Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 05-11 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MAY 11, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Stephen Erdmann, Rex Newman, Dianne Reem, and John Whitehead were present. Commissioner Sean Rahn arrived at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Graydon Boeck was absent and excused. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Sara Beck. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — APRIL 27.2000 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve the minutes of the April 27, 2000 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2000 -005 — CHARLES AND VIVIAN CLOUTIER Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2000 -005, a request to resubdivide and a variance from Charles and Vivian Cloutier who reside at 5318 62" Avenue North. He explained that the applicants are seeking approval to uncombine, or resubdivide, two of the three underlying lots and a variance to allow a subdivision of land by a metes and bounds description rather than by a formal plat. It was mentioned that the purpose of this request is to re- establish underlying lots in order to create two lots, which can be sold and used separately. Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to describe the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Informatin Sheet dated 5111/00 for Application No. 2000 -005 attached.) Commissioner Rahn arrived at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Erdmann questioned how the setback has been determined and whether the property line is measured from the foundation or the overhang of the garage. Mr. Warren explained the setback is measured from the garage foundation to the property line, but an overhang is allowed to encroach one foot into the minimum setback. 05 -11 -00 Page 1 Commissioner Erdmann questioned the two previous metes and bounds requests the City has encountered recently. He mentioned concerns since neither one involved an encroachment on a setback. He expressed concerns about the staff recommending the properties have an irregular shape. He mentioned that by having the property line run in an irregular line could result in a future encroachment due to confusion with property owners. Mr. Warren explained that there are no City regulations that require property lines to maintain a straight line. He explained that the end result would be the same whether it is done by replatting the lot or by a metes and bounds description. He gave an explanation as to how the last two metes and bounds variance requests had similar characteristics to this particular request. PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION NO. 2000 -005 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -005, at 8:01 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for comments from the public. Charles Cloutier, 5318 62nd Avenue North, explained that the current property lines tend to lean to the one side, therefore if the property line were straight it probably would meet the 3 minimum setback. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -005. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -005, at 8:03 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2000-005 — CHARLES AND VIVIAN CLOUTIER There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Whitehead, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 2000 -005, submitted by Charles and Vivian Cloutier, to authorize the uncombining and re- establishing of the underlying property descriptions at 5318 62nd Avenue North and to grant a variance to allow a subdivision by metes and bounds descriptions on the basis that the standards for variance and the City's policy regarding such divisions are met subject to the following conditions: 1. The legal descriptions and survey showing the re- establishment of the underlying parcels and the division of land shall be filed with Hennepin County. 2. The City Assessor is authorized to process the resubdivision in conjunction with Hennepin County and to acknowledge the newly established legal descriptions. 05 -11 -00 Page 2 Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Erdmann, Newman, Reem, Rahn and Whitehead. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the recommendation at its May 22, 2000 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. APPLICATION NO. 2000 -006 — ERICK AND SUSAN BATES Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2000 -006, a Special Use Permit for a home occupation involving the use of equipment not customarily found in a residential dwelling, specifically a trash disposal unit. The applicants are Erick and Susan Bates at 6413 Noble Avenue North. The trash disposal unit is approximately 4 ft. wide, 4 ft. high and 5 ft. in length; therefore since it is larger than 30 gallons it does require approval from the City Council. Mr. Warren presented the staff report using overhead transparencies to describe the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5111/00 for Application No. 2000 -006 attached.) Mr. Warren presented a copy of a letter received from Harvey Johnson who resides at 6418 Noble Avenue North, in regards to the Special Use Permit request. The letter states he disapproves of the trash disposal unit at 6413 Noble Avenue North, since he is directly across the street and would be affected by the appearance of the residence. Commissioner Newman questioned if it would be possible for the applicant to store such a trash container in the garage. Mr. Warren explained that normally trash containers larger than 30 gallons are not allowed to be on the premises nor stored in the garage, but if this application were approved, the container could be confined to the garage. Commissioner Rahn questioned how long the current trash receptacle has been in place. Mr. Warren stated that last December he was informed that a home -based business did exist with the use of a trash disposal unit. Commissioner Reem questioned if staff is recommending that a gate exist as an entrance to the screened area designated to store the trash receptacle. Commissioner Reem questioned recommendation #1 in the staff report since it does not mention that the trash container would have a lid on the unit. Mr. Warren stated that he assumed the trash container would have a lid, but stated it could be added to the recommendation. PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION NO. 2000 -006 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Rahn, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -006 at 8:22 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for comments from the public. 