The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1971 08-05 PCP ciTy or amoKLYN crwrE,%., c1fMISSION , • AM 'St"M W-j OF APPEALS AGENDA Requ'I,ar meeting AU911st 5,, 1971 1. Call to Order; 8 0 P,-M. 2. Roll Cal.19 oV,jj o j.qutes, j-Lily I and July 15, 1971 . � f A The rlanninc amiss ion and the Bo3rd _qhaiv s r mlanytic Cox of Appeals and ,\djustments is an advisory bOdV. In t-,,je matters concerned in these hearings, the Board makes a rec�Fi mtendation to t1le city Council. The City Council wzlltes final. decisions on all these matters, 5. QJA . . lication No. A. &CP11 in I-lest 7.1.022 (amendedd Pence b.eight and Yard • encri:jachment variz-ifice 711.020 'amended) B. Site and baiild- fiq plars ap. -proval A 710 2 Site and lruildl-ntg Plan approval B. i�!n3-mala, 71.028 Site and bui,lding plan ap,#roval 7. Roadway circulation for Evergreen Park S. Application 110. 71.022 "amended) • Applica-nt-s Merlin C. West Description of ReWi •st% Sideyard setbac'k encroacbsikerit BA r-KG RO Mi The applicant appeared before the planning Co.-(mission on July I and July 15, 1971, requesting a two foot height variance to al].Ow coo st.rjcc ..joll of a six foot fence to provide screening and protection for a proposed pool to be located in t1he sideyard of a property located at 6001 Vincent Avenue North. The Planning Carmission action an July 15, 1971, was to approve the construct.-Lon of a six foot fence providing the top two feet 't-)ould be left open, so as not to obstruct. the vision of drivers of vehicles attempting to Lack out of the dii-veway of the property -,'--o the north.. However, due to an administrative ezrror, it was not pointed out to the commission that the 1pool constitutes an encroachment into the side yard and also rec paires a variance. Therefore, it is the intent of 1-,,-he applicant of this tim 4P. to request such a variance to allo-vI, construction of a. pool in said sideyard. ANALYSIS ILRD IRT3,C(.W!MI.DATICo7q4- Encroachment of the pool into the ya.,cd set-back is a more diflicult prdblem to deal with then --i.he previously discussed fence height variance., The proposed fence, six feet in height, has merit when one com-Aders Its use fc pool security --).nd pr4va-y. :En this instance, fence 'height and location is a functi-on, of P001 placement. There appealra to be tv)o factors which should be weighted and determined if the yard encroacbment variance is warranted. Sight obstruction - it could be viewed that corstructj.on of sued a vool facility woo serve Planaing Commission information Sheet j,lpplication -No. '71022 'amended) Page 2 as an obstruc-tion to vision for vehicles attempting to back on to Vincent. Avenue from the property to the north. However, in view of the Planning rCommission action and --reasoning in regard to the fence height variance, that fac•.-or appears to be somewhat negated. 2. Hardship — The variance procedure is predicated on the applicant's ability to show unusual circumstances that create a hardship for developing a parcel. it should be noted that hardship is rather difficult to justlf in this case because examination of the property indicates that there are other alternatives for a pool location ehat. would not require variances. It is recognized that the alternate location may not be as desirable as the one proposed, however, the Zoning Ordinance does not recognize inconvenience as justification for g •antAng a variance. It is therefore reecotltmendeL9 that the application be denied because it does not Lieet the criteria set forth in the zoning Ordinance for gran-L-ing Such a Vzriance • t.i"1"�.:aA lH f •w•a i ej i'�' d '.Mq ,p; s 3x3 4 � i YT r+.�wtw..F.vunA:L.fnh..m:nrt+..aN.�nXW:M+PYirWn:A'd14u:a�QNY:x'+Mi�4ll lNJf 7CSt�{f:"i1'YW.CIMYMA.n'aYa�n� a f M i x i, yvw.ecw.,.ue. v.....n.<a.=.arF..... °..�... � ••w5'3.h. 1 I k ..,....N��»�.......,.,i4.....w>�,...:.,"•.a+....�r...n,w-.. o.:ww;s,r.xc,a.wee....n..nrwF V.w....wr.nur+��ce�.v+uwrw.+�.:cw.:,,::aynmyJ 4. �......tr...y.w.»rr.. Gr� S^. '�1l1 Ors: �:�a'R'� ��`�iq$40�Btu'\'r' •.. ' a r r.; s .. 4K il +.+an�r:...w'.wa-rs..nwwm.n+s.%.<Ye¢rrb�lnrlS.". z;nm�.wnxaL.'ana�!x':.`aw.+vlM�r+w�iuwfflID`M]p.+rCi3w+mwc#SF'rA 2�r+!!•`Xb�(!»9�..-...um:ii Qlw.'99vfiCWOw...w•..-. PUMIDIING NCIMOUSSION 1APORMUOIR SHEET • Applicatioo No. 71020 (amended) Applicarlt. Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Description of iqequest-, Site and building plan approval YlACKORDUND� The applicant is reques't-ing a-ra amendment to the site and building plan approval previously granted by the Planning Commission on June 3, 1971 and the city council on June 14, 1971 for property located at 65th Avenue North and Shingle Creelt. Parkway. The amended site plan approval is reqaestec]' due tv severe soil conditions encountered on the sitev ANALYSIS AND RUCOMSMIDATIOX,� The site plan is found to be in order and approval A.'s recormiended sulk)ject to the. usual ccnditions. PLANNING COMISSION INFORMATION SMET • Application .140'. 