Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 06-12 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF H."MEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION June 12, 1980 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7: 39 p.m. + ROLL CALL Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Erickson and Simmons. . Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -- May 22, 1980 Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Simmons to approve the minutes of the May 22, 1980 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Theis and Malecki. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS.80012 and 80013 (Meridian Construction Compan ) Following the Chairman' s explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, that of a request for site and building plan approval and a special use permit by Meridian Construction Company to rehabilitate the horse barn and hippodrome on the Earle Brown Farm for use as a restaurant/nightclub facility offering live entertain- ment. The Secretary reviewed the information supplied and Staff Report Nos. 80012 and 80013. (See Planning Commission Information for Application Nos. 80012 and 80013 attached) . Following the presentation of the Staff Report, the Secretary reviewed the contents of a letter addressing the Standards for Special Use Permits submitted by the applicant. He -also distributed to the Plan- ning Commission, a revised floor plan for the hippodrome which provided for fewer pool tables and games in the waiting room. The Secretary pointed out the joint use of roadways and the need for joint access agreements with neighboring properties. The Secretary also discussed the provision of parking on the site and off-site through joint park- ing agreements. The Superintendent of Engineering added that it . would be necessary to examine the use of the roadway along the west property line to determine what improvements would have to be made to that roadway. He also suggested that there be additional side- walks on the site to accommodate pedestrian traffic from the parking lot to the restaurant. Chairman Hawes asked whether the road on the west side of the property was paved. The Secretary answered that the roadway was paved, but that no curb and gutter is in place at this time. 6-12-80 -1- Chairman- Hawes asked what restriction there would be on the re- location of existing structures. The Planning Assistant answered that the historical significance of each structure and the feasi- bility of relocating it and/or preserving it should be determined prior to the issuance of any building permit to relocate the struct- ure. Commissioner Simmons asked whether relocating a structure would prevent the Earle Brown Farm, as a whole, from gaining status on the National Register of Historical Places. The Planning Assistant answered that, to his knowledge, it would depend on the historical significance of the structures involved; where the structure was being relocated; and what impact there would be from the reloca- tion of certain structures. Commissioner Simmons then asked what the buildings to be relocated had been used for. Mr. Harold Pierce, representing Meridian Construction Company, answered that the house at the north end of the property formerly was the dwelling of the foreman and that the barn just to the north of the horsebarn was simply an accessory barn. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes, the Secretary stated that it was his understanding that two of the buildings to be relocated can feasibly be moved. Mr. Pierce explained that the land for the site was being sold exclusive of the four buildings which would have to be removed. Mary Jane Gus- tafson, President of the Brooklyn Center Historical Society, dis- cussed with Mr. Paul Noyes. of Meridian Construction Company, her desire to see the house formerly occupied by the foreman on the Farm to be used by the Historical Society as a museum of sorts. In response to a question from Chairman Hawes, Mr. Pierce stated that the extension of Earle Brown Drive through the west portion of the Farm could be a public or private roadway. A public road- way, he pointed out, would allow for replatting of individual lots for the various buildings on the west portion of the Farm, whereas a private roadway would make possible the restoration of the entire Farm complex in a unified .development. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, Mr. Pierce stated that the wood buildings on the site could probably be salvaged, but that a tile- building just to the east of the horsebarn could not feasibly be moved. There followed a brief discussion regarding the nomination of the Earle Brown Farm to the National Register of Historical Places. The Planning Assistant explained that the State Historical Society would be the agency responsible for making the nomination, but that it would require information to be supplied from all who are in- terested in putting the -Earle Brown Farm site on the National , Register. He noted that this would include information regarding the date each structure was built and what it was used for in addition to information regarding the Earle Brown Farm as a unit. The Secretary stated that it was primarily the responsibility of the developer to gather this information for submittal to the State Historical Society since they would be the chief beneficiaries of the National Register status. He added, however, that the City would be cooperative in every way possible in supplying any infor- mation that it might have concerning the Farm. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Noting the absence of any kitchen facilities in the hippodrome area, Chair- man Hawes asked whether any food would be served in the hippodrome. 6-12-80 -2- Mr. Ken Rockler, Manager of T. Wright's in Minnetonka, answered that he was unsure at this time whether any food would be served in the hippodrome. