Laserfiche WebLink
'^0-^7/.... <br />J^-— <br />__________________ <br />' U r33^ <br />^rSccXtLilL <br />'^9n £^ ^ <br />J.'.r. //y yh.__i <br />1^ <br />A <br />T*^' r- <br />r-* '■'^■ <br />'■ « <br />4^ <br />' .*ii ■ <br />■s <br />■'T--'■L i-^-.:j^'i^_>:.::- :i/ :s ^:^A:7-:.AA-7-,.. .t’ \ -. ..■■ <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />n/VTE: <br />SUBJECT: <br />Planning Coinnissicn ^ Council <br />Hank Muhich, Zoning Administrator #332 <br />October 28, 1977 <br />David Bie - 3496 Shoreline Drive <br />Variance - Lot Area § Rear Setback - Conmeicial (B-5) <br />Site Plan and Building Elevation Plan Approval <br />Ifr. Bie submitted some preliminary sketches for review by the Planning Commission so <br />TO might obtain conceptual approval of his proposal at the above location. On <br />September 6, 1977, the Planning Commission approved the concept subject to no <br />variances from setback or paiicing requirements and no curb cut for access to <br />County Road #15. <br />returned with ^e final plans (copy enclosed) shortly before October 12, <br />1977. After brief review by staff, he was informed that variances would be required <br />from lot ar^ and rear setback requirements. The conqjlete application was not sub- <br />mittTO in time for staff to prepare a work session ret)ort for the Planning Commission <br />meeting of October 17, 1977. <br />to ny suggestion, Mr, Bie personally appeared before the Planning Conmission on <br />OctoTOT 17, 1977. He made a brief report on his proposal and requested the Planning <br />tommission consider his personal presentation as a work session so final action could <br />TO taken at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for November 7, 1977. Since I <br />did not have the time to review the proposal previously, I was unable to mice any <br />suggestions or direct the Planning Conmission on this issue. <br />Mter reviejdng the final plans, however, I find the proposal to be someidiat different <br />from vmat the Planning Commission had directed in that variances would be necessary <br />from bo^ rear setback and parking requirements. The final plans also indicate no <br />change in the originally proposed access to County Road #15. <br />Paiking Requirements: <br />Office Space - 1 per 200 sq. ft. including storage area for material <br />and equipment pertaining to the operation (Section <br />38.311 and 38.150) <br />Retail Business - 1 per 150 sq. ft. including storage area for <br />material and equipment pertaining to the operation <br />(Section 38.315 and 38.150) <br />Rear Setback - B-5 - 30 ft. <br />I'm also enclosing the letter from the Hennepin County Public Works Department. They <br />ap^rmtly would prefer to eliminate the extra access to County Road #15 to prevent <br />additional traffic hazards. <br />^6 site plan appears to be quite detailed, but without some dimensions it would be <br />difficult for staff to determine exactly what is expected. The plans provide no <br />protection around the landscaped areas. We've had problems in the past with unpro­ <br />tected planting areas in scmie of our other commercial zwies. <br />I have not as yet received the sign detail as requested by the Commission. If Mr. <br />Bie submits this information in time for the November 7 meeting, I will enclose it i the packet. <br />%4. <br />•.«r <br />i <br />docaticn of pi <br />Legal Descxipi <br />APPLICAWT <br />Name hAO <br />Address /f/l <br />I <br />Address /^ / <br />Present Zoning <br />Zcaling Ordinanc <br />Specify Ordinal <br />Explain Request <br />Extent of Non-o <br />Hardships to Pxt <br />#/ t(o MUtP <br />lAJ /08M/r /r <br />Ukje, <br />1.dication. Appli <br />2^P1^ Meq> Sec <br />iZt: Survey (Sket <br />Date /^ ^ //