Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.10.92 Planning Packet1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 10, 1992 a. October 13, 1992 Regular b. October 26, 1992 Special Joint Workshop 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. 7:00 P.M. Rezoning /Conditional Use /Variances for Rosebrier Apartments b. 7:30 P.M. Conditional Use Request Bongard Trucking c. 8:00 P.M. Conditional Use Request James and Therese Reisinger 4. DISCUSSIONS a. City Design Standards b. Rezone Vacant Lot on Pine Street Steve Simon c. Ed Gieseke Conditional Use 28 4th Street 5. ADJOURN 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. APPROVE MINUTES a. October 13, 1992 Regular b. October 26, 1992 Special 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR NOVEMBER 10, 1992 7:00 P.M. Rezoning Lots 8 and 9, Block 17 from R -2 to B-2 and both a Conditional Use and Variances for Lots 8 13, Block 17 for Rosebrier Apartments Proposed by Elm Park Limited, Inc. Moleski and Associates have proposed to build a 45 unit apartment building for adults on the south one half of Block 17, northeast of the intersection of First and Oak Streets. The lot area totals 39,500 square feet and the building footprint totals 13,328 square feet for a building coverage of 22.4%. In this district, 25% is the maximum allowable. If the project were to be elderly housing, at 60 units per acre, the site would accommo- date 82 units. Because of the financing mechanism currently available, the project is designed as adult housing with promotional efforts directed toward people 55 years or older. This means that the density requirement in the ordinance of 20 units per acre becomes the standard. This would limit the apartment structure to 27 units unless a density variance is granted. A setback variance is also required since the westernmost corner of the building is ten feet from the right of way of First Street. The ordinance calls for a 20 foot setback for apartment buildings. A third variance involves parking. The ordinance calls for two spaces per unit and screening from the street. The fourth variance involves the width of curb cuts for parking lots since parking stalls access directly from Oak Street rather than from a driveway. The future disposition of Oak Street becomes important when reviewing this proposed apartment project since the expansion plans of Lamperts suggest that the only function of Oak Street will be to provide access to the apartment building. If, in reality, Oak Street is a driveway for this project, it adds another .6 acres to the site and the possibility of justifying 12 more apartment units. The density variance being asked for would, therefore, total 6 units rather than 18. In addition, parallel parking on the south side of Oak Street will provide another 12 parking spaces, which means that the total site is capable of holding 87 automobiles which is 3 short of the require- ment. The curb cut variance also is not a factor if the ultimate use of Oak Street is a parking lot for this project. In many ways it is unfortunate that the financing institution has required 1.5 spaces per unit on site as the development would be more attractive if both sides of Oak Street were designed for parallel parking. Using the rationale that Oak Street is part of the site, 22 spaces could be available as parallel parking on two sides of the street added to the others would generate 71 spaces. This would leave the boulevard area as green space rather than as a paved parking area and still meet the 1.5 spaces per unit standard. 11/10/92 Agenda Report Page 2 To this date, the staff has not seen a landscape plan of the site. Two major requirements include introduction of a large number of shade trees to help soften the large expanse of paving and also a shrub border placed between the parking lot and First Street. The only required variance not affected by Oak Street is the one involving a 20 foot setback along First Street. The staff believes that because the setback area is being encroached upon by a 90 building corner, the issue of light and air are not being violated. The existing housing units to the north on the east side of First Street are both setback 10 feet as measured on the aerial photograph. Therefore, the proposed structure is in line with established setbacks. The essential point to the entire analysis is that the proposed Lampert expansion program eliminates the need for Oak Street, other than as access to this structure and as an outlet for the alley to the north. The amount of land contributed to the site by Oak Street removes all but very minor variances to the project. If the site plan has problems, they can be resolved by a more flexible use of that land area. Rezoning of the last two lots in the block meets the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The one real barrier to approval of the plan at this time is that a landscape plan has not been submitted. Recommendation Table approval of the Conditional Use until a site plan has been submitted if the four variances dealing with density, parking spaces, curb openings and building setback appear to be justified and rezoning is acceptable. 7:30 P.M. Request from Craig Bongard for a Conditional Use to Rebuild an Equipment Maintenance and Storage Building for a Trucking Business Located on the East Side of County Road 31 in the Northeast Quarter of Section 25 Bongard Trucking was consumed by fire early in the Fall. It is a conditional use which was transferred from James Reisinger to Bongard Trucking on April 11, 1989 by the Planning Commission. The original conditional use or special exception as it was called at that time was granted by the Planning Commission on August 10, 1976. Because the requirements of the City Code have substantially changed during the past 16 years, the Staff has determined that the use became nonconforming and now requires a new hearing since the building was damaged to an extent exceeding 50% of its fair market value. If replaced, it must conform to the current requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The largest problem now facing Mr. Bongard is that the current zoning ordinance requires that "Any off street parking lot and driveway shall be graded for proper drainage and surfaced with concrete or bituminous material." [Section 10 -6 -8 (A)21 Mr. Bongard has stated that any bituminous material will breakdown under the weight of loaded vehicles. He, therefore, has asked that the main parking area utilized in maneuvering trucks be allowed to be surfaced with a 9" layer of pulverized concrete which will stay in place and does not become dusty in dry weather. The parking area associated with the office will be paved with bituminous material since heavy trucking will not utilize the area. A foundation planting of approximately 10 feet in width has been proposed adjoining the north, west and south sides of the building. In addition, Mr. Bongard has proposed the planting of evergreen trees along the base