08-15-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved NW, also known as the Marv’s Transmission site. The applicants have submitted a revised plan illustrating development of a 49’ x 119’ office building with associated surface parking. The Planning Commission originally reviewed this proposal at the regularly scheduled June meeting. That proposal included a number of Variances in order to develop the site under the existing B-2 Zoning District requirements. The Commission discussed the proposal and determined that a hardship did not exist to grant Variances, but that a rezoning to B-4, Downtown Business District should be considered. The Commission also agreed with the staff recommended revised setbacks to reflect development patterns of the B-4 District. Ultimately, the application was tabled to allow a rezoning application to be filed and for the applicant to develop a revised site plan based on the revised setbacks suggested by staff. The Planning Commission then heard a rezoning request on both this property and three others at the July meeting. The initial staff recommendation was to rezone the following four properties to B-4, Downtown Business District: 715 Old Highway 8 NW, 721 Old thth Highway 8 NW, 706 4 Avenue NW, and 736 4 Avenue NW. After the public hearing, the Commission recommended that only 715 & 721 Old Highway 8 NW be rezoned to B- 4, Downtown Business District. This recommendation was based on proximity to Old Highway 8, surrounding development characteristics, and sensitivity to the surrounding single family residential development. The current request includes a revised Site Plan review, and establishment of a General Development Plan as required under the B-4, Downtown Business District standards. Following a Planning Commission recommendation on this revised site plan, both the rezoning application and the Site Plan/General Development Plan request will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at the August 22, 2006 meeting. Baker inquired if the garbage containers are required to be within the set back. Gundlach replied that there is no set back for an interior side yard in the B4 zoning district. Baker stated that the site plan shows a five foot parking set back. Gundlach replied that there is a five foot parking set back, however there is no building set back in this zoning. Schiferl asked why staff suggested that the Commission evaluate if the street sides of the building need additional brick or stone. Gundlach replied that the zoning code for this district has specific requirements for exterior building materials on street frontages and it states that it should primarily be brick, stone or tilt up architectural panels; however, it does not list a percentage for those materials. The applicant has proposed a uniform distribution of the materials. Staff is not making a formal recommendation on this because the ordinance is not clear. Baker replied that he does not have an issue with what the applicant has proposed. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\08-15-2006.docPage 2 of 14