Loading...
Waiver of Plat-2100 MainPlanning Commission Report WAIVER OF PLAT - 2100 Mainstreet PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT NO: WVR:86 -5 October 16, 1986 PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to review and recommend action on a Waiver of Platting Requirements at 2100 Mainstreet. BACKGROUND: Name of Applicant: Johnson Enterprises, Inc. Address of Property: 2100 Mainstreet Present Zoning: B -3 Nature of Request: To divide the lot into two parcels. Reason for Request: To enable Johnson Enterprises, Inc.d to receive a tax statement for Parcel 'B', The applicant is requesting to divide the subject lot at 2100 Mainstreet, the present site of the Hopkins Schwinn and the retail center to the south. In 1973, the applicant was denied a waiver of plat, however the minutes do not state findings of fact as to why the waiver was denied. The applicant owns Parcel B and Kenneth Duneman owns Parcel A. The owners would like to receive separate tax statements. The existing buildings will remain the same. The survey supplied by the applicant does not correctly state the location of Shady Oak Road. Shady Oak Road was constructed west of the right -of -way and is on the applicants' property. Unless a new survey is done, the square footage of each Parcel is not known. One of the main concerns in this waiver is the parking. Both parcels have easements for parking. The parking area that abutts Shady Oak Road has approximately 84 parking spaces. The parking area behind the schwinn building has no marked parking and is not easily accessible to the public for parking .The strip mall on Parcel B requires 90 spaces. The Schwinn building requires approximately 35 spaces. The parking area on Parcel B has served as the parking area for both the strip mall and the Schwinn building. The parking easement behind the strip mall is only accessible from the south by crossing private property. No. The setbacks affected by the division are, the sideyard setbacks for both parcels. Parcel A's rear yard setback and Parcel B's front yard setback. These setbacks will be within the minimum zoning requirements Enclosed is the report from the Building Inspector concerning the division. Because of the new lot lines, either many of the walls will have to be fire rated or the lot lines moved. Any granting of the waiver should be contingent on the applicant meeting the Building Code. Another solution to meeting the building code requirements may be possible be having permanent easements along the required building code setback areas. The City Attorney and the applicants attorney are attempting to see if this solution is a viable one. If Permanent easements can be recorded to meet the building code requirements, they should be subject to approval by the City. Also if any future changes occur on the subject parcels the changes should also be subject to review and approval. ANALYSIS: The physical characteristics at this site will remain the same. The only change will be that there will be two recorded parcels and each owner will receive a tax statement. The applicant will have to comply with the Building Code requirements as specified by the Building Inspector. The parking is not in conformance with the ordinance, however, because of the easements the parking will continue to remain the same as before. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of the Waiver of Platting Requirements. The following are recommended Findings of Fact should the Commission recommend approval: 1. The lots conform to the minimum lot size for the B -3 District. 2. The existing parking lots are legal, non- conforming, which will remain the same. Conditions Respectfully submitted, '1iL tlit! a, .Ir Nancy Si � Anderson, Communi Devel opment Analyst 1. The applicant complies with, the Building Code requirements. °, -._ ,h re Tom October 23, 1986 MEMORANDUM TO: Nancy Anderson FROM: Tom Anderson - SUBJECT: Subdivision Request - Johnson Enterprises I have reviewed the subdivision plan for Johnson Enterprises and have concerns with the location of the property lines. The State Building Code requires buildings to be maintained set distances from property lines, based on their hazard, to prevent fire spread from one building to another. In the case of the Johnson request, the two buildings on the property are classified B -2 occupancies (retail sales). The Code requires a one hour rated wall if the building is less than 20 feet to a property line and no openings are permitted in these walls, unless they are fire rated at less than 10 feet. These buildings appear to have concrete masonry shells which would meet a one hour wall classification but the windows and doors are not rated. The Code therefore will require, as a minimum, a 10 foot separation from the buildings to any newly established lot lines. If you have any questions, please call me. 21 (83) 10 N 20 11 v 19 j 4 rT2 • 18 68) 13 p 17. '^ 14 (6 15 gZo (13) So) 8 � �Z3 �9) $ . 22(4 (40) : 9 21(48) (41) :10 .' 20 ' (42) 11 t9 (43) 12 17(33) 24(5o 10 /ST STREE (89) 1_ 2 — 30 1031 �EI4 2 B (2 E9� 3 � s 29421) 3 424) 3 4.1 t C ��4 �. 11 4 — 28042) 12 4 .' (92) 5 (5) 5 41) 1 (4) 0,g1 26(1 • . 2 ..,..._ o 1 "'�• (93) ?_ _ 2601 27 9) (10 6 ry G 6 M. ` I c ° ‘ 1 , E 7 25 (107) 7 2527(1(139) ti F (6) (94)_ N ti 24018) (108) 8 2 _ ' 2'» 8 ." i 9 23 (109) 9 N 23(1 28) 9 G Cr) ..,. 1 h (95) 10 _ 224!7) —1O _11: 220 (129) 1 H E8) (9697) 12 h 21016) 21 (13(13'3 I \ Q I i { () 20415) 12 20(1 (131) 12 - u "2� .01 �•�ti-,�: 114) 1113)11 111)1 113 1 9 18 1 116 15 14 1 19 18117 16 15 14 1 19 18 17 ?�• 1 1 . ; � rs . 19 0 82 (55) 23 :: . 24(88 23 22 O) 6 25(72) 24 23(71) 22(70) 21(69) 2© h t9(68T (8) ) 6- 83 ' •.r ,cy `i 13 17 15; 14(4 (4 (61) 12 1 (59) �.... ^.04 Sscr•w Suit oAivG . '.11. .. .. ..rr _ /L'D /N6 A. 4i d.MD QY idli cc w qi . -a•• 4: «art. 4 ?. !.4 r■t or 0.117 AO1 , h , r.. t .. Ac... is