05 -11 -00 Page 3 Erick Bates, 6413 Noble Avenue North, explained that there is a lid already on the trash container. He mentioned that it would be no problem if the City recommended a lock on the unit. He explained that obtaining this Special Use Permit in order to use the trash disposal unit would help run the business much more efficiently. It was mentioned that the receptacle is placed on the driveway in front of the garage on pick up day. Chair Willson questioned how long the trash disposal unit would sit on the driveway. Mr. Bates stated that it would be on the driveway for approximately two hours on pick -up days. Susan Bates, 6413 Noble Avenue North, stated that it would be possible for the driver of the garbage disposal company to have a key to the storage area, which would allow the unit to remain in the storage area locked at all times. Chair Willson recommended to the applicants that a key be given to the driver so the unit would not have to be left on the driveway unattended. Chair Willson questioned if someone is home at the time of pick up. Ms. Bates stated that she is usually always home at the time of pick up and puts the trash container back immediately. Commissioner Newman questioned if this is there only business operation, or if they have other locations around the metropolitan area. Mr. Bates explained that this is their only operation. Commissioner Newman questioned the amount of hazards that would be involved with the container, since there is a number of children in the neighborhood. He questioned if there was any known danger to humans with the materials disposed. Mr. Bates stated that he has been in the business for approximately four years and very rarely has seen any problems associated with the materials being disposed and none are considered hazardous. Commissioner Newman questioned what would happen if the trash disposal unit becomes full prior to pick up day. Ms. Bates explained that there have been a few times when they have requested a double pick up due to an abundance of material. Commissioner Newman questioned if the applicant would need to reapply if they did want a larger container in the future. Mr. Warren stated that they would need to reapply for a larger container. Commissioner Reem questioned what day they have pick up in relation to garbage pick up for their home use. Mr. Bates stated that pick up is the day before their normal garbage pick up. Commissioner Rahn questioned if there is a cement pad in place where the trash disposal unit is to be stored. Mr. Bates explained that there is indeed a cement pad already in place for the storage site. 05 -11 -00 Page 4 Commissioner Rahn questioned how many feet the cement is from the property line of the adjacent neighbor. Mr. Bates stated that it is approximately six inches from the adjacent property. Mr. Bates stated that the neighbor that lives adjacent to them and would be most affected by the trash disposal unit is present. Commissioner Rahn questioned if there is a fence already in place. Commissioner Newman suggested that #5 in the staff recommendations be modified to read that the container must be chock blocked when out of the storage area. Ms. Bates mentioned that the end of the driveway is a slope, however the front part of the driveway is relatively flat and that is where the unit would sit prior to pick up. Mr. Bates explained that the trash disposal unit is also very heavy and would not move very easily. Mr. Warren stated that the container is on rollers and, therefore, could roll if pushed by something or someone. Mary Jane Roering, 6412 Orchard Lane, stated the she lives directly behind the property and spoke concerns about what the opaque screened in storage area would look like since the view would directly affect their home. She also questioned what the regulations are for a commercial business in a residential area. Mr. Warren stated that this is a home -based business that the City does allow, however, since they have a trash disposal unit larger than 30 gallons a Special Use Permit is required. Chair Willson explained that the opaque screening would be six feet high, and a fence such as a board on board would be required to minimize visibility to the neighborhood. Mr. Warren explained that it would be six feet high, which is at least a foot higher than the trash container itself. He explained that the applicant may use whatever type of fencing material as long as the container is not visible. Nona Malmsten, 6419 Noble Avenue, stated that she lives adjacent to the applicant's home and does not see any problems with their request. She mentioned that the applicant keeps their property very clean and neat giving a nice appearance for the neighborhood. She feels she is affected most by the home occupation, but has no problem with it. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -006. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -006, at 8:41 p.m. The motion passed unanimously 05 -11 -00 Page 5 The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. Commissioner Newman questioned the Ordinance in conjunction with the Special Use Permit, since the container could pose a threat or danger to others in the neighborhood. Commissioner Reem mentioned that since they are allowed to have as many 30 gallon containers as they would like, it seems to make more sense to approve the request, which would allow some restrictions making the appearance more pleasing to the public eye. Commissioner Newman suggested that the garbage disposal company have a key to the enclosed area, this would avoid the risk of any problems to occur. Commissioner Newman mentioned that 30 gallon containers would not cause a danger to the neighborhood even if there were several. Commissioner Erdmann suggested adding language to recommendation #5 in the staff report that would