REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

Similar documents
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

Agenda Date:8/1/2018 REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION Agenda Item: 7c

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

VARIANCE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

Application Information

VARIANCE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

VARIANCE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Agenda

Existing Land Use Guiding Zoning Site Occupied with Vogel Mechanical offices CMU CMU-1

II. What Type of Development Requires Site Plan Review? There are five situations where a site plan review is required:

CITY OF SANTA ROSA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 APPLICANT FILE NUMBER MJP

STAFF REPORT. City of Ormond Beach Department of Planning. Exception for Outdoor Activity

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: April 18, 2019

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. Planning Division. m e m o r a n d u m

ARTICLE XI CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS

PERMITTED USES: Within the MX-1 Mixed Use Neighborhood District the following uses are permitted:

Division Development Impact Review.

Article 7: Residential Land Use and Development Requirements

Section 1: US 19 Overlay District

Bowie Marketplace Residential Detailed Site Plan Statement of Justification January 13, 2017 Revised February 2, 1017

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING STAFF REPORT

Community Development Department Council Chambers, 7:30 PM, June 7, 2018

UPPER MOUNT BETHEL TOWNSHIP NORTHAMPTON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Conditional Use Application

The following regulations shall apply in the R-E District:

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Date: October 19, 2017

Planning Department Oconee County, Georgia

Conditional Use Permit case no. CU 14-06: Bristol Village Partners, LLC

SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM. DATE: November 9, 2016 PC Agenda Item 3.B. Planning Commission Chair Thompson and Commissioners

TOTTENHAM SECONDARY PLAN

Planning Department Oconee County, Georgia STAFF REPORT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Staff Report. Site Plan Review. SP June 19, 2018

CITY OF NAPLES STAFF REPORT

SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPLICATION LEVY COUNTY, FLORIDA. Fee: (see fee schedule) Validation No.

(voice) (fax) (voice) (fax) Site Plan Review

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)

Application for Sketch Plan Review

M E M O R A N D U M. Meeting Date: October 23, Item No. F-1. Planning and Zoning Commission. Daniel Turner, Planner I

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: July 20, 2017

Combined Zoning/Minor Variance and Boulevard Parking Agreement Exception

PUD Ordinance - Cascade Lakes Plat #10 of 1995

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Regular Agenda - Public Hearing Item

City and County of Broomfield, Colorado

CHAPTER 14 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS

Medical Marijuana Special Exception Use Information

ARTICLE 5.0 SCHEDULE OF REGULATIONS

Approved 58 Unit Residential Condo Development for Sale. For Sale: Price Upon Request

SECTION 7000 LAND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS

SUBDIVISION, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ZONING AMENDMENT, & SIDEWALK WAIVER STAFF REPORT Date: July 19, 2018

Condominium Unit Requirements.

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LEESVILLE BRANCH LIBRARY BETWEEN CITY OF RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA AND WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Applying for a Conditional Use Permit in San Juan County

AAAA. Planning and Zoning Staff Report Lake Shore Land Holdings, LLC CU-PH Analysis

Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator

ZONING AMENDMENT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: August 8, 2013

Town of Cary, North Carolina Site Plan Staff Report Centregreen Park at Weston (13-SP-067) Town Council Quasi-Judicial Hearing April 3, 2014

PUD Ordinance - Caravelle #2 of 2002

Approval of Takoma Amended Joint Development Agreement

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA MEMORANDUM

PLANNING DEPARTMENT Application for a Type 2 Use through the Board of Adjustment & Appeals

Rezoning Petition Pre-Hearing Staff Analysis February 19, 2018

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS: J & K STAFF: NATALIE BECKER FILE NOS: CPC ZC QUASI-JUDICIAL CPC DP QUASI-JUDICIAL

ARTICLE 24 SITE PLAN REVIEW

ORDINANCE NO. Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Abilene, Texas:

Draft Model Access Management Overlay Ordinance

Town of Cary, North Carolina Rezoning Staff Report 14-REZ-31 Cary Park PDD Amendment (Waterford II) Town Council Meeting January 15, 2015

Cover Letter with Narrative Statement

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICATION

Chair to close public hearing. Review Deadline: 60 Days: 8/18/ Days: 10/17/2017

City of Valdosta Land Development Regulations

5.03 Type III (Quasi-Judicial) Decisions

4 June 11, 2014 Public Hearing

This is a conditional use permit request to establish a commercial wind energy conversion system.

