on the south side of the dwelling, thus obviating the need for part (b) of the variance. It might be feasible to add a dwelling addition to the south of the existing residence and leave the garage a garage. This would require no variances at all . Finally, it should be noted that Mr. Guider has applied for a Rental Dwelling License for a lower living unit. Staff have not determined whether a legal nonconforming duplex does exist on the property. If the property is considered to be a two-family dwelling, it is a nonconforming use in the RI zone. As such, it may not be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by the use in 1968 when it became noncon- forming (Section 35-110, subsection 1) . Therefore, the addition of a garage would not be allowed under any circumstances except if the property reverted to a single- family dwelling or the land were zoned R2 and the two—family use became conforming. This application is clearly very complex and staff are not prepared to give a firm recommendation at this time. In many ways, it seems that what the applicant wishes to do is reasonable, will increase property value, and will not be detrimental to anyone else. Nevertheless, he cannot do so without violating the letter of the ordinance. The Commission is urged to consider this matter carefully in light of the circumstances of the case and the Standards for a Variance. We will try to respond to any questions at Thursday night' s meeting. A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent. 6-14-84 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No.84020 Applicant: Randy Rau Location: 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4401 69th Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan/Special Use The applicant requests site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a service station and superette at the site of the existing Mobil Station and superette at 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4401 - 69th Avenue North. Briefly, the proposal calls for the demolition of the existing Mobil Station, the conversion of the existing superette to a service garage with two repair bays, and the construction of a new 2,160 sq. ft. superette to the east of the existing superette building. In addition, the two gas pump islands on the site will be removed and a single island installed in front of the superette. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North, on the east by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south by the old A & W Restaurant, and on the west by the U. S. Post Office. Gasoline service stations offering for sale items other than fuels, lubricants or automotive parts and accessories are special uses within the C2 zoning district and are subject to the standards set forth in Section 35-220,Subsection 2 (attached) . The parking requirement for the proposed use is a combination of the service station formula and the retail formula. These formulas require 3 spaces per service bay, plus one for each day shift employee, plus two spaces for service vehicles. This works out to 11 spaces for two service bays and three employees and two service vehicles. The retail formula for this size building is 11 spaces for the first 1 ,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area, plus 8 spaces for each additional 1 ,000 sq. ft. The retail superette is to be 2,160 sq. ft. This works out to 20 parking spaces, based on the above formula. The proposed site plan calls for 31 parking spaces, including 4 at the pump island. Counting the spaces at the pump island, which meet the requirements for parallel parking stalls, the plan meets the combined requirement of the service station and retail formulas. Access to the site will be limited to one opening off 69th Avenue North and one opening off Brooklyn Boulevard. This will result in the closing of one opening onto Brooklyn Boulevard closest to the intersection. The existing opening onto 69th Avenue North is 38' wide measured along the right-of-way line. Section 35-703 of the Zoning Ordinance limits such accesses to a width of 30' . The existing access should, therefore, be narrowed. The plan does take into account dedication of 8' of additional right-of-way along 69th Avenue North and parking and greenstrip areas are adjusted accordingly. The proposed landscape plan provides for a 15' wide greenstrip along 69th Avenue North along Brooklyn Boulevard. There is a 10' wide sidewalk easement within the greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard. Sidewalks are normally located within right- of-way; however, there i,s considerable precedent for allowing sidewalks within greenstrip areas along Brooklyn Boulevard because this roadway has been widened from its original two-lane status. Plantings proposed in the landscape plan include 5 Marshall Ash, 4 Black Hills Spruce and 2 Radiant Crab, all within the 15' greenstrip area adjacent to public rights-of-way. Two of the Spruce are indicated in a location that falls within the site triangle at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and should be relocated outside it. Underground irrigation has not been noted on the plans, but this requirement has been discussed with the applicant. 