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the food would be prepared elsewhere. Mr. Rockler answered in the nega- tive. He stated that the restaurant would be patterned after T. Wright's in Minnetonka, and would offer high-quality food pre- pared at the restaurant. The Secretary added that the building plans would be reviewed by , the Sanitarian for compliance with appropriate codes. Commissioner -Simmons-raised the point that the dance floor shown on the plan is not set up for polka or ballroom dancing where people tend to move around the floor. She stated that .it is of a size and shape only to accommodate dancing in place such as disco. Mr. Rockler answered that dancing would not. be a major feature in the hippodrome compared to entertainment. He stated that there was not enough room to have the desired number of tables for those who wish to watch the show and also to have a large area for dancing. Commissioner Simmons stated this fact contradicts what is stated in the letter of application. In answer to a question from Commissioner Theis regarding an addition to the exterior of the building, Mr. Pierce stated that the addition would be for restrooms and would not hinder the- nom- .ination of the site to the National Register. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NOS. 80012 and 80013 (Meridian Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application Nos. 80012 and 80413, site and building plan and special use permit approval to rehabilitate the horsebarn and hippodrome on the Earle Brown Farm for use as a restaurant/nightclub facility offering live entertainment, subject to the following conditions: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and violation thereof shall -be grounds for revocation. 2. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City" Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement and supporting fin- ancial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the 6-12-80 _g. issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. The entire 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. 9. An underground irrigation system shall be in- stalled in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 10. Any outside trash disposal facilities or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 11. A study of the physical feasibility of preserving and/or relocating each structure on the site together with its historic significance shall be submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society for its approval prior to the issuance of permits per- taining to each structure. 12. The property is subject to replatting in accordance with City Ordinances. A preliminary plat shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits and a final plat shall be approved and filed with the County prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. 13. Plan approval acknowledges the recommendation that the Ordinance be modified to allow joint parking agreements between this site and the Earle Brown Office Tower to the east .and the Summit State Bank to the south for 238 parking spaces. The agreements shall constitute a joint easement for parking purposes and shall be reviewed and approved j by the City Attorney. Cessation of the joint park- ing agreements will require the installation of additional parking spaces as determined by the City. 14. Internal sidewalk provisions shall be made on the - plans subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman .Ilawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis,Erickson and Simmons. Voting against:. none. The motion passed. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING ACCESSORY OFF-SITE PARKING AND JOINT PARKING FACILITIES— — The Secretary next referred the Commission's attention to a pro- posed ordinance amendment dealing with joint parking and accessory off-site parking. He stated that the substance of the amendments 6-12-80 -4 had been reviewed by the Planning Commission at its two previous meetings and that the City Attorney had also reviewed the pro- posed amendments and found them legally sound. Commissioner Theis inquired why the proposed amendment would change the distance requirement for off-site accessory parking from 300 feet to 800 feet. The Secretary explained that this change would make the off-site accessory parking provision con- sistent with the joint parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for joint parking facilities to be located within 800 feet of the principal use. He stated that there seemed to. be no reason to allow parking 800 feet away in one case and only 300 feet in another. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 35 regarding accessory off-site parking and joint parking facilities. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis , Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 80018 (Northern States Power Company) The- next item of business considered by the Planning Commission was a request by Northern States Power Company for site and building plan approval to construct a 12,430 square foot addi- tion to the •existing NSP North Service Facility at 4501-68th Avenue North to be used for vehicle storage. The Secretary re- viewed the information in Staff. Report No. 80018. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 80.018 attached) . Following the presentation of the Staff Report, the Superintendent of Engineering expressed his opposition to the proposed roadway leading directly to the new addition on the basis of its • increase in the potential for conflict of vehicles immediately adjacent to a public intersection which is already experiencing some diffi- culties. The Secretary recommended that Condition No. 10 in the . Staff Report be revised to call for the elimination of the new roadway rather than to provide for the relocation of trees from the path of the roadway. In response to a question from .Commis- sioner Simmons, the Secretary stated that the addition of a new driveway would make a bad situation worse. He commented that moving the third door to the east side of the proposed addition would be just as feasible and would not cause the potential traf- fic problem. Commissioner Theis inquired whether B612 curb and gutter would be required around areas already served by straight curb on the north portion of the site. The Secretary stated this was not the intent of Condition No. 7 of the Staff Report and suggested that the wording be amended to reflect that understanding. Chairman Hawes inquired whether the plan would