rquire the trash container to be chocked or blocked when it is outside the enclosure area. Chair Willson questioned if this was an agreement among the commissioners. Commissioner Newman suggested tabling the discussion until the next meeting. Chair Willson expressed some of the same concerns as Commissioner Newman, however, mentioned that either way the business will continue to operate and by restricting the permit won't solve the problem. He explained that a number of 30 gallon trash containers could cause as much damage as the trash disposal unit up for approval. Chair Willson suggested approving the request while making modifications to recommendation #5. Commissioner Erdmann proposed that the language under recommendation #5 as prepared by staff should read, "rollers or wheels both front and back must be chock blocked when out of the screened area." Commissioner Reem questioned if the container will be tethered once it is out of the screened area. Chair Willson explained that the modification made under recommendation #5 will cover the concerns of the unit not being secured. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2000-006 — ERICK AND SUSAN BATES There was a motion by Commissioner Erdmann, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to recommend to the Council that it approve Application No. 2000 -006, submitted by Erick and Susan Bates, for a Special Use Permit at 6413 Noble Avenue North, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Special Use Permit is granted for a carpet removal home business that will involve the use of a 4 ft. wide, 4 ft. high and 5 ft. long covered and locked trash disposal unit for the storage and disposal of discarded carpet and pads. This use may not be altered or expanded in any way not comprehended by this application without first securing an amendment to the Special Use Permit. 05 -11 -00 Page 6 2. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3. The trash container unit may only be used for discarded carpet and carpet pads and shall not be used for collecting and storing refuse, rubbish, trash, yard waste or recyclable materials. 4. The applicants are required to house the trash container unit within a 6 ft. high opaque screening structure with an opaque locked gate, except for when routine pick up is conducted. 5. The trash container shall be tethered or securely fastened in such a way as to keep it secure from rolling loose. Rollers or wheels both front and back must be chock blocked when out of the screened area. 6. All vehicle parking associated with the home occupation shall be off street on an improved space. Vehicle parking on the property shall be in compliance with Section 19 -103, Subdivision 12, of the city ordinances. Votin g in favor: Chair Willson Commissioners Erdmann, Reem, Rahn and Whitehead. Voting against: Commissioner Newman. The motion passed. The Council will consider the recommendation at its May 22, 2000 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. RECESS Chair Willson called a recess at 8:55 p.m. Chair Willson reconvened the meeting at 9:04 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 2000 -007 - MELVIN RAILE Chair Willson introduced Application 2000 -007, a request for a variance from Melvin Raile at 5411 Bryant Avenue North. He explained that the applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum district requirements contained in Section 35 -400 to be allowed to have a duplex on the property. Mr. Warren presented the staff report using an overhead transparency to show the location of the property. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5111/00 for Application No. 2000- 007 attached.) He explained that the property is zoned R -2 and is located on the west side of Bryant Avenue. The lot is 63 ft. wide by 136 ft. deep with an area of 8,568 sq. ft. and contains a garage which was accessory to a single family home that was recently demolished. The owner of the lot has been advised that the garage is not allowed to continue to stand on the property without a principal building. Mr. Warren explained that the applicant, who lives at 5105 Humboldt Avenue North in Minneapolis, is interested in purchasing the lot, however wants to move a two family dwelling 05 -11 -00 Page 7 from his current residence to 5411 Bryant Avenue North. He stated that a two family dwelling interior lot is required to have a minimum lot width of 75 ft. and a minimum land area of 6,200 sq. ft. per unit or a total of 12,400 sq. ft., therefore the lot on Bryant Avenue is simply too small for a two family dwelling unit. Mr. Warren mentioned that he had received two phone calls prior to the meeting objecting to this variance request. Colleen Liebaert, 5400 Bryant Avenue North, called to express her feelings that she is opposed to a two family dwelling on the 5411 Bryant Avenue North lot. Jan Walsh, 5425 Bryant Avenue North, called to express concerns with a two family dwelling on this lot since the lot is too small and the traffic and parking will cause additional problems. He explained that both parties indicated they could not be at the meeting but wished to express their opposition to the proposal. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION 2000 -007 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -007, at 9:14 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for comments from the public. Melvin Raile, 5105 Humboldt Avenue North, stated that the home he is requesting to move is a side by side or double bungalow, therefore a single level dwelling. He mentioned that he came up with different numbers in terms of the lot size (150 ft. in depth), he requested these numbers be taken into consideration. He stated that there is a double bungalow across the street from the property on Bryant Avenue. Chair Willson questioned if the applicant was aware of the requirements in the City Ordinances for minimum lot sizes in this particular zoning district. The applicant indicated that he was aware. i Mr. Warren explained that the lot size figures in the report, to the best of his knowledge, are accurate and, furthermore, the applicant has not supplied staff with any other information to support his objection. He also mentioned that even if the lot figures the applicant presented tonight were accurate, the lot is still too small and does not meet the Ordinance minimum requirements for a two family dwelling. He noted that a side by side bungalow as the applicant has described, is still a two family dwelling. Richard Whitely, 5401 Bryant Avenue, stated that he believes the lot is not large enough for a two family dwelling.. