Loading...
100185 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 1985 City of New Hope, Minnesota 7:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Case 85-22 - (Tabled from September 3, 1985. Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for a Zero Lot Line at 7900 51st Avenue North, Robert/Marilyn Cady, Petitioners Planning Case 85-23 - (Tabled from September 3, 1985. Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for a Zero Lot Line at 8117-8119 28th Avenue North, West Suburban Builders, Inc. Petitioners. Planning Case 85-24 - Request for Variance in Rear Setback - 9016 44th Circle - John/Leonore Haight, Petitioners. Planninq Case 85-25 - Request for Rezoning, PUD and Plat Approval at 42nd/Boone - Sandpiper Cove, Petitioner. Planning Case 85-26 - Request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit and Construction Approval at 3701 Winnetka North Parker Communications,Inc., Petitioner. Planning Case 85-27 - Request for Approval of Comprehensive Sign Plan at 9401 36th Avenue North - Meridian Construction Company, Petitioner. COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. 11. Report of Design and Review Committee Report of Land Use Committee Report of Codes and Standards Committee NEW BUSINESS 12. Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of September 3, 1985. 13. Review of Council Minutes of September 9, and 23, 1985. 14. Additional Comments, Suggestions, Requests of Public, Commis- sioners, and Staff. 15. Announcements. 16. Adjournment. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: October 1, 1985 85-22 Robert Cady Preliminary Plat and Variance 7900 51st Avenue North R-2 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: Staff recommends denial of this case. has withdrawn his request. The petitioner DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: October 1, 1985 85-23 West Suburban Builders, Inc. /Earl Wilson Preliminary Plat Approval 8117-19 28th Avenue North R-2 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This case was tabled from the September Planning Commission meeting. The petitioner had failed to appear at the meeting and Planning Commission tabled until the October hearing date. 2. This duplex was built in 1975. It is very similar to other duplexes developed in that area that have been zero lot lined. The property meets all requirements of the zoning code and the only matter before the Planning Commission is approval of the preliminary plat. Staff recommends apprOval. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: October 1, 1985 85-24 John Haight, Jr. Rearyard Setback Variance 9016 44th Circle North R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner is seeking to replace an existing deck with a larger deck and a screened in porch. The existing house exclusive of the deck is 32 feet from the property line. Code requires 35 feet. Also, decks can encroach into the setback area as long as they are open and not enclosed. 2. In this case, the petitioner is seeking to construct a screened in porch that extends 15 feet out from the rear of the home and thus will be 17 feet from the rear property line. It appears that the petitioner could construct the deck on the non garage side and come within the setback requirements. However, the petitioner does not wan't to do this as he states he would be looking into his neighbor's two level deck. 3. The irregular shape of the lot does constitute a non economic hardship to a degree. The Planning Commission can disregard the argument that may be presented about lot shape. Also, it is ill advised to expand a non conforming structure. Since the home is already into the setback, this porch only worsens that situation. 4. I have no information concerning neighbors and I think that their thoughts should be asked for. 5. Staff would not recommend approval. extension of non conforming use and to the the porch would enter into the setback. Because of this severe degree that I I ! 0 0 ! I I ,' OF 5URVE'Y/' /f- --- ~o. ~4: --- I hereby ce~/ of a survey; ' kot, J Andof-fl encroa/I me th' I ,"' CIR. CLE I hereby certify that this is a true and of a survey of the boundaries of: correct representation Lot 7, Block 1, Nagell's 1st Addition And of the location of all buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this 23rd day of August, 1973. DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: October 1, 1985 85-25 Sandpiper Cove and Citizens State Bank Preliminary Plat, Amendment to PUD, Rezoning from R-3 to R-4, Construction Approval 4051 Boone R-3 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. This case has been referred to the Planner. In your packet is his report. This should pretty well describe what the petitioner requests and the planner's thoughts in the matter. Also, the petitioner is seeking approval for the first two stages of a three stage planned use development permit. If approval is given for these first two stages, it would then allow the petitioner to proceed with construction. 