6-14-84 -1- Application No. 84020 continued No grading and drainage plan has yet been submitted. It is anticipated that at least one new catch basin may be needed in the northeast corner of the site in lieu of the closing of an access drive in that area. The. City Engineer has directed a letter to the applicant's designers (attached) outlining a number of concerns regarding grading and drainage and regarding the preliminary plat. The Commission is referred to that letter for further background. The plan does not presently note that B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas; however, the applicant is aware of this requirement and has sought no exclusion. As stated at the beginning of this report, the existing service station will be demolished and the new construction will include: 1 ) remodeling the existing superette into a service garage; 2) constructing a new 36' x 60' superette attached to the east wall of the converted service garage; and 3) constructing a canopy over a new, relocated pump island to the north of the superette. The exterior of the combined building will be a mixed red brick on the north and east elevations and partially on the south and west elevations. The majority of the south and west elevations will be a. rock-faced concrete block, painted to match the dominant tone in the brick. The Commission should review the proposed exterior in light of the City's basic policy of consistent treatment. Around the entire building will be a buff-colored facia with sand-spray panels. A 4' wide canopy will extend over a sidewalk on the north and east sides of the building. The proposed canopy is to be 30' x 50' located 10' north of the canopy. As to site lighting, there is one freestanding light adjacent to the 69th Avenue access that is within the public right-of-way. Another freestanding light which illuminates the area of one of the pump islands and will also have to be relocated when the property line along 69th is shifted southward by 8' • In addition, there is a freestanding light adjacent to the north access on Brooklyn Boulevard which will be closed. This light will probably serve little purpose at this location and should be removed. There is to be lighting within the canopy structures in front of the building and over the pump islands. The entire structure will be fire-sprinklered in accordance with City Ordinances. As to the special use standards, it should be emphasized that the proposed use is little more than a consolidation and upgrading of uses that have existed in this location for some time. There does not seem to have been a detrimental effect on surrounding land uses and none is anticipated in the future. The primary concern in this case is whether standard (d) is met by the provision of 31 parking stalls, including 4 at the pump island. This issue has been briefly discussed by the Commission and the conclusion was that pump island parking may be credited to retail parking requirements though not service station requirements. Staff would also point out that the access modifications contained in the proposed plan and staff recommendations are the best possible arrangement for this site. We, there- fore, believe that standard (d) is met in this case. In general , the proposed plan does meet basic requirements and approval is recom- mended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 6-14-84 -2- Application No.84020 continued 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval 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 prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter -5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land- scaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 9. Freestanding lightposts within public right-of-way shall be relocated onto private property. The freestanding lights adjacent to existing DUMP islands or accesses to be closed shall be removed during construction of the project. 10.. Landscape plantings shall not be installed in the site triangle at the southwest corner of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. 11. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 12. Plan approval is subject to the recommendations contained in the City Engineer's letter to M. V. Rich Company dated June 7, 1984 13. The final plat combining the parcels shall be filed at the County prior to issuance of any building permit for construction of the new superette building. 6-14-84 -3- Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84021 Applicant: Randy Rau Location: 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard, 4401 69th Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to combine into a single parcel the properties presently addressed as 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4401 69th Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C2 and is located at the southwest corner of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. It is the location of the superette/service station proposal contained in Application No. 84020. Combination of land parcels for a common use is required by Section 35-540. The existing legaldescription of the properties is a metes and bounds description of a part of Lot 6, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25. The proposed legal description of the property is simply Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Mobil Addiition. There will also be a dedication of 8' of right-of-way for 69th Avenue North which is to be widened slightly in the near future. The area of Lot 1 is 27,298 sq. ft. The area of the right-of-way dedication is not listed, but appears to be approximately 1 ,350 sq. ft. The proposed plat designates 5' wide utility and drainage easements along the south and west interior property lines. A 10' wide sidewalk easement is provided along the east property line adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. As noted in the staff report for Application No. 84020, there is a freestanding lightpost in the 69th Avenue North right-of-way and another within the area of the additional 8' of dedication. It is recommended that removal of these lights not be a condition of final plat approval , but completed along with other site improvements during construction. The plat should be finaled and filed at the County prior to any building permit for the construction of the new superette. building. Otherwise, a building would be placed over a property line in contradiction to City ordinance. This has been recommended as a condition of the site plan approval . There are requirements pertaining to the preliminary plat contained in the City Engineer's letter to M. V. Rich Co. , Inc. dated June 7, 1984 (attached) . These requirements should also be a condition of approval of this application. Altogether, the preliminary plat is in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised in accordance with the letter of the City Engineer to M. V. Rich Co. , Inc. dated June 7, 1984 6-14-84