of the berm on the west side of the property. The proposed building is larger than the original 48' x 80' structure as it will have a 24 x 36 office on the south side. A metal exterior is planned for the entire building. Two negative responses have been returned to Staff following notification of adjoining landowners. Both have indicated that trucks running all night disturbs sleep in the neighborhood and when the wind is right, exhaust fills the house as well. While berms and planting will help to screen this use from County Road 31, they will be of little 11/10/92 Agenda Report Page 3 use in insulating it from neighboring property to the west which is at a substantially higher elevation. The criteria for approval of a conditional use includes conformance both with district permitted and conditional use and all general regulations. The truck garage does fall within the category of equipment maintenance and storage, but the request fails to meet the parking lot paving requirements listed in 10- 6- 8(A)2. In addition "the proposed use shall not involve any element or cause any conditions that may be dangerous, in- jurious or noxious to any other property or persons." In the opinion of neighbors, the previous operation of this truck garage has been noxious to nearby residents. The requirement for landscaping is possible to achieve, but a consistent visual impression may be impossible during those times that the entire fleet of fifteen trucks is off the road. The organization of vehicular access is possible through careful planning on site, but will be difficult to achieve when vehicles move from the site to existing County Road 31. This suggests an inappropriate land use, particularly when one considers that the road sometime after 1996 will become a neighborhood collector street. In reviewing criteria, there appears to be little that recommends this request. The most serious problem is its relationship to nearby uses. On the other hard, the City did transfer the Conditional Use without addressing the problems which have surfaced. If this appears to be a reason to consider granting a new conditional use, the lack of a paved truck parking area will need to be addressed. The only appropriate approach would be for the Planning Commission to seek direction from the City Council on a possible change in the ordinance which would allow some parking lots to be surfaced by materials other than asphalt or concrete. At the same time, the staff would need to work closely with the applicant on a landscape plan which will accomplish the objectives of the listed criteria in Section 10 -8 -5 (C). Recommendation For obvious reasons, it is important for the applicant to understand the direction that the Planning Commission will take in this request very soon. From the criteria listed in Section 10- 8 -5(C), it is very difficult to justify approval of a new conditional use. 8:00 P.M. Request from James and Therese Reisigner for a Conditional Use for an Equip- ment and Maintenance Storage Area for a Construction Business Located on the East Side of County Road 31 in the Northeast Quarter of Section 25 This request is similar to the previous one in that the applicant has asked for the paving requirement to be waived. Major differences are that the surface will be gravel rather than crushed concrete and the use appeared months ago without benefit of a con- ditional use request. Current litigation on the issue will be brought into sharper focus by a jury trial scheduled to commence on November 17, 1992. Other differences are that a previous conditional use has not been granted at this site and the use appeared sometime after the driveway was created to supply access to agricultural land. The applicant has asked for a temporary conditional use permit which actually does not exist. A conditional use is granted to the land and not the applicant. The criteria established for conditional uses suggests that the use is possible because it is listed within the C -1 District. However, the ordinance requires paving for all parking areas. Waiving of this requirement would be better handled by a change in the ordinance, rather than a variance which, in turn, would eventually change the ordinance anyway. It is unlikely that the proposal would be characterized as dangerous, injurious or noxious and the applicant has prepared a site plan which shows four six foot pine trees planted on six foot high berms. This landscaping is not likely to produce a harmonious relationship to adjoining property, but if the use is approved, 11/10/92 Agenda Report Page 4 it would be conditioned upon a more complete landscape plan being prepared and implemented. The area in which the request fails to meet the criteria is the section relating to a visual impression and environment consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. As can be seen by the previous discussion, this use on the property to the south has lead to the development of a truck garage which is both noisy and noxious. That use has suggested that the neighborhood is an unacceptable location for an ever increasing commercial /industrial node which ultimately will destroy the value of nearby residential property. The actual parking area proposed is approximately one half acre in size and likely adequate for the equipment indicated. One might question, however, the use of trailers to store equipment. The City has had experience in the past with con- ditional uses in which trailers were added as office space. Traffic congestion is not likely to be an issue with this use. The central issue with this request is that, if granted, it will expand a commercial /in dustrial use that is not recognized in the Comprehensive Plan on a neighborhood collector street at the edge of a growing residential area. In addition, the applicant has no intention of paving the parking area. Recommendation Deny the request based upon its long range negative impact on the neighborhood. 4. DISCUSSIONS City Design Standards The Development Committee has reviewed the draft of the Design Standards presented at the Joint Meeting on October 26, 1992 and suggested some changes. A revised draft is enclosed for your consideration. Request from Steve Simon to Rezone a Vacant Lot on the North Side of Pine Street from B -3 to R -2 for the Purpose of Building a Triplex Mr. Simon has asked for an informal discussion to get the views of the Commission on this area. While it has been zoned for many years as a commercial /industrial lot, no one has invested in it. He proposes a resi- dential use consisting of a triplex. The lot measures 60 x 250 feet and is situated between a small fourplex and another vacant lot which belongs to the adjoining mobile home. Other uses on the block include Willy's Worldwide and the Cheese Store. Ed Gieseke Conditional Use at 28 4th Street The enclosed letter came from Mid America Dairymen, Inc. in response to our request for follow up on specified conditions of approval. (et Charles Tooker City Planner