2. In addition to the report by the Planner, staff has other concerns that the commissioners and council should be of. some aware a. staff needs to have a more narrative description of the proposed PUD and a complete architectural drawing as detailed in 4.19 (6) of the code, which speaks to the second phase of the PUD process. b. the sewer lines. easements have not been shown for water and storm c. the preliminary plat has a mis-spelling for"Sandpiper,,. d. from a procedural standpoint, we must do more than approve the proposed Sandpiper Cove Second Addition. I believe you would have to re-plat the original Sandpiper Cove plat to match, or we are going to end up with two outstanding plats that describe the eastern portion of the site in different terms. e. Although the new building would be a condominium development, it may be reasonable to ask about the useable open space as required for a townhouse project. There appear to be no intentions to provide such things as picnic areas, recreational spaces, play areas, etc. . f. The only amenity in the tuck-under garage and this will not normally the case. submitted documents is the be served by elevators as is g. Some of the requests of the Design and Review Committee and staff recommendations have been taken in the revised'drawings that were received by staff this past Friday. They have not provided the 24 foot wide driveway throughout the site, nor has the petitioner clarified if the entire building is to be provided with fire sprinklers as recommended by the Fire Chief because of the poor access into and within the site. h. The rezoning issue does have some merit as it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the change in the use of the 7.27 acre site in the last decade and the Council decision to permit a total of 58 dwelling units on the site in 1975. This development will then bring the total site to that 58 dwelling units. Staff does not recommend exceeding this density. Staff also points out that the soil problems are now known to be worse than originally thought on this 2.6 acres of the total site. i. The Planner in his report on page 4, talks about the difference in elevation between the driveway and the first floor of the building. Staff agrees with the Planner on this point, particularly with the inconvenience to the residents and the strange look that the east elevation is going to have. It should be noted that the site plan drawings for the east elevation do not show the driveway in relation to the elevation rendering. You may want to re-look at the Crystal Towers apartment complex, off Bass Lake Road. There the parking lot and driveway is well below the first floor levels. k. Staff would recommend concept approval only and not the second or development stage for the PUD. We think that there are enough concerns to warrent a more thorough examination. northwest associated consultants, inc. PLANNING REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO: Dan Donahue Alan Brixius 26 September 1985 Sandpiper Cove Condominium Rezoning and PUD Amendment 131.01 - 85.25 BACKGROUND Citizens State Bank of St. Louis Park is proposing to amend the approved Sandpiper Cove PUD to allow for the development of a 22 unit condominium on the southwest corner of the 42nd Avenue and Boone Avenue intersection. The original Sandpiper Cove PUD was approved for the construction of 59 townhome units on a 7.3 acre site. To date 37 townhomes have been constructed on the western 4.7 acres of the site. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into two lots and an outlot and consolidate the balance of the 22 unconstructed units into a single building on a 2.6 acre site. Three applications must be processed to consider the applicant's request. They are as follows: Rezoning: The site is currently zoned R-3 which provides for townhouse development and multiple family dwellings up to 12 units. The applicant is requesting to construct a 22 unit complex which requires an R-4 zoning district to permit the use. P'UD: The applicant is proposing a use and design change from. the 'originally approved Sandpiper PUD. To accommodate the change in use and design an amendment to the original PUD must be processed. Subdivision: The existing Sandpiper Cove PUD consists of 7.3 acres. The applicant is proposing to divide the site into two lots and an outlot. 4820 minnetonka blvd. minneapolis, mn, ste. 200 55416 (612) 925-9420 Dan Donahue 26 September 1985 Page Two REZONING The applicant is requesting a zoning change from R-3 to R-4 to allow for the construction of a 22 unit condominium rather than the approved 22 townhomes on the site. The City of New Hope has requested that the site be developed. The applicant is proposing this design due to market constraints and site conditions. Comprehensive Plan. The New Hope Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as area in which medium density residential development (6-10 units per acre) should occur in a planned unit development. The site is characterized by a wetland and poor soils. The PUD will allow for a more efficient use of the developable land, clustering the units to allow for the most efficient use of the site and to preserve the open space. Land Use