provide for any screening toward Interstate 94. The Secretary noted that there had been trees planted along the south property line abutting the Freeway, but that damage from the salt spray and from young cyclists in the area had killed the trees. Chairman Hawes stated that a six foot high fence is not effective screening in this area. 6-12-80 -5- The Secretary responded that the fence does provide some minimal screening of the south portion of the site and added that a six foot fence meets the minimum ordinance requirement. Chairman Hawes stated that he wanted to see more trees planted along the south property line to screen the site from the Freeway. Commissioner Erickson asked why the 220 foot stretch along the east property line was not properly screened. The Secretary answered that the plan had been approved 15 years ago under what may have been different ordinance requirements for screening. He pointed out that in the C2 zone all outside storage of equipment and material must be enclosed within a 6 foot high opaque fence or wall. There followed a very lengthy discussion of the proposed driveway leading to the vehicle storage area. Mr. Warren Johnson and Mr. Don Chimel of Northern States Power stressed that the roadway was necessary to provide an immediate exit for the third door of the garage. They stated that the third door was necessary to allow for the most efficient internal arrangement and exit pattern. The Secretary pointed out that an additional driveway on the NSP pro- perty would add to potential conflicts between vehicles on the site, and that vehicles attempting to enter the site would be slowed thereby disrupting traffic on the public right-of-way. The Superintendent of Engineering added that a new school bus garage . being built on -the property to the east. would compound this problem with the introduction of large' vehicles making turning movements at this very location. He also stated that the City does have an interest in traffic on the site since members of the general public do use the service center in addition to NSP employees. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that any large vehicle exiting the garage area would have to back up and pull forward to get out. That being the case, she stated, there seems to be no particular advant- age to .the location of the doors or even to a third itself. Mr. Chimel and Mr. Johnson argued that eliminating the third door with the roadway directly out of the garage would result in delays. The Secretary responded that delays would occur at the three-way juncture at the northeast corner of the site if they did not occur within the garage itself. Mr. Johnson stressed that the drivers are very safety conscious and travel at a speed of no more than five miles per hour. He maintained that the problem would exist on the private site only and would not affect the public right- j . of-way. The Secretary and the Superintendent of Engineering noted that the size of the vehicles involved would also complicate traf- fic patterns. Commissioner Theis concluded that the architects for NSP had not given enough thought to an alternative arrangement for the bus garage and suggested that a serious attempt be made to redesign the vehicle storage facility before approval of the pro- ject is granted. The Commission next discussea with the applicants the matter of ' providing a fire sprinkling system throughout the entire building. Mr. Chimel of NSP stated that they would be amenable to sprinkling the new addition, but argued that the office section of the build- ing stores materials which are very sensitive to water damage. He asked that the Commission accept a smoke detector system in the office area. Chairman Hawes responded by relating the example 6-12-80 -6- of the Brooklyn Law Office Building which also houses many im- portant papers; but which is also fire sprinklered. He noted that the matter of a fire sprinkling system is not a discretion- ary item for the Planning Commission, but an ordinance requirement. The Secretary added that the Planning Commission and City Council have allowed variances from the ordinance requirement in cases where a fire sprinkling system could not be adapted to the exist- ing structure but noted that this was not such a case. He also related further examples of potential 'damage from a fire suppres- sion system, notably the Hennepin County Regional Library and the- Medtronic building in the Industrial Park, both of which adapted in one way or another to the ordinance requirement. He suggested that any fire sprinkling system installed at the NSP site be zoned in order to protect any materials stored in non-affected areas during a fire. Commissioner Malecki asked for a clarification on the matter of the screen fence along the west property line. Mr. Chimel answered that the opaque screening would be provided in accordance with the ordinance. A discussion then ensued regarding the conditions of approval, particularly a condition requiring the addition of trees along the south property line and the elimination of the exit drive to the north of the proposed addition. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80018 (Northern States Power Company) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Erickson to recommend approval of Application No. 80018, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 12,430 square foot addition to the existing NSP North Service Facility at 4501-68th Avenue North to be used for vehicle storage, subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1. 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 berming 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 by the .City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The entire building is to be equipped with an auto- matic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Stand- ards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6-12-80 -7- 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all identification signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the -City Ordinances. 7. