Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5309 Staff AnalysisApril 24, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. 14 NAME: LOCATION: OWNER/APPLICANT• PROPOSAL• Helmich Auto Service Conditional Use Permit (Z-5309) The Northeast corner of Beechwood Street and Kavanaugh Blvd. (2712 Kavanaugh Blvd.). Mr. Edward H. Helmich/Stan West To obtain a Conditional Use Permit to make an existing 1,161 sq. ft. (2 -bays) auto repair center a conforming use, and to expand the operation by adding a 929 sq. ft. two -bay addition on 0.15 +/- acres of land that is zoned "C-311. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS 1. Site Location Adjacent to a collector street (Kavanaugh Blvd.). 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood This site is abutted by commercial uses located to the south and west (strip centers), an office use to the east (lodge hall) and a four-plex located to the north (side yard relationship). The existing commercial use on the site has been in operation for at least 33 years. The continuation of the existing use should be compatible with the surrounding area. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin The site contains two curb cuts on Kavanaugh as well as access from an existing alley located to the east. The applicant is proposing a total of 13 parking spaces on- site (nine exterior and one space for each service bay) . 4. Screening and Buffers None has been proposed. E_1 April 24, 1990 SUBDIVISION Item No. 14 Continued 5. CitV En ineer Comments Excessive curb cut widths are shown on Kavanaugh Blvd. The curb cuts should be reduced to a maximum of 30 feet each. 6. Analysis The staff foresees no adverse impact to the area as a result of this use continuing. The Heights Hillcrest Neighborhood Plan show this area as commercial (see note No. 2). The staff does, however, feel that an expansion of two bays is excessive due to a deficient lot size (6,500 +/- sq. ft. existing non -conforming lot/11C-3" lot requires 14,000 sq. ft.). In addition, the site plan shows the removal of the existing chain link fence and retaining wall on the north property line but does not indicate any replacement. The staff feels that the proposed two bay expansion would result in an overbuilding of the site but, that an expansion of one bay could be accommodated which would allow adequate parking (area/design) and maneuvering room to be provided. Finally, the applicant needs to submit a revised site plan and indicate the type and placement of any future retaining wall and/or fence, a reduction in curb return widths as per the City Engineer's comment, a redesign of the building, and landscape areas (new curb returns could offer landscape areas). 7. Staff Recommendation Approval provided: (1) The applicant agrees to submit a revised site plan that describes/illustrates the new retaining wall on the north property Line; revises the building foot print and parking area as described by the staff; modifies the curb returns as outlined by the City Engineer; shows the proposed landscape area; and (2) that the Planning Commission approves the existing 12.8 foot rear -yard variance (on the alley). 2 April 24, 1990 SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION CQMMITTEE REVIEW: The applicant was present. A discussion ensued over the items in the Staff's recommendation. The applicant agreed to submit a revised site plan that addressed the Staff's concerns except that he hoped to maintain a maximum of four bays, rather than the three that the staff had recommended. He also stated that the fence and the retaining wall would remain in place, except in the area of the future building construction. The applicant was further advised by the Staff and the Committee to talk to Bob Brown of Environmental Codes about landscaping his site. It was also suggested facade design tof the lbuilding atohaddressrthe sketch of the Possible concerns of the Hillcrest Neighborhood Association. PLANNING COMMISSIQN ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The staff stated that they had received a revised site plan and a sketch perspective (facade). The staff further stated that they did not support the revised site plan as it contained 46,4ys-verses the three it had recommended. The staff also stated that the plan should be revised to provide for a curb return on the alley entrance to reduce the width of the opening and to reorient the proposed Kavanaugh parking and landscape areas inward to the property boundaries. In addition, the staff stated that the Hillcrest Residents Association had written a letter endorsing the project with the proviso that building design review be required and that the proposed land use be limited to the existing ownership. Mr. W. P. Hamilton, attorney for the applicant, stated that his client would not be able to justify economically a one bay expansion and he also stated that they would work to revise the plan to address the staff's concerns about parking, landscaping and the curb return on the alley. The Commission asked the staff about limiting the Conditional Use Permit to a particular ownership and landscaping in the public right-of-way. The City Attorney stated that he did not feel that a Conditional Use Permit could be limited to a particular ownership as Opposed to running with the land. Mr. Jerry Gardner, of the City 3 April 14, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 14 !Continued Engineer's office, stated that landscaping in the public right-of-way was possible but would require a franchise approval prior to its installation. A discussion ensued over the proposed building design. The applicant stated that they proposed to continue the brick facade. The staff stated that painting of the exterior be limited to earth colors. The Commission further discussed the issue then voted 7 ayes, 1 no and 3 absent to approve the application (four bays) provided the applicant submitted a revised site plan that addressed the issues that the staff had raised regarding landscaping, parking, curb return on the alley and that the 4FPG4%�.trsubmit a facade design to be approved by the staff. 4