2001 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

Item # 5 .�,�.��, �.� �.� .�_:, _., _��,�,:�.�:.�. ...� .�_ ._ �� W ,�.�., �,__,_.� � _., 7 �:.. .,�. .-� �..:: _., �.�w� .... �, � / �'I �� f'� , � � 1 �SSI � �°� Meeting Date: .Ianua�°y 3, 2001 ....:. �......, c .,_ ... :: .... . .. :��, �. . _�. _ , ..._,: .; s...;:� ..,;;��. ��..�. . ...� -,.. � ._,� ,.,�...�� _ T'�ile: DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST OF T�NY MEZZENGA TO C4IVSTRUCT AI�T OFFICE BUILDING AT i664 GREENFIELD A'�IENUE. {PLANNINC CASE NO. DE00-002) I�ta°odr�ctio�to Tony Mezzenga, representing the property ownet Ei°nest Gustafson, is requesting approv�l of a Development Review to constr�ct an office building with a 1,740 sqt�are foot footprint on the properiy consistent with the setback variance that was approved by the Planning Commission on �eptember 13, 2000. Staff sent notices to the property owners within 350 feet of 7664 Greenfield Avenue regarding this meeting to promote neighborhood awareness and to soiicit suggestion� and input from those residents most affected by this development. j The purpose of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to review proposed development in terms of their consistency with City Codes, in the context of the adjoining developments and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the community. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council which then acts upon the request. ;; , , , ►' This 13,068 square-foot propet-ty is zoned B-3, Highvaay Business. The size of the lot and corner-lot seti�acks present practical difficulties in terms of what can be developed, which was the basis for the variance approved for the lot in 2000. This lot harders commercial property to the west (Tom Thumb and a Laundromat), high density residential to the east, and low density residenYiai ia Yhe south and north. The proposed office use is consistent with the B-3 zoning designation and is a less intensive use which would fit �veil.into the predominately residential surroundings. In its review of this request, the Planning Commission will want to recall and consider the many issues b�°ought up by residents du�ing the Sepiember public hearings. Same of ttaese concerns that can be addressed to some extent with this developmeni review include pedestrian traffic, lighting, landsca�ing and fencing, and �vehicular traffic circulaiion. Other issues that the Planning Commission can help control and influence concern the appearance of the building, exterior maierials and buildin� signage.