Compatibility. The rezoning change is necessary to allow for a change in the type of building from townhouses to a 22 unit condonimium. The applicant is not proposing to change the density from what was approved with the original PUD. The PUD serves to restrict the permitted density on the site. The re- zoning will allow for a different building type, however, nothing larger than 22 units~]can be constructed on the site. The building appearance is signifi- cantly different from the previously proposed townhomes. A building this large and high constructed on fill raises some compatibility concerns, however, the applicant has attempted to minimize these impacts through the architectural appearance of the building, which has been coordinated with the townhomes in Sandpiper Cove. The site plan shows excessive setback from the adjacent properties allowing a buffering space. The landscape plan shows the preservation of a pondin§ area, a landscape screening between the proposed development and adjacent residential areas. Traffic. The Comprehensive Plan~s recommendations for medium density residential development on this site stems from its proximity to 42nd Avenue and Boone. This land use was proposed to limit access points onto these busy streets and to buffer the lower density single family development to the south. New Hope's policies for considering a rezoning are as follows: The character of the area has changed warranting the change in zoning designation. 2. The existing zoning represents a mistake during the initial zoning. Review of the applicant's request does not appear to comply with either of the aforementioned criteria, however, the following items must be weighed in any rezoning decision: 1. The City has requested that some development occur on the site. Dan Donahue 26 September 1985 Page Three The PUD controls the density and design of the site, providing added City controls when evaluating the proposal. The site has 'natural physical limitatiOns that restrict the development. The proposed land use is consistent with the land use objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The City must make a policy decision as to the acceptability of the requested R-4 rezoning. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT If the R-4 rezoning is approved, an amendment to the existing Sandpiper Cove PUD is required. The following is our review of the PUD development based on City zoning standards: Lot Area and Density. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the site into two lots and an outlot. The first lot contains the existing 36 townhomes and will be 4.7 acres, having a density of 7.6 units per acre. The outlot will be 6,050 square feet in area and cannot be developed. The second lot which is proposed to contain the 22 unit condominium will be 2.6 acres, having a density of 8.4 units per acre. The overall PUD will have a density of 7.9 units per acre, which is the same as the previously approved PUD. Setbacks. The R-4 district requires the following building setbacks: Required Proposed Front 50 feet 165 feet Side abutting Boone Avenue 50 feet 54 feet Side 20 feet 125 feet Rear 35 feet 85 feet The site plan shows setbacks that in each case exceed the established R-4 standard. Parking. The site plan shows that 68 parking stalls are proposed. Thirty stalls are to be outside and 38 stalls are proposed to be located under ground. The New Hope Ordinance requires I covered parking stall plus 1.25 other parking stall per unit. This 22 unit condominium is required to provide 50 parking stalls, 22 of which must be covered. The applicant's proposal exceeds this requirement. Dan Donahue 26 September 1985 Page Four Parking Lot Design. Exterior lot raises the following design concerns which should be corrected: The driveway aisle for double loaded, 90o parking lot should be at a minimum of 24 feet. The parking stalls on the west side of the parking lot dimension out to 10' x 17'. These stalls are required to have a 20 foot depth. 3. A perimeter barrier curb is required around the entire parking lot. 4. The parking lot must have a bituminous surface and be striped. 5. Parking lot lighting should be indicated. Said lighting must be hooded. 6. Handicapped parking must be provided. Interior lot raises the following concerns that must be corrected: The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots with 90° parking to have 64 feet from wall to wall. The interior lot scaled out to be 62 feet in width. e The two northerly parking stalls closest to the garage door should be eliminated. Access to these stalls would be difficult, as the manueverin§ space would be obstructed by the garage entrance. 3. Handicapped parking must be provided. Site Access. The site access is restricted by several site characteristics. The curb cut location is limited due to the existence of a merging lane on Boone Avenue. Also the building location is restricted by the existence of poor soils and the existing sanitary sewer easement.