Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 06-11 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR SESSION June 11 , 1981 1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes May 21 ,1981 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is 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. 5. LaVonne Malikowski 81034 Request for a home occupation special use permit to teach ceramics classes in the basement of the residence at 5509 Logan Avenue North. 6. Jacqueline Bateman 81036 Request for a variance from Section 35-310: 1 (b) (3) to build a three car garage, 24' x 26' on a lot with a dwelling, the ground coverage of which is also 24' x 26' . The address is 5130 Ewing Avenue North. 7. Duane W. Enninga 81037 , Request for a variance from Section 35-530 to allow the construction of a new dwelling on a lot with an "alley house" . remaining on the rear of the lot during construction. The address is 5435 Emerson Avenue North. 8. DeVries Builders _ 81039 Request for site and building plan approval of Phase 2 of the Earle Brown Farm Estates south of Shingle Creek Parkway and west of the proposed extension of Freeway Boulevard. 9. DeVries Builders 81040 Request for amended subdivision approval including Phases 1 and 2 of the Earle Brown Farm Estates south of Shingle Creek Parkway and west of the proposed extension of Freeway Boulevard, 10. Summit Mortgage Corporation 81035 Request for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide the land north of Summit Drive, west of Highway 100 and south and east of the proposed extension of Earle Brown Drive. 11 . Summit Mortgage Corporation 81041 Request for site and building plan approval to relocate a number of buildings on the Earle Brown Farm into a more compact complex. 12. Steve Nelson/Lynbrook Bowl 81042 Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the land north and west of North Lilac Drive, south of 65th Avenue North, and east of Camden Avenue North into three lots and one outlot. 13. Howe, Inc. 81027 Request for site and building plan approval to eliminate the existing potato shed, temporary storage building, and part of the middle building, and to build 14,155 sq. ft. and 1 ,530 sq. ft of office space at 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. 14. Howe, Inc. 81029 Request to withdraw application for Variance from Section 35-413 relating to buffer requirements. 15. Other Business 16. Discussion Items a) Ordinance Amendment regarding the manufacture and/or assembly of electric vehicles. b) Withdrawal of Application No. 81019 (Hussman Investment Co. ) 17. Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81034 Applicant: Lavonne Malikowski • Location: 5509 Logan Avenue North Request: Special Home Occupation The applicant requests a special use permit to conduct ceramics classes in the basement of her home at 5509 Logan Avenue North. The property is zoned R1 and is surrounded by other single family homes. The home is the second house north of 55th Avenue North on the west side of Logan Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance permits instruction of not more than four (4) nonresident students at a given time under the special home occupation provision (see Section 35-900 "Home Occupation, Special" attached). The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she explains that the group instruction involves 19 to 20 people and is held 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. , Monday through Friday, for two 10 week periods each year (late September to early December and February 1 to mid April ) . She also explains that the application grows out of a recent complaint about some of the students' cars being parked on 55th Avenue North. Five years ago, she notes , her students were barred from parking on Logan Avenue North because of the bus stop and the high level of traffi;c. She concludes by pointing out that the then Chief of Police advised her to have students park on 55th Avenue North which she has done until the recent complaint. There is available on the premises a rather large driveway capable of parking at least four and possibly six cars. This space should accommodate the vehicles of four students attending courses at any one time. The Building Official has not been able to inspect the premises as of the writing of this report. Approval of this application should be conditioned upon compliance with the recommendations of the Building Official . The crux of the issue with the proposed home occupation, which has been carried on unreported and unapproved for a number of years, is the number of students attending a class at any one time. The "19 to 20" students presently attending a single class are far in excess of the four allowed by Ordinance. The applicant has not addressed this discrepency in her letter of application. Staff are at a loss in proposing a simple resolution of this issue. Either the applicant must offer more classes during the day, with no more than four students per class , or she must move her operation to a location with suitable parking facilities. There is no precedent for allowing classes of more than 4 in a home occupation. The last option is to seek a variance to allow more than four nonresident students at one time on the premises. We have no immediate comment on such a variance request except that the home occupation ordinance implies that no more than two on-street parking- spaces should be required for any home occupation. If the issue of the number of students attending lessons can be resolved, approval would be subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all codes , ordinances, and regulations. • Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. No more than 4 students shall attend any one class in accordance with Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6-11-81 -1- s • Application No. 81034 continued 4. All parking shall be off-street on space provided by the applicant to the maximum extent feasible. - _ ltl 1 tre- imi ted �o two spaces .at an app.