CCP 11-22-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved City Planner Gundlach gave an overview of the property, noting that the applicant wishes to construct a 2,304 SF 2"d story office addition above the addition that was approved in 2008 and constructed in 2009. The request requires a Site Plan approval and Nonconforming Use Permit approval. Also included in the proposal is construction of 11 surface parking stalls and pavement of an area over 10,000 SF to assist in dust control. Staff reviewed the proposal against the I-2, Heavy Industrial zoning district standards. Staff determined that building setbacks, off-street parking, floor area ratios, and building height requirements are met. If the not-yet-adopted landscaping ordinance is approved, the applicant would be expected to incorporate one additional canopy tree and 8 shrubs. Staff finds this reasonable under the existing ordinance and would recommend one additional tree and 8 shrubs are implemented. The exterior materials proposed consist of cedar siding to match the existing building. It was determined this material meets "the equivalent" language of Section 6-390 (12) during the 2008 Site Plan approval. Public Safety and Public Works reviewed the plans and provided no comments, except that the RCWD permit should be submitted to the City in conjunction with the building permit. City Planner Gundlach reported that there are numerous nonconforming issues related to this property, Staff reviewed these nonconformities against Section 8-460 of the Zoning Code, which calls for reductions in nonconformities when practical. The nonconformities affected with this project include: • Conversion of storage yard area that is at a front yard setback less than required by code to surface parking. This setback would match the setback of the existing row of surface parking. • Lack of curb throughout the site to control drainage. A small amount of curb would be added for the parking area. • Lack of paved drive aisles to control dust. The applicant proposes to pave nearly 11,000 SF of existing un-paved drive aisles. With those proposed improvements, staff finds the nonconforming use criteria of Section 8-460 have been met. Planner Gundlach stated that the City continues to receive complaints regarding dust and odor but it is unclear if any measures can be practically implemented at this time to help mitigate these issues. Staff is recommending the applicant examine these issues in more detail and report back to staff by January 31, 2012 on any measures that can be practically implemented. Staff recommends the commission adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the Site Plan and Nonconforming Use Permit, subject to the following conditions: • The addition is constructed consistent with the plans provided. • A copy of the Rice Creek Watershed District permit is submitted to the City in conjunction with the building permit request. • One deciduous tree and 8 shrubs are implemented on site and shown on a landscaping plan submitted at the time of building permit. • Additional dust and odor mitigation efforts are examined and discussed with Community Development staff by January 31, 2012. Commissioner Danger questioned how the City addresses multiple non-conforming issues. Planner Gundlach directed Commissioner Danger to the past history report included in the packet, noting the property has been in New Brighton, prior to the Zoning Code being adopted. The ordinance requires corrective action when practical, which can be difficult to determine. Chair Howard opened the Public Hearing at 7:28 p.m. 3