~ As such, the building placement attempts to take advantage of the better soil conditions. As a result of these conditions, the following concerns arise from the circula- tion pattern: The sharp curves restrict site access for large vehicles, such as moving trucks. The driveway and the parking lot attempt to take advantage of the natural site contours which are 910 to 912 feet above sea level. The first floor building elevation is at 920. An increase of 8 feet in elevation at the front of the building occurs in just 15 feet between the driveway and the building. Building access is proposed to be provided through a series of ramps and stairways. The concern for co'nvenient access for the residents, handicapped people and moving of furniture in and out of the apartments is raised. Dan Donahue 26 September 1985 Page Five The site lacks a designated loading area. A loading and unloading area should be provided exclusive of the parking and driveway area. In a phone conversation with the applicant's architect, it was indicated that the site plan was being revised to provide some type of loading area. In an effort to alleviate the access and circulation concerns, we spoke to the site architect about moving the building further west to provide more area for the driveway. The architect indicated that moving the building is very difficult due to the site's soil conditions. We do feel that correction of the parking lot design and the provision of a designated loading area will help to reduce the some of the concerns. Utilities. The site has access to municipal sewer which runs east and west through the site and is covered by a 20 foot utility easement. Municipal water is proposed to be looped through the site from the existing Sandpiper Cove townhomes and 42nd Avenue east to Boone Avenue. The alignment of the water- main abuts the southern boundary of the outdoor parking area. We would recommend that this watermain be relocated within the existing sanitary sewer easement to avoid the need for a second easement and to prevent the disruption of the parking lot if there is need for watermain repair. The Fire Chief indicated that the proposed fire hydrant should be located near the street. In light of the poor on-site circulation, the hydrant location near the site would be more accessible for the fire department in an emergency situation. Trash Container. The proposed trash handling equipment is located in the base- ment near the center of the building. Access to this area by a garbage truck is prohibited because there is only 10 feet between the basement floor and the first floor. The basement lacks sufficient manuevering space for a garbage truck. The applicant should provide some description of how garbage removal is proposed. Fire Protection. The New Hope Fire Chief'indicated that the site's circulation creates a problem for accessibility with a fire truck. To overcome these site circulation limitations, the Fire Chief recommended that the applicant provide an automatic fire sprinkler for the entire building. The applicant indicated that they would follow this recommendation. Architectural Appearance. The applicant is proposing a building design that is similar to the existing townhomes. The building is proposed to have an exterior finish of aluminium siding with asphalt shingles. The building will be built on fill and will have an elevation consistent with the townhomes to the west. The building height will also be consistent with the roof heights of the existing townhomes, however, the buildings will be above the single family homes to the south. Screening will be necessary to reduce the visual impact on these 'properties. Dan Donahue 26 September 1985 Page Six Landscaping. The landscape plan indicates that the plant materials being proposed comply with the type and size requirements of the New Hope Ordinance. The Design and Review Committee indicated that the Russian Olive proposed as screens on the north, south and west are ineffective. As such, a different type of tree should be selected. We recommend that the landscape screen be staggered to provide a more effective screen. Developer A§reement. A new development contract must be entered into between the developer and the City to insure the terms of the PUD are followed through. The applicant is requesting the approval of the PUD concept and development stage. We have outlined a number of needed revisions to the site plan in our review. Based on our review of the site plan, we recommend approval of the PUD concept and development plan provided the applicant revises the site plan in accordance with the revisions outlined in this report and the recommendations of the Design and Review Committee and the Planning Commission. SUBDIVISION Review of the subdivision indicates that the newly created lots conform to the standards of the New Hope Ordinance. Preliminary plat approval can be given with final plat approval occurring with the final stage of the PUD. CONCLUSION The development of this site will depend on the City's decision on the requested R-4 rezoning. Without this approval, the PUD amendment cannot be processed, as the proposed development would not be permitted in the R-3 district. CC: Doug Sandstad David Namie Steve Sondrall SANDPIPER I ' .403.