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas on the., north side of the site except in areas already served by a straight B6 curb. 8. The plans shall be modified to indicate opaque screening six feet in height along the 220 foot section of the east property line presently enclosed by chain link fence to totally screen the outside storage area. The plans shall also be modified to eliminate the proposed exit drive from the new vehicle storage facility to the north drive area and to include six trees, 2�" to 3" in diameter, along the south property line of the site to provide additional screen- ing of the outside storage area from the freeway. 9. A common drainage easement between the NSP site and the Osseo-Brooklyn Bus Company site shall be established at the consent of MN/DOT prior to release of the financial guarantee submitted in accordance with the Performance Agreement listed in Condition No. 3. Voting in` favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. Commissioner Theis stated that he did not feel the plans should be _sent on to- the City Council before the Planning Commission reviews the final drawings submitted by the applicant. He expressed the feeling that it is the. Planning Commission's duty to thoroughly review any plans sent to the City Council and should not recommend plans with open-ended conditions which must again be argued out before the City Council. Commissioner Erickson responded that it was his feeling the Planning Commission had given due consideration to the plans and had only attempted through its conditioned approval to accommodate the schedule of the applicant. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10:18 p.m. and resumed at 10: 34 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 80008 (Osseo-Brooklyn Bus Company) Following the recess , the Secretary introduced the next item of business, that of a request for site and building plan approval and a special use permit to construct a 120 ' by 212 ' school bus garage at 4455-68th Avenue North. He reviewed with the Commis- sion the contents of the Staff Report concerning the application. (See Planning. Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 80008 attached) . Following the presentation of the Staff Report, the Secretary added that the plans have been modified during recent discussions with the applicant, but that completed drawings were not available for the Planning Commission's review. He explained that the parking area to the north of the proposed bus garage and the driving lane along the west side of the garage would be eliminated. He explained that this change was warranted because the applicant 6-12-80 -8- intends to operate only nineteen buses at the site initially al- though the garage will have a capacity for 48 buses. He added that the applicant has requested that -the driving area to the north of the garage be lined with temporary bituminous curb to more easily accommodate future expansion. He also noted that the installation of the fuel tanks at the site would be subject to the approval of the State Fire Marshal. Noting a change penciled in on the proposed site plan, Commissioner Simmons inquired why the roadway leading to 68th Avenue North was being reduced to 24 feet in width. The Secretary answered that a narrower roadway would prevent doubling up of buses at the exit point which could confuse traffic in that area. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis , the Secretary explained that a future development on the north portion of the site could be served by a driveway located somewhere in the middle of the north property line in order to provide adequate separation from the driveway serving the school bus garage and the driveway serving the NSP site to the west. Commissioner Erickson inquired why it would be necessary to extend a mansard treatment around the entire building. The Secretary answered that extending the treatment around the building is a policy of the Planning Commission and City Council which calls .for a uniform treatment. He stated the purpose of the policy is to avoid false fronts and added that decorative treatments are en- couraged if they can be applied consistently around the building. Commissioner Simmons noted that the decorative treatment was pro- posed along the side of the building facing the Freeway. She asked *for an explanation of this and also asked whether any screening of the building from the Freeway would be required. The Secretary responded that the applicant had proposed small canopies over the entrances on the south side of the building. He pointed out that no other entrances were proposed along the other walls , therefore, it would not be required that the cano- pies be carried around the building. He pointed out, however, that the applicant has indicated that he might like to have a mansard treatment along the south side. This would have to be carried uniformly around the entire building. The Secretary also commented that the building would be visible from the Free- way and added that no screening is required since there would be no outside storage, but noted that the area would be landscaped. PUBLIC HEARING • Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Bob Regan of Osseo-Brooklyn Bus Company addressed the Commission and stated that he had agreed to all of the changes proposed by staff. He told the Commission that he wanted a nice looking building, one that would appear much the same as an office building which both he and the City could be proud of. The Secretary asked Mr. Regan whether he had decided on the mansard treatment. Mr. Regan answered that it would depend on the cost of that treatment. Commissioner Erickson questioned whether all of the' changes re- viewed by the Secretary and the applicant could be added to a final set of drawings to be submitted to the City Council. Mr. Regan answered that he was willing• to follow all staff recommend- ations and ordinance requirements. The Secretary stated that 6-12-80 -9- . many of the changes are listed in the conditions of approval. As to the mansard treatment, he explained that although the ap- plicant is undecided at this time, there should be no problem in approving such a treatment if it is applied consistently around the building. Commissioner Simmons expressed doubts that the plan could be recommended to the City Council with so many un- certainties yet to be