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (East), PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (West) STAFF REPORT Date: September 18, 2014

City of Valdosta Land Development Regulations

City of Brooklyn Park Planning Commission Staff Report

ARTICLE 13 CONDOMINIUM REGULATIONS

Town of Cary, North Carolina Rezoning Staff Report 14-REZ-20 Habitat for Humanity Evans Road Town Council Meeting October 16, 2014

ARTICLE V GATED DEVELOPMENTS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS & STANDARDS OF DESIGN

Staff Report for Council Public Meeting

ADDENDUM of PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

MINNETONKA PLANNING COMMISSION June 2, A conditional use permit for 2,328 square feet of accessory structures at 4915 Highland Road

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

DISCUSSION DRAFT 1 INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Dearborn, Michigan. June 12, 2017

Parkland-Spanaway-Midland LUAC - Agenda

ZONING AMENDMENT & SUBDIVISION STAFF REPORT Date: July 9, 2015

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT REGULAR AGENDA

DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDINANCE

ARTICLE 14 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT

Plan Dutch Village Road

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS. Cadence Site

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION

Application for Conditional Use Permit CITY OF VALDOSTA PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION

Charter Township of Garfield Grand Traverse County

SPECIAL EXCEPTION SITE PLAN REVIEW

PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Transcription:

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE: 06/01/2011 ITEM NO: 5b Division Approval Item Description: Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Request by Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union for approval of a drivethrough as a conditional use at 2750 Snelling Avenue (PF11-0154). 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union has proposed the construction of a two-story office and financial institutional building on the former Stuart Anderson s Cattle Company site, which building would include a drive-through for the financial/banking portion of the use. In order to allow the proposed improvements, however, the drive-through must gain formal approval as a CONDITIONAL USE. Project Review History Application submitted: May 20, 2011; Determined complete: May 23, 2011 Sixty-day review deadline: July 20, 2011 Project report prepared: May 25, 2011 Anticipated Planning Commission action: June 1, 2011 Anticipated City Council action: June 13, 2011 2.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION The Planning Division recommends approval of the proposed CONDITIONAL USE; see Section 7 of this report for the detailed recommendation. 3.0 SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED ACTION By motion, recommend approval of the proposed CONDITIONAL USE, pursuant to 1005.03 (Table of Allowed Uses) and 1009.02 (Conditional Uses) of the City Code; see Section 8 of this report for the detailed action. Page 1 of 5

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 The former Stuart Anderson s Cattle Company site at 2750 Snelling Avenue (currently undeveloped) has both a Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning classification of Community Business (CB), in which a drive-through requires approval as a CONDITIONAL USE. 4.2 The new office/financial building would be constructed to meet all requirements of the new Zoning Ordinance, which requires buildings to be placed forward and parking to the side and/or rear. As such, the site obtains its access from the shared (with former Fuddruckers) drive lane to/from the Snelling Avenue frontage road. Parking is proposed in the rear of the site and the drive-through has been placed along the north side of the building, which includes five lanes, four for business and one as an atm. Although the building can be constructed as a permitted use, the drive-through, a vital accessory use of a bank or financial institution, requires an approved CONDITIONAL USE. 5.0 CONDITIONAL USE ANALYSIS 5.1 REVIEW OF GENERAL CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA: Section 1009.02C of the City Code establishes general standards and criteria for all conditional uses, and the Planning Commission and City Council must find that each proposed conditional use does or can meet these requirements. The general standards are as follows: a. The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division has reviewed the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and determined that that the proposed drive-through and office use are not in conflict with the Plan. Specifically the Planning Division believes that the proposed office building with a drive-through advances land use goals and policies within Sections 1, 2, 9 10 and 111, including the following: 1. Policy 1.5: Promote well-planned and coordinated development. 2. Policy 1.6: Encourage improvements to the connectivity and walkability between and within the community s neighborhoods, gathering places and commercial areas through new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects. 3. Policy 2.3: Encourage a broad mix of commercial businesses within the community to diversify and strengthen the tax base and employment opportunities. 4. Policy 9.1: Encourage commercial areas to make efficient use of land, provide for safe vehicular and pedestrian movements, provide adequate parking areas, provide appropriate site landscaping, and create quality and enduring aesthetic character. 5. Policy 9.2: Promote commercial development that is accessible by transit, automobile, walking, and bicycle. 6. Policy 10.3: Support neighborhood-scale commercial areas that provide convenient access to goods and services at appropriate locations within the community. Page 2 of 5

