pf_00379 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � C� C� � � May 3, 1967 CASE: APPLIC�NT LOCATION: �� 379-67 �,. P. Keller � � Northwest Corner of Hamline Avenue and �ommerce Street ACTlON REQUESTED: Special Use Permit for Furniture $tore in "B-1" Qistrict and Variances to Parking and Sign PLANNING �CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Mr. Keller applies for the special permit and variances for the purpose of allowing the const��sction of a Boutel Is Furniture Store simi (ar to 4he store now located in the Brookdale Shopping Center. (t would be well if inembers of the Planning Camm�ssion and Council could view this building so as to get a ic�ea af the develop- mer�� proposed. It is our op�nion that the structure or� � ,_,operty would constifiute a reasonable use inasmuch as the furniture retailing business normally does not require the am�u�t oF parking of other uses ,, a retail clistrict. The granting of a special use permit on the "B-1 property would limit it to the specific furniture storE� use or another use a�lowed in this district, wh�ch would include offices, etc. 2. The st�re would consist of 57,500 square feet of floor aYea plus 6,400 square feet of mezzanine are�. The parking pr�.,ded would consist �f 128 spaces. In our judgment, the 128 spaces is absalutely minimal for this type of c.�peration though adequate if the building is r�ot enlarged. 3. The site plan submitted indicates conformance to the r�ormal setback requirements ir� the "8-1 " District except for a variance from 15 feet to nothing along the Hamline Avenue right-of-way �nd a variance from 30 feet to 25 feet along a portion of `he building fronting on Highway 36 and a corner of the building which is 25 feet rather than 30 feet from the southweste�ly right-of-way. 4. it would appear to us that if the bui Iding were constructed exactly as the site plan indicates, including the landscaping proposed, that the development w��!d be an asset to the area as long as it is not zoned to the retail district. 5. In previous conversations wirh the applicant, we have suggested that they screen the service to the area iri the manner that is now shown on the plot plan. 6. The applicant also is applying for a variance to the sign regulations allowing a 50 foot pylon. However, na detai Is have beer submitted regarding this pylon and we suggest that core be taken in considering this variance. One wou�d question the need for a 50 foot pylon on this areci of Highway 36 where the vision appear; �o bC ckiiEl7'iciy good. The applicont notes the cietails regarding the pylan wi II be proposed at the hearing. We suggest that extreme care be taker, in considering the sign, inasmuch as this is a very important element of the aesthetic condition that has been achieved in t�;is portion of the Village.