resolved. The Secretary commented that if the Planning Commission is not clear on what the final plans will look like they should table the plan until they are satisfied with the final concept. Commissioner Theis asked Mr. Regan why he intended to build the school bus garage for parking buses three deep, and yet not pro- vide a means of driving through the building. Mr. Regan answered that he felt the building would be efficient as well as attractive and that operating within the constraints of the building would not be difficult. He stated that the building proposed seemed to fit the site and that his operation could adapt to those limitations. Commissioner Theis and Mr. Regan briefly discussed the landscape plan. They agreed that to plant all one specie of tree on the site would be a mistake in light of the experience of dutch elm disease. The Secretary recommended a mixture of species for the landscape plan and Mr. Regan accepted this recommendation. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by. Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING •APPLICATION NO. 80008 (Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Theis to table Application No. 8000.8 until site and building plans have been revised to reflect the changes required by City Ordinances and those agreed upon in- discussions with staff and the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: Commissioner Erick- son. Commissioner Erickson stated that he opposed tabling the matter because the applicant had stated his willingness to comply with all of the required changes. He considered the tabling action an unnecessary delay. APPLICATION NO. 80017 (Swenson's Carriage House) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request by Swenson' s Carriage House for site and building plan approval and special use permit to construct a 17,075 square foot furniture sales store and warehouse on Freeway Boulevard to the east of Schmitt Music. He reviewed the contents of Staff Report No. 80017. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 80017 attached) . Following the presentation of the Staff Report, the Secretary re- viewed various revisions which had been suggested by staff, but which had not been finalized in the drawings provided for Planning Commission review at the meeting. The Secretary added that the applicant had agreed to plant at least four trees, 2�" to 3" in diameter, along the greenstrip area adjacent to Freeway Boulevard 6-12-80 -10- and to provide berms to shield the parking lot from the Shingle Creek right-of-way and from Freeway Boulevard. He noted that the applicant had agreed to the elimination of a driving lane on the northwest side of the building as being unnecessary and that other minor revisions to the curbing and parking layout had also been accepted. Finally, he stated that the applicant had agreed to provide a holding pond on the site to facilitate drainage to the Creek. The Secretary stated that the only issue as yet unresolved was the exterior treatment of the building. He explained that the building is, for the most part, a showroom. He noted that the porch treatment provided along the front of the building and for 50 feet along the east and west sides of the building stopped at an arbitrary point and was not consistent with the policy of the Planning Commission and City Council for consistent exterior treatment provided around all buildings . He suggested that, at the minimum, the porch treatment should be provided along the east and west sides to the back of the retail area of the build- ing and that perhaps the windows along the sides of the building could be more uniformly spaced. There followed a rather lengthy discussion concerning the exter- ior treatment proposed and the policy for consistent exterior treatment around all commercial and industrial buildings. Com- missioner Erickson asked whether the proposed exterior treatment was standard for Ethan Allen buildings and whether the City has required consistent exterior treatment for other franchise stores such as MacDonald' s or Burger King. The applicant •responded that the proposed structure is standard for Ethan Allen stores . The Secretary stated that other franchise operations have been required to meet the City's policy. He cited the 7 Eleven Store on Humboldt and 69th and Arthur Treacher' s on Brooklyn Boulevard as examples of business that were required to carry a uniform treatment around the building when it was not their original intent to do so. He added that in the Industrial Park, in parti- cular, •buildings have been required to have consistent decorative treatments on all sides . Commissioner Theis asked whether a reduced mansard along the sides of the building would be consistent with the City' s policy. The Secretary stated that as long as the treatment is uniform along each side it could be acceptable. He noted that a treatment of this type was given to the 7 Eleven building at 69th and Hum- boldt. The Secretary commented that during review of plans with the applicant the staff had seen a drawing of an Ethan Allen building that did carry the porch treatment for the full length along the sides of the building. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Mark Reinertson of Henning-Nelson Construction Company spoke on behalf of the applicant. He explained that the nature of the building is intended to project a type of symbolism. He argued that to extend the symbol around the entire building would destroy its effect. He stated that the side or rear of the building should be different from the front, that the applicant is willing to put wood, metal or brick siding along the sides of the building if 6-12-80 -11- this were the Planning Commission's desire. He also noted that extending the full porch treatment to the rear of the building would increase the snow load to ' such 'an extent as to make the building structurally infeasible. Chairman Hawes stated that other Ethan Allen stores may' not have the same kind of visibil- ity from all sides that this store will have. Mr. Reinertson responded that the exterior of the building was oriented to the freeway and that the type of architecture employed with this building was an example of "Freeway Symbolism. " The