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -007. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Whitehead, to close the public hearing on Application 2000 -007, at 9:20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. 05 -11 -00 Page 8 The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO DENY APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2000 -007 — MELVIN RAILE There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Whitehead, to recommend to the Council that it deny Application No. 2000 -007, submitted by Melvin Raile for a variance from the minimum district requirements contained in Section 35 -400 to allow a two family dwelling at 5411 Bryant Avenue North on the grounds that none of the Standsrds for Variance contained in the Zoning Ordinance are met with respect to this application. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Erdmann, Newman, Reem, Rahn and Whitehead. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the recommendation at its May 22, 2000 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. APPLICATION NOS. 2000 -008 2000 -009 AND 2000 -010 - CLARK ENGINEERING CORPORATION (FOR HENNEPIN COUNTYI Chair Willson introduced Application Nos. 2000 -008, 2000 -009, and 2000 -010, which consist of requests from Clark Engineering on behalf of Hennepin County for rezoning (2000 -008), preliminary plat (2000 -009), and site and building plan review (2000 -010). Mr. Warren presented the staff report using an overhead transparency to show the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 5111/00 for Application No. 2000 -008 attached.) He explained that the proposal was for a rezoning from R -7 to a C -IA of a 3.352 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway at John Martin Drive, adjacent to and south of the Hennepin County Regional Service Center. The parcel under consideration was part of a large triangular shaped parcel that was divided into its current configuration in 1994. A 10.89 acre parcel was also created at that time, and was gifted to the City. It was anticipated that Hennepin County might have an interest in the other parcel created at that time for possible future expansion or that this land would be used for some other development subject to an existing access easement over the parcel. The County did acquire the property and now seeks to rezone it to a C -IA, which is the same zoning classification as the Service Center property. Mr. Warren explained that the applicant is also seeking Preliminary Plat approval under Application No. 2000 -009 to combine two parcels of land into a single parcel to accommodate the expansion of the Hennepin County Regional Service Center which is located at 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway. The properties in question are 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway, the site of the current County Service Center, and Lot 1, Block 1, Amcorp Addition, which is a vacant 3.352 acre parcel of land south of the County Service Center which contains part of a pond and an access drive serving the Service Center. He presented the staff report using an overhead transparency to show the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 2000- 009 attached.) Mr. Warren explained that the applicant is also seeking site and building plan approval, under Application No. 2000 -010, for the remodeling and expansion of the Brookdale Regional Service 05 -11 -00 Page 9 Center located at 6125 Shingle Creek Parkway. The property in question is the site proposed to be combined into a 13.35 acre parcel of land under the Planning Commission Application No. 2000 -009 and contains the existing County Service Center and vacant land to the south. Mr. Warren presented the staff report using an overhead transparency to show the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 2000 -020 attached.) He went on to explain the access and parking to the Service Center, in addition to the grading, drainage, and utilities. Also, presented was the landscaping, building, lighting and trash disposal plans for the proposed Brookdale Regional Service Center. Commissioner Newman questioned if the drainage is an issue of concern. Mr. Warren stated it is possible that the drainage systems would be altered, and if that does happen it would come back before the Planning Commission. He noted that the proposal is subject to review and approval by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Commissioner Newman questioned if there are any plans for a small business such as a Starbucks to be located in the Service Center. Mr. Warren stated that is possible that those types of businesses may exist, however, he is unsure at this time. Commissioner Newman stated concerns with the parking if a Caribou Coffee or Starbucks were to exist, since it would cause congestion with people coming and going. Mr. Warren mentioned that if there was such a small business, it would have to be accessory to the Service Center and it would not be advertised to the public, however, someone could go in to purchase a cup of coffee and leave without going anywhere else in the Service Center. Leonard Linton, a representative from Clark Engineering, stated that they are looking at the drainage system concerns to prevent future problems. He mentioned that they are looking at tying in with the city storm sewer system, since it is large enough to handle the run off from the parking lot. Commissioner Erdmann questioned the increase in traffic on John Martin Drive, and whether or not they are working on a solution to minimize congestion since there is already confusion. Mr. Warren explained that it is very possible that there will be modifications to the existing stoplight to meet the needs of traffic as the main entrance to the facility will now be at John Martin Drive. Commissioner Erdmann questioned the