7. Policy 11.3: Encourage the development of multistory office and lightindustrial uses to use land efficiently, expand the property tax base, and create jobs. b. The proposed use is not in conflict with a Regulating Map or other adopted plan. The proposed drive-through is not in conflict with such plans because none apply to the area surrounding the property. c. The proposed use is not in conflict with any City Code requirements. Planning Division staff believes that the proposed drive-through will meet all applicable City Code requirements; moreover, a conditional use approval can be rescinded if the approved use fails to comply with all applicable Code requirements or conditions of the approval. d. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities. Planning Division staff does not expect this drive-through to create an excessive burden on parks, streets, or other public facilities, since the proposed use and drive-through are typical and allowed uses within the Community Business zoning district. e. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, will not negatively impact traffic or property values, and will not otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare. Planning Division staff anticipates that if the drive-through is approved, it will add additional vehicle trips to the local road network each day; some could argue that the additional vehicles constitute a negative impact on traffic (and a violation of this general criterion), but Planning Division staff has found in item d above that the potential, additional traffic would not impose an excessive burden on the public street infrastructure. Likewise, some may claim that the drive-through will negatively impact their property values (again, violating this criterion); staff believes that a drive-through in this location would not have a noticeable effect on the value nearby property as the area is currently occupied by office and other commercial uses. 5.2 REVIEW OF SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA: Section 1009.02D 13 of the City Code establishes additional standards and criteria that are specific to drive-throughs; the Planning Commission and City Council must also find that the proposal does or can meet the additional pertinent standards. This section of the ordinance includes several requirements, but the applicable ones are as follows. a. Drive-through lanes and service windows shall be located to the side or rear of buildings and shall not be located between the principal structure and a public street. The proposed drive-through, with its lanes and service window, is proposed along the north side of the building and directly adjacent to the parking lot (service bays and window) and the office building (lanes). b. Points of vehicular ingress and egress shall be located at least 60 feet from the street right-of-way lines of the nearest intersection. The proposed drive-through does not lie near an intersection street right-of-way. c. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere with or reduce the safety of pedestrian and bicyclist movements. The site plan Page 3 of 5