__~_ A'. L.S. ^"0 ~ I ...... _.. _ . ,..~ (~;:j (;0. R ,,'). NO. 9 F~ 0 C),'F~)RD EXCEPTiONi B .4 RRE TT'~ I COVE ~AND SURV~Y~JR~ o/ LOT BLOCK ITM :. TERRACE AVE. N. c.~DOc.,0. ~-',,=,", J LOCATION MAP DESCRIPTION ~.!,~:~ ~:x~7~"r~:~'. BITE[ DATA ~ SC~LC__q PRELIMINARY PLAT . .~ , SANDPIPPER COVE 2nd ADDITION' C) 0 -J I I TERRAC J ' : J LOCATION MAP ,m J $**INDR.A NDERSIZED DRIVEWAY AISLES <r I "' ~ |.-". ~' UNLOADING AREA NEEDED ............ ¢.~ · LiJ PARKING DATA STREET SECTION ARRO~ IURNING RADIUS ~ ."~,~ FINAL SITE PLAN· -J ADD. R.L. ~ NQ I 1267 ' .' 1 R O__R._O.C_K.C K .F O__R O . RD STAGGERED PLANTING FOR SCREEN .;] . t BARRETT'$ LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE I TERRACE USE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE h/ATER~ALS. LOT 1 BLOCK · I I lu F- LOCATION MAP ' BITE DATA I L&J · , Ft~RKING OATA STAGGERED PLANTING FOR SCREEN USE ALTERNATIVE LANDSCAPE MATERIALS, FINAL LANDSCAPE PLAN I sH(lt, o~ i I . _ (CO RD NO 9l RELOCATE WATER MAIN TO ,.] EXIS NG SEWEF I .. I EASEMENT POOR SOILS ' FILL AREA ~ · STEEP SLOPES PARKING DATA N FINAL GRADING & UTILIIY PLAN 2ND FLOOR. : _]_ELII~INATE PARKING STALL - i I i' I ~, I--' I _ i . ~A,~.E.~.E.N.'r ' .' '~' LOCATION OF TRASH EQUIPMENT EAST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION · SOUTH ELEVATION ' WEST ELEVATION MINNESOTA FtNANCIALOEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 7803 Glenroy Road · Suite 200 · Edina, Minnesota 55435 · (612) 831-4220 To whom it may concern: This is to inform you that the development that is to take place on Sandpiper Cove 2nd addition will consist of a 2 story, 22 unit condominium building with 38 underground parking stalls. The units will consist of two types of two bedroom units. The interior of the building will have the most typical size unit (2a) consisting of 990 square feet. In addition we will have two bedroom end unit that will have exposure.on two sides and will consist of 1,131 square feet. All units on the second!top) floor will have vaulted ceilings. The units will be sold at various prices depending on location within the building and views to the exterior. However, the units will have an average selling price of approximately $72,000-$73,000. The building will have aluminium siding, the color of which has not yet been decided, with asphault shingles. It will be beautifully landscaped with trees and bushes. It will most definitely be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors. Copy to City 9-27-85- James E. Klungness President C'4 ~,~ARR E T T'S r BLOCK ii¸ 2ND FLOOR. , ' I .... I I"I I I I.I i .__BASEMENT __ SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: October 1, 1985 85-26 John Parker, A1 Tedesco Flood Plain Use Permit, Conditional Use Permit, and Construction Approval 7980 36th Avenue R-1 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: 1. The petitioner would like to construct an addition to the back of the Tom Thumb store on 36th, which is approximately 14 by 16 feet. In addition, they will remove the center radio tower and reconstruct it with a larger, stronger, and taller tower that will support a six bay FM antenna. What this means, how much bigger and taller the FM antenna will be is unknown to staff. We have not seen architectural drawings on the antenna. 2. KTCR has vacated their building at 3701 Winnetka and have moved to the Butler Square Building in Minneapolis. They continue to use the three 295' radio transmission towers in the city owned flood plain, just west of Winnetka, behind their former studio. The city has a lease with KTCR for such use. 3. I believe that the petitioners will be tearing down the former KTC R studios on Winnetka. At the same time that they will be tearing down the building, they are asking for an addition to the Tom Thumb store that will be extending a non conforming use as it is too close to the west property line. Moving the lot line does not appear to be a possibility here as Section 4.031 (1) clearly advises against expansion of such buildings. 4. The petitioner gives no evidence, nor does he speak to any type of public improvements. He tends to rebuild the radio tower and to extend a non conforming use. No mention is made of any kind of public improvements, amenities to the Tom Thumb building, or in any way speaks to dressing up what might be a greater eyesore than currently exists. 5. In addition to the bigger tower, there is going to be a cable that is going to run from the Tom Thumb addition, starting at ten feet above the ground, running out from that addition all the way to the new tower and up to the top. In addition to some very real visual pollution problems here, we may have a public nuisance since there are many kids in the area and they have been a source of problems to the police department this past summer. Legally, the ten foot height of the cable is an accepted minimum standard. However, since we own the land that the towers sit on, I think we would have something to say about that cable. I believe the petitioner wishes to use this method as opposed to undergrounding the cable to the tower because of cost considerations. 