�.�,p�,id ...l� 'ari se3'.-- 5. The hours of operation shall be: 6. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Building Official prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. • 6-11-81 -2- May 11, 1981 Attention: Mr. Ron Warren Planning Commission I the aforesaid LaVonne Malikowski, residing at 5509 Logan Avenue N. , Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, hereby states to having the hobby of ceramics located at basement of the abovesaid premises for ten (10) years. My hobby consuming time from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. each night a week with eliminating Saturday and Sunday, being available February 1 through mid April and the third week in September through the first week in December. The girls to their convenience and my compliance come to my basement at the aforementioned premises to do hobby and crafts which consistes of nineteen (19) to twenty (20) persons coming a night five days a week, excluding Saturday and Sunday, between the above-mentioned months. My hobby, solely supervised and in ordinance with the sound and dis- turbance regulations. There being one foresee complaint is stated by unknown that some girls coming to my house have parked their cars on the side of the 55th Street road running East and West of the abovesaid premises. Therefore posing to create a police and fire hazard to many cars pass- ing the 55th Street including bicyclists. My remedy being and having in possession a driveway to hold cars available for those wishing to come to my convient premises. At which they are also in turn willing to carpool to a more further extent then prior to this complaint. In receiving a complaint five (5) years prior to the one now mentioned above, was brought to my attention stating that it be unlawful for the girls to park their cars on the Logan Avenue do to bus route and it being a busy residential avenue. I in compliance to the complaint called the Brooklyn Center Chief of Police asking for his judgment in remedy of this aforementioned complaint. The Chief of Police in assisting my question statedly advised me to have the girls park their automobiles on the side road, 55th Street, running East and West. Hereafter in doing this to remedy the complaint, faithfully have abided by this solution up to this former complaint. LaVonne Malikowski • a Section 35-900 (continued) Floor/area ratio - The numerical value obtained through dividing the gross floor area of a building or buildings by the total area of the lot or parcel of land on which such building is located. Garage, private - An accessory building or an accessory portion of the dwelling building intended for or used to store private passenger vehicles of the families resident upon the premises and in which no business, service or industry connected directly or indirectly with automotive vehicles may be carried on. Green Strip - An area containing only vegetation such as grass, trees, flowers, hedges, and other related landscaping materials, and maintained expressly for such purpose. Home Occupation - Any gainful occupation or profession, engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises, provided, such activity does not pro- duce light glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the boundaries of the premises; does not involve the use of accessory structures; and, further provided that said activity does not involve any of the following: repair, service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; over-the-counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises; or the employment of persons on the premises, other than those customarily residing on the premises. Examples include: dressmaking; secretarial services; professional offices; answering service; individual music or art instruction; individual hobby craft; child day care (defined as the care of not more than five (5) nonresident children and provided the facility and operation are properly licensed by the County, and provided a record of said license is on file with the City); and the like. v Home Occupation, Special - Any gainful occupation or profession, approved by special use permission, engaged in by the occupant of a dwelling unit within said dwelling or involving not more than one accessory use permitted by Section 35-310 or Section 35-311, and which involves any of the following: stock-in-trade Incidental to the performance of the service; repair, service, or manufacturing which requires equipment other than that customarily found in a home; the employment on the premises, at any one time, of not more than one person who is a nonresident of the premises; the teaching of more than one (1) but not more than four (4) nonresident students any given time; or the need for not more than two (2) parking spaces in addition to spaces required for the persons residing on the premises; and provided the activity: is clearly incidental and secondary to the residental use of the premises, Including the dwelling, and permitted accessory buildings or installations thereon; does not produce light glare, noise, odor or vibration perceptible beyond the bound- aries of the premises; does not consist of over-the-counter sales of merchandise pro- duced off the premises. Examples include: barber and beauty services, shoe repair, photography studio, group lessons, saw sharpening, motor-driven appliance and small engine repair, and the like. Hotel - A building which provides a common entrance, lobby, and stairways, and in which lodging is commonly offered with or without meals for periods of less than a week. Section 35-220. SPECIAL USE PERMITS 2. Standards for Special Use Permits A special use permit. may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: . (a) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not.