purpose of the six foot security fence around the court services area, and whether or not it would be tall enough to serve its purpose. Tom Dunwell, architect with Buetow and Associates, stated that they haven't met with County Sheriff's department yet. However, he believes that fence will be high enough based on the information he has been given. Mr. Dunwell stated that there will be cameras in place at all times, and there is not going to be anything taking place outside in this security area. Commissioner Reem questioned if the project will depend on the approval from the Watershed Management Commission before it begins.. Mr. Warren explained that the first phase is the 05 -11 -00 Page 10 pond, and the Watershed Management Commission does need to approve the project before it can begin. Mr. Dunwell stated that they are on the agenda for the Watershed Management Commission in June, therefore they are looking at beginning construction in August this year. He mentioned that they would not begin construction until all permits are in hand. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION 2000 - 008.2000 -009 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Erdmann, to open the public hearing on Applications 2000 -008 and 2000 -009 at 10:20 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Willson called for comments from the public. Mr. Dunwell presented a detailed explanation of the site and building plan. He reviewed the order of construction that will take place, with the idea of some departments never having to close for business. He reviewed the number of phases that will need to take place to complete the construction, phase one being the pond, phase two the parking lot, phase three construction on the south end of the building, etc. Commissioner Rahn questioned the time line for the project. Mr. Dunwell stated that they plan to start the project this summer with the actual construction of the building beginning in 2001 and completion of the project in the Spring of 2002. He explained that the reason for the two year time frame is to prevent business from having to close during construction. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2000 -008 or 2000 -009. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Rahn, to close the public hearing on Applications 2000 -008 and 2000 -009 at 10:46 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2000 -008 — REZONING Following discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Newman, Seconded by Commission Rahn, to approve Resolution No. 2000 -01 regarding disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2000 -008 submitted by Clark Engineering on behalf of Hennepin County. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2000 -009 — CLARK ENGINEERING CORPORATION There was a motion by Commissioner Erdmann, seconded by Commissioner Whitehead, to recommend approval of Application No. 2000 -009, submitted by Clark Engineering on behalf of Hennepin County for the Preliminary Plat subject to the following conditions: 05 -11 -00 Page 11 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The storm water drainage system and the design of the water detention facility are subject to the review and approval of the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to final plat approval. 4. Ponding areas required as part of the storm drainage plan shall be protected by an approved easement. The easement documents shall be executed and filed with Hennepin County as part of the final plat. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Erdmann, Newman, Reem, Rahn and Whitehead. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the recommendation at its May 22, 2000 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2000 -010 — CLARK ENGINEERING CORPORATION There was a motion by Commissioner Reem, seconded by Commissioner Rahn, to recommend approval of Application No. 2000 -010, submitted by Clark Engineering on behalf of Hennepin County for site and building plan proposal subject to the following conditions: 1. The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee in an amount to be determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view utilizing material that is compatible with the building. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 05 -11 -00 Page 12 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B -612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas with the exception of the front entrance area which will be allowed to have surmountable curb to assist as a drop off area. 9. The applicant shall submit an as -built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines prior to release of the performance guarantee. 10. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of permits. 11. The applicant shall provide appropriate erosion and sediment control devices on the site during construction as approved by the City Engineering Department. 12. The storm water drainage system and ponding areas shall be approved by the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission prior to the issuance of permits, including grading and drainage permits for this project. 13. An easement description over the proposed pond shall be submitted to the City and the easement shall be executed and filed with the title to the property at Hennepin County prior to issuance of permits. 14. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center's current standard specifications and details. 15. A driveway and utility permit from the Engineering Department shall be required for work within the Shingle Creek Parkway right -of -way. 16. The final plat combining this site into a single lot shall be approved by the City Council and filed with the County prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Erdmann, Newman, Reem, Rahn and Whitehead. The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the recommendation at its May 22, 2000 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT 05 -11 -00 Page 13 There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Rahn, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:52 p.m. Chair G Recorded and transcribed by: Sara Beck Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 05 -11 -00 Page 14