pf_01543 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE NUMBER: 1543-84 APPLICANT:' Belair Builders Page 2 5. Inasmuch as the Comprehensive Plan shows the land use as it is now zoned, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan will be necessary. Recent consultation with the staff of the Metropolitan Council has resulted in a procedure whereby the Planning Commission, if it desires, can approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan immediately prior to but at the same meeting that a rezoning is acted upon. The proposed amendment can then be referred to the Metropolitan Council who has ten days to declare a negative declaration (determining that it is not of metropolitan significance). The Council can then if it wishes act on the amendment and the rezoning at the second meeting following the Planning Commission meeting. This process saves approximately two weeks time in the processing of an amendment and rezoning proposal. 6. The architects in this proposal have not submitted detailed building plans nor landscape plans or grading plans. The engineers report that inasmuch as the site is relatively flat, that grading can be accommodated to suite the general development plan proposed. The B-2 Zone that exists on most of the property and proposed for the remainder, does not require site plan approval or coosideration by the Planning Commission. However, inasmuch as the property is contiguous to a residential zone, site plan and building design approval by City staff is required. If the staff does not approve of the plan, the applicant has the right to appeal to the City Council in accordance with City Ordinance. We have informed the architects that the building must be finished in a similar material all the way aruund , and brick has been discussed as the building material. 7. We understand that the owners to the' south (the apartment property) are concerned about the parking area being contiguous to their building. They have suggested, we understand through communication with the architect, that they would rather have the building placed further to the west, placing parking on three sides of the structure. Such a parking arrangement, however, is generally inefficient and not desirable from the standpoint of the merchandiser. Perhaps this concern can be mitigated by the development of the 10 foot required buffer strip in a manner so as to accommodate the multi -family development to the south, east of Lexington. 8. You will notice the location of the service area at the southwest corner of the structure. Here, we would suggest that a solid screen brick wall be constructed, and that the trash area be roofed so as not to have a deleterious effect on the southerly property. 9. The action requested then is the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the rezoning from R-1 and B-1 to B-2. Any positive action will result in a motion to amend the plan first and the rezoning as a separate action. Also requested is the variance from the 15 foot required parking setback to the 8.5 feet. Acceptance of the variance can include the attachment of conditions, which the Planning Commission and Council may consider based on the results of the public hearing. Such conditions could include the building material, the handling of the service area, development of appropriate screening, and consultation with the neighbors, and other conditions that may seem appropriate.