-be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. • (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. (e) The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. (d) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public , streets. (e) The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, - location, construction, maintenance and operation of the special use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest and to secure compliance with requirements specified in this ord- inance. In all cases in which special use permits are granted, the City Council may require such evidence and guarantees as it may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connec- tion therewith. - 4. Resubmission No application for a special use permit which has. been denied by the City Council shall be resubmitted fora period of twelve (12) months from the date of the final determination by the City Council; except that the applicant may set forth in writing newly discovered evidence of change of condition upon which he relies to gain the consent of the City Council for resubmission at an earlier time. 5. Revocation and Extension of Special Use Permits When a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the pro- visions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work upon the sub- ject property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a "Special Use Permit" application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee of $15.00. Special use permits granted pursuant to the provisions of a prior ordinance of Brooklyn Center shall expire within one year of the effective date of this ordinance if construction upon the sub- ject property pursuant to such special use permit has not commenced • within that time. In any instance where an existing and established special use is abandoned for a period of one year, the special use permit re- lated thereto shall expire one year following the date of abandon- vent. i • i r VIII W. Sir Ell 1N WII� " �� � M ii �■ rob 4 mAl JIM mm mm NJ 7W 7W INN POLIS k • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81036 Applicant: Jacqueline Bateman Location: 5130 Ewing Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance to construct a 24' x 26' garage on the property at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. The property is zoned Rl and is surrounded by other single family homes. The dwelling on the property is also/,24 x 26' (624 sq. ft.) and the Zoning Ordinance does not permit accessory structures in the R1 zone to be more than 75% of the area of the principal dwelling. It also limits dwellingsunder 880 sq. ft. to only one such accessory structure (see Section 35-310 attached) . There- fore, the maximum size garage for this property permitted under the ordinance is 468 sq. ft. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which she argues that the Standards for a Variance (see Section 35-240:2 also attached) are met in the following manner: a) A hardship would result from meeting the ordinance requirements since a 10' addition would have to be made to the dwelling. an addition at today's costs is beyond the mean of the Such y � Y applicant. ( 9�,- &-Lp-- b) The dwelling is unique in that it is one of the few small homes left in the area. c) The existing condition (a 624 sq. ft. house) was not created by the applicant, but is a product of an earlier time when houses were smaller and any garage at all was a luxury. d) The granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. Rather, it would benefit the community if the house remains only as large as necessary, since a larger house would consume more energy. The garage, meanwhile, would upgrade the property. The applicant has also submitted a rather lengthy list of signatures of surround- ing property owners agreeing that they have no objection to a three-car garage being built at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. Background Information Since 1968, when the current ordinance was adopted, there have been two similar variance requests: one in 1968 which was denied and one in 1972 which was approved. In 1968, the owner of the property at 6525 Beard Avenue North sought a variance to place a 576 sq. ft. addition onto 352 sq. ft. existing garage for a total of 928 sq. ft. The dwelling was 960 sq. ft. and the maximum permitted under the ordinance was 720 sq. ft. That variance was denied on the grounds that applicant had not shown that the Standards for a Variance were met. 6-11-81 -1- I i Application No. 81036 'continued In 1972, the owner of the property at 5559 Lyndale Avenue North received a variance to add 484 sq. ft. onto an existing 484 sq. ft. garage for a total of 968 sq. ft. The dwelling in that case was 1097 sq. ft. and the maximum permitted garage 823 sq. ft. The City Council approved the variance noting the uniqueness of the property in size and location (adjacent to the proposed freeway) ; and that the variance would not be detrimental since there are no other single family residences in the vicinity of the property and the extra garage space would allow the applicant to store his hobby cars inside rather than scattering them around the property (Minutes of the October 16, 1972 City Council meeting) . It should also be noted that when the existing dwelling was built in 1947, the City Zoning Ordinance of the time permitted construction of garage space "for not more than three noncommercial vehicles." This provision remained unchanged until 1957 when the ordinance was amended to allow for garages not more than 600 sq. ft. or for parking of not more than four noncommercial vehicles. In 1961 , the Zoning Ordinance was again amended to allow garages not more than 660 sq. ft. in area for noncommercial uses. Finally, in 1968, the present ordinance was adopted which allowed for one garage up to 75% of the ground coverage of the principal dwelling for dwellings up to 880 sq. ft. in area. The 1961 figure of 660 sq. ft. for garages is precisely 75% of 880 sq. ft. for dwellings in the 1968 ordinance. Analysis and Recommendation As to the Standards