does indicate a pedestrian connection (could also be used for bicycles) from the sidewalk adjacent to the frontage road accessing the front of the proposed building as well as the rear of the building, which works well for pedestrians utilizing the public walkway. In the case of vehicle circulation within and around the parking lot, vehicles will access from the shared drive-lane along the south property boundary and the drive-through having been located along the north side of the building, access to it through the parking lot can be directed via the third opening into the parking lot with the use of signs. Although the parking lot is slightly deep, the site is narrow and not appropriate for a separate pedestrian from the rear portion of the lot to the building. The Planning Division believes that vehicles and pedestrians will be able to co-mingle without safety issues. d. Adequate queuing lane space shall be provided without interfering with on-site parking/circulation. Based on the proposed plan, there is queuing for 25+ vehicles or lanes that are stacked up to 5 vehicles deep. The Planning Division has deemed that queuing to be more than adequate for this use. Circulation for the site is well designed and the patrons utilizing the drive-through will have a designated exit. e. Speaker box sounds from the drive-through lane shall not be loud enough to constitute a nuisance on an abutting residentially zoned property or property in residential use. The proposed drive-through and its teller islands will lie directly adjacent a parking lot and should not be a nuisance to any residential use in the area (Coventry Apartments and townhomes is located approximately 475 feet to the north and the townhomes at Arona are 300 feet to the east). f. Drive-through canopies and other structures, where present, shall be constructed from the same materials as the primary building and with a similar level of architectural quality and detailing. The final design of the building and drive-through will include building and roofing materials that are consistent and/or similar or complementary to one another. g. A 10-foot buffer area with screen planting and an opaque wall or fence between 6 and 8 feet in height shall be required between the drive-through lane and any property line adjoining a residentially zoned property or property in residential use. This requirement is not applicable to the CU request, because an office use and Community Business zoned property lies directly adjacent to the north of the proposed drive-through facility. 5.3 Roseville s Development Review Committee, a body comprising staff from various City departments, met on May 19, 2011 to discuss the application. Comments discussed relevant to the Conditional Use request included: the northerly 30 feet of this lot is covered by an easement for which no structures shall be allowed, including a canopy for drive through; plans shall label and accurately indicate the easement along north property boundary; and the drawings for the site need to show all underground utilities and existing easements - there is public water, storm and sanitary sewer on this site. 5.4 Review of the proposed drive-through against the CONDITIONAL USE standards and criteria leads Planning Division staff to conclude that the use can meet all of the applicable requirements. Page 4 of 5

5.5 Section 1009.02E of the City Code requires the applicant to validate an approval of the CONDITIONAL USE by beginning construction of the proposed improvements related to the drive-through. If the approval has not been validated within one year, the approval will expire and become void. 6.0 PUBLIC COMMENT As of the date of printing of this report, the Planning Division has not received any calls or email regarding the Conditional Use for the drive-through associated with the proposed new development. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of this report, the Planning Division recommends approval of the proposed CONDITIONAL USE pursuant to 1005.03 and 1009.02 of the Roseville City Code; subject to the following conditions: a. All public easement being accurately articulated on the plan sheets submitted for permit review and approval b. That the roof structure of the drive-through not encroach into the 30 foot wide utility and drainage easement which lies along the northern property line. 8.0 SUGGESTED ACTION By motion, recommend approval of the proposed drive-through as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2750 Snelling Avenue, based on the comments and findings of Sections 5 and 6 and the conditions of Section 7 of this staff report. Prepared by: City Planner Thomas Paschke Attachments: A: Area map B: Aerial photo C: Proposed site plan Page 5 of 5

2779-83 ASBURY DR LR / ROW LR / ROW LR / ROW 2777 SNELLING AVE FRT RD E 2780 2802-11 ASBURY 2812 Attachment A: Location Map for Planning File 11-015 O / O/BP 2792-99 ASBURY 2766-73 ASBURY 2787 2800 2775 2776 2819 2817 2815 2811 2809 2807 2805 2803 2801 2789 2787 2785 2779 2777 2775 2773 2771 2769 2767 2778 2776 2774 2772 2770 2768 2766 1480 TERRACE DR 1478 Applewood Overlook POS / PR 28 28 1420 LINCOLN DR SNELLING AVE N 2750 POS / PR PASCAL 2740 LR / ROW 2730 2720-24 2730 O / O/BP 2720 2700 LR / LDR-1 2718 1448 2710-14 Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: May 16, 2011 2700 LR / R1 Site Location Comp Plan / Zoning Designations 2710 Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (5/2/2011) For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: City of Roseville, Community Development Department, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN SNELLING AVE FRT RD E Location Map LR / LDR-1 Disclaimer arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 651-792-7085. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), 0 100 200 Feet and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which mapdoc: planning_commission_location.mxd PASCAL ST LR / LDR-1 2682 2700 1448 1449

MILLWOOD AVENUE W Attachment B: Aerial Map of Planning File 11-015 N SNELLI G AVE F RT RD E SNELLING AVE N Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: May 16, 2011 Location Map Site Location Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (5/2/2011) * Aerial Data: Kucera (4/2009) For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: City of Roseville, Community Development Department, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 651-792-7085. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. 0 50 100 Feet