71027 Rpplicant-, In.c. Description of Rec piest: 8' te and building plan approval BA CrIG Mf JiNTD Z The applicant is reqtiesting site and building plan approval for a 120,000 square foot retail facility to be located oil a 1' acre `Xact east of John IIartin Drive and adjacent to Highway 100 and Summit Drive. AY�IVGYSIS A1,111 R*ECC",_ IM_PY-,)AT*,K Ohl-z Review of the site plan indicates that it is in order subject to md i 2--Ucat ions related to: I. Providing in-place concrete curbing to delineate driving and parking isles; 2� Utilizing concrc-te cu--b speciffica-L,lons tihatt are consistent with ordinance requirements;, It is recommended tlfl,,it the site plan be, approved subject to the usual and aforementioned conditions it is suggest ed that the Vailding Plan be qiven'l careful consideration "because of an unusual pr,�blerr rel ated tc the 'building structure. The facial of 'Che building consist. of brouja split-face blod,k, 'hoir,)ever., 'C.-he front facia in addition to the split face block consists of an aggret-ate mansord panel that extekids rap imately five, feet above the parapet wall. �p r ax-i The problere 4S that the maiisord panel serves as a background for a 405 squase foot sign (measurement includes letters only) Interpretation of t'he sign o:,Ainance classifies such a structure (mansord rmf and letterz) as a oof sign, g I'he maxim-um size allowed for such a sign is 450 square feet. The applicant contends that the mansord wroof is an intrical part of the wall structure and architecture of the • building end thel-efore should not be cor-sidered as a roof sign stns cturer. hux. rather a parapet wall, t-hus the square AppliCation No. 71027 Page 2 footage requirement for a wall sign would be within the limitations of the ord- nance requireatent. It is the opinion of the staff, based upon ordinance interpretation and previous Planning Commission and City Council action (Reg Shop .pers City and Velie Olds) that the mansord can not be defined as a parapet wall. Conse- quently, it would appear that approval of the building Arlan would in fact give substance to the argument that the mansord is a part of the wall structure and not a sign structure. Therefore, based upon the aforementioned factors, it is recoaraneaded that the building plan be denied. • • i ��3`Yrh,iSidCtYiNAS�;QIi;G; ,FE i w P'L e�,+�f 5io,1 �y'6' onki w.Sv $:•E�Ps�'�4'tt�'J�'ry� �� .. "`°�w'a+. t. �"�, ��. ,f`�� F � � r'°r, .,,� �mx •,wA'r.'Aw.w"�S+,aaw+»`$.rovom.,",e��„�.�e \,;•. r a s « /�" 3 YiPh� •� r � S,rs Fad ��A. ✓'� • 1114FORAffelols SHEET Mpg ii-cation Ho,- 71028 • Applicant-, R" zeidlik Description of Request.- Site and building plan approval PACKOW)UND'- The applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a 52 unit rental townhouse development located on 5.98 acre site south of 68th anO orchard Avenue -North. ANALYSIS ANM RECOMMIUM-ATION.- The proposal comprehends 34 two bedroo-ra units and 18 three bedroom units witli tuck under garages. ,The Zoning ordinance provides for a 500 square foot land area credit for pakking stalls in or under a dwelling unit, and further, that for each bedroom irl excess of two, 250 squa� e feet shall be added to the minimura land area requirements,, • The applicant ia therefore recpiesting the following credits! A. Two bedroom units" 32 units CS) '400 square feet f-,,)r tuck- under parking 16,000 square feet B. Three bedroom units: 18 units @ 500 square feet for tuck under parking minus 250 square feet add on for three hedroort units 4,500 square feet Total credit request-ed.- 20, 500 square feet The application also includes a request for a vacation of Orchard Avenue North 8ovi-b of 68th Avenue il orth and 67th Avenue Nortb east of Lot 7, SmIlden' s Additioil, it is, the intent of the appli- cant- to utilize the vacated property for density purposes,, • Page 2 APP,IiCation No, 71028 I!here is existing in-place sewer and water lines in both orchard Avenue and 67th Avenue North, consequently, should the Commission deem iv appropriate to vacate the properties for street purposes, it is recommended that a 30 foot utility easement be utilized. It appears that the proposal to vacate the property has merit in view of the lack of the need for future roadways in the area. Further examination of the site plan depicts a potential problem related to the wdith of the periphery roadway for the site. The roadway has a 26 foot width whose function is to accommodate two traffic lanes and parallel stalls for overflow parking. t is suggested that the right-of-way be widen to 30 feet. it is recommended that the 3ite plan be approved subject to the usual. conditions and the following special conditions.- I.- The minimum land area requirements be reduced in the amount of 20,500 square feet because the plan meets the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for granting such credits. 2--- That Orchard Avenue sOUth Of 68th Aven-de North and 67th Avenue North east of Lot 7, Smilden' s Addition, be vacated and added to the property in question for density purposes. 3. ",hat the City obtain a 30 foot ut',JUity easement from the property owner. 4. That the periphery roadway widths be a minimum of 30 feet in widt.b.. 5. That the parcel in question be re--pl.atted. • ....._ :rna+w.,usmmrrwa.F+ra:.=:,.,.•.w,�«n.^^ww' rM,...w �y,,.w.w.v.....va....q,». '1�q4 � �� .�Y,,..f ,S.j�,a�``•�f la .vr.. ..........weaw+'..w....rw_.».w-..r }L'e .`« Y I *nEl 1 '3