6. I will be looking at the lease and be able to advise you further on Monday. I think we may want to rethink the lease and see how it applies here in light of the changes that are being requested by the petitioner and this new cable. 7o Staff would recommend that the tower construction issue be looked at more closely and that the petitioner provide some drawings on this subject. In addition, we would request that any cable be undergrounded. We also recommend that if the"shed" is allowed on the Tom Thumb site, that there be major improvements in landscaping/screening. Further, staff recommends tabling the matter until the petitioner can submit a more complete and improved proposal. / 2729 Upland Court Plymouth, MN 55447 September 24, 1985 Mr. John B. Parker Owner/President Parker Communications, Inc. 2826 IDS Tower 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Mr. Parker: In the supplemental agreement to the purchase agreement for KTCR-AM and FM dated January 19, 1984, Section 3 states that, "Buyer shall have the right to build on the Land and keep thereon in perpetuity as an easement recordable and running with the Land a shed to house its transmitter and related equipment, and shall be granted access thereto in perpetuity."' As originally understood, this right was to be used to build atransmitter shed in the future somewhere on the lot where the building named 3701 Winnetka Avenue is presently located. Now that you are beginning to explore the various possibili- ties for the construction of this shed, I understand that you are finding an area directly behind the Tom Thumb store, of which I own the land underneath, is more suitable for the purpose. Therefore, I am in agreement in transferring the meaning of Section 3 from the original lot at 3701 Winnetka Avenue to the area behind the Tom Thumb store. This means that I will grant you an easement on my property to the transmitter shed to be built behind the Tom Thumb store and to the broadcast towers in perpetuity. If there is any formal paperwork to be done to grant you this easement because of it being a property right, I agree to cooperate in the execution of it. Sincerely, Albert S. Tedesco AST:js TDM ENGINEERING 7720 36th Ave. N. ~119 Crystal, Mn. 55427 (612).546-7363 August 30, 1985 Doug Sandstad City of New Hope 4401Xylon Ave. N. New Hope, Mn. 55428 Dear Doug, This letter is being submitted in support of the application for use permits by KTCJ Radio and Parker Communications, Inc. Parker Communications is the owner and opperator of radio stations KTCJ-AM & KTCZ-FM. These stations were formerly owned by A1 Tedesco and known as KTCR-AM & FM. KTCJ-AM has its transmitter presently located at 37~1 Winnetka Ave. N, with three broadcast towers located to the south and west of this address. Parker Communications proposes to move the AM transmitter from its present location to the rear of the Tom Thumb store located at 7980 36th Ave. North. The proposed building will be an addition to the existing structure as shown in the plans. The dimensions of the proposed structure are 16'x14'xlO. Also within this new structure will be the FM transmitter for KTCZ-FM. Transmission line will be supported approximately 8 feet above ground level between the proposed building and the broadcast tower nearest Winnetka Ave. Supports will also be used between each tower. This application is also for removal and reconstruction of this tower. The proposal is to replace the existing 295 foot tower with one of equal height. The new tower would be a 24" load bearing A~ antenna. The present tower face is 18" and the tower was not designed for load bearing use. The stronger tower is necessary to support a 6 bay FM antenna which would be mounted at the top of this tower. The existing screw anchors and guy cables will be removed. New guy cables and anchors will be added to strengthen the structure. Parker Communieation~ Removal could begin after City and Fedral Communications Commission approval. Reconatruction would best be accomplished during the winter mounths when the floodway is more accessable to heavy equipment. The tower chosen would be either the tower submitted or one of equal dimensions and load bearing characteristics. Please feel free to contact me if there is any information I can supply you with. During the day I reached at AVC Systems, Inc. 729-8305. further can be Sincerely,~ l- ....... ~-~ DATE: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ZONING: October 1, 1985 85-27 Meridian Construction Comprehensive Sign Plan Approval 9401 36th Avenue North R-0 STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: The petitioner is seeking to have a comprehensive sign.Plan approval. Since this will be a multiple occupancy building, this approval is required by ordinance. The petitioner will be erecting a sign at the intersection of 36th Avenue North and Hillsboro. It will fall outside of the sight triangle requirements and therefore poses no problem. It will be forty square feet and four foot, four high by 14 foot wide. Staff recommends approval.