Secretary commented that if the treatment proposed by the applicant is considered to be a form of identification symbolism or a sign, it would most certainly exceed the Sign Ordinance limitations. He stated that from his perspective the treatment simply looks unfinished, not symbolic. He explained that the City' s policy is not to allow the termination of an exterior decorative treatment at some arbitrary point. He contrasted the fronts of buildings which were constructed in a row with no . space in between with the buildings built since World War II which have their own parking lots and stand in the open with all sides visible. He also noted that the site is quite visible and the sides of the building will be exposed to Freeway -Boulevard as well as the Shingle Creek greenstrip. Commissioner Simmons acknowledged that there were certainly offensive examples of false facades which led to the City' s policy for consistent ex- terior treatment, but added that such a policy could become rigid and fail to allow for innovative treatments which meet the spirit of the policy, if not the letter. Mr. Reinertson explained that from an architectural standpoint the exterior treatment does not stop at an arbitrary point. He stated that the porch treatment is extended to a point which creates proportion and scale with the front of the building. Mr. Swenson stated that he had never anticipated opposition to his building. He acknowledged the good intent of the City's policy, but noted that the mansard treatment is the most expensive portion of the building and would be dif- ficult financially to extend. Chairman Hawes asked what type of treatment the applicant would give the building if cost were not a factor. Mr. -Reinertson responded that the same treatment would be architecturally appro- priate, that otherwise the building would look out of proportion. The Secretary noted that the front of the building is 120 feet in length and that the sides of the building are 125 feet. He questioned whether a building which was almost square with a con- sistent exterior treatment could be considered out of proportion. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the applicant would be willing to provide a reduced mansard along the sides of the building. Mr. Reinertson responded that to make the sides different from the front would result in a false facade. The Planning Commission then discussed at some length the City's policy regarding consistent exterior treatment. The Secretary stated that the policy requires the applicant to carry the same high standard which is established for the front portion of the building along the rest of the sides. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt the policy was not intended to rule out a high quality treatment which was only partially applied. The Planning 6-12-80 -12- Assistant pointed out that the City's Zoning Ordinance does refer to "sincere concepts" in the architectural design of build- ings. - He stated if the exterior treatment of the rear of the building were perceived .to be of comparable quality with the partial treatment of the front of the building perhaps the false facade effect would be eliminated. He added, however, that he considered the proposed aluminum siding exterior treatment for the rear of the building to be a definite lowering of architect- ural quality. The result, he said, was that the front of the building appeared .to be nothing other than a false .facade. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the option of providing a brick exterior treatment around the rear of the building and by consensus it was -agreed that, at minimum, a brick exterior treat- ment should be provided along the sides of the building. MOTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80017 (Swenson' s Carriage House) Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 80017, consisting of site and building plan and special use permit approval, to con- struct a 17,075 square foot furniture sales store and warehouse on Freeway Boulevard immediately east of Schmitt Music, subject to the following condition: 1. The permit is subject to all applicable codes , ordinances and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. k 2. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and. is nontransferable. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. { 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval, by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. S. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee l.in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas . 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. The entire building is to be equipped with an auto- matic 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. 6-12-80 -13- 9. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 10. Any outside trash disposal facilities or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 11. The plans shall' be modified to indicate: a. Screening of parking areas from the Shingle Creek right-of-way and from Freeway Boulevard with berms or hedgerow. b. At least four additional trees shall be in- dicated in the front greenstrip. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: Commissioner Malecki. Commissioner Malecki stated that her opposition to the approval was based on the feeling that the approved plan departs from the City's policy -of consistent exterior treatment and that such an approval discrim- inates against other businesses which have been required to pro- vide the consistent exterior treatment in the past. She added that the only apparent justification for allowing the exterior treatment to end where it does, is the fact that it is perhaps a more expensive ornate treatment than others that have been re- quired to be extended. Following the motion, there was further discussion among the' Planning Commission confirming that it was the consensus of the Commission that the exterior treatment should be brick as opposed to aluminum siding as originally proposed by the applicant. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner -Erickson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The P anning Commission adjourned at 12: 38 a.m. Chairman 6-12-80 -14-