for a Variance, the applicant's contention of a hardship seems to be based on economics. Another way of seeing the problem is that the maximum size garage allowed by ordinance of 468 sq. ft. presents an inconvenience for the property owner, but not a hardship in the sense -of denying her the reasonable use of her property. It is also true that the dwelling is fairly unique in its size, but uniqueness is based on conditions pertaining to land, not structures. The parcel in question is not at all unique. Staff would agree that the difference between what the applicant desires and what the ordinance permits was not caused by the :applicant, but by a change in the ordinance over time. It is also evident that the construction of a three-car garage would have no detrimental effect on other properties in the area as witnessed by the lengthy list of signatures of surrounding property owners submitted. A detriment to the public welfare, however, would result from the obvious dilution of the Zoning Ordinance. Finally, in comparison to the two previous variance requests for oversized garages , the present request appears to be more similar to Application No. 68061 which was denied. Overall , the grounds for a variance are mixed. Because the applicant does not appear to meet all the standards, approval of the variance is not recommended in this case. Staff would acknowledge, however, a growing trend toward larger garages to meet the demands of two-income families with increasing possessions which need to be stored, but not in a heated structure. Escalating construction costs have also lead to a trend of smaller, energy-efficient houses. The current ordinance re- quirement regulating the size of accessory structures may work against these trends and perhaps should be reviewed. Also, the fact that previous ordinances allowed for garages of 600 sq. ft. to 660 sq. ft. without regard to structure size suggests that the current ordinance simply did not contemplate houses with much less that 880 sq. ft. of ground coverage. Therefore, some review of the purpose of the ordinance seems to be in order. 6-11-81 -2 f� . �. May.25,1981 I, Jacqueline Bateman request a varianc on the zoning ordinance which would allow us to build a x ,ak' garage at 5130 Ewing Ave. N. Our home is of a sufficient size to accomodate our family and it would create a financial hardship on us becauseof the high cost of materials and labor to add an extra ten feet to our house to meet the city standards. It also seems almost unpatriotic to add more living space than necessary toa home when the country is in such an energy crunch and it would take so much more fuel and electricity to operate a larger house . Our house is unique as it is one of the few small houses left in the area. When this house was buildt- people lived a different life style than today. A garage was more of a storage shed than a garage for few people had the luxury of owning their own car. Today with two people in a house- hold working and a poor transportation system two vehicles are needed just to get to work, plus storage is needed for motor cycles , boats , lawn and garden equipment, snow blowers and other recreational equipment. This is expensive equipment which is not easily replaced and therefore must be protected from the harsh Minnesota elements . The granting of this variance would in no way hinder or be detrimental to this community but would actually be an asset as it would up grade the property there by up grade the neighbor-hood. � - d3�j/ Section 35-240. VARIANCES 2. Standards for Variances The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinc- tive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifica- tions are met: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. 3. Conditions and Restrictions The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the grant- ing of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Compre- hensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. • i r s Section 35-300 (continued) The location and boundaries of the districts established by this ordinance are set forth in Sections 35-1100 , 35-1110 , 35-1120, 35-1130, 35-1140, 35-1150, 35-1160, 35-1170 , 35-1180, 35-1190 , 35-1200 , 35-1210, 35-1220, 35-1230. Unless otherwise indicated by relation to established lines , points, or features, the district boundary lines are the centerlines of streets, alleys, or railroad rights-of-way, existing or extended. Section 35-310 . R1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. 1. Permitted Uses (a) One family dwellings . �(b) Accessory uses incidental -to -the foregoing principal uses or to the following special uses when located on -the same property with the use to which it is accessory, but not including any business or Industrial accessory uses . Such accessory uses to include but not be restricted -to the following: (1) Offstreet parking and offstreet loading. (2) Renting of not more than -two indoor parking spaces. (3) One accessory building or carport (either detached or attached to the dwelling burs minas whnrr, the dwelling building around coverage area does not exceed 880 square feet; in the event the ground coverage area of the dwelling building exceeds 880 square feet, 'two accessory buildings or carports (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) will be permitted provided that no one accessory building or carport shall exceed 75% of the ground coverage area of the dwelling building or 1000 square feet, whichever is lesser; and provided that the total area of both accessory buildings or carports (either detached or attached to the dwelling building) shall not exceed 100% of 'the ground coverage area of the dwelling building, or 1100 square feet, whichever is lesser. (4) Public recreational s'truc'tures in parks., playgrounds and athletic fields . (5) Playground equipment and installations, including private swimming pools and tennis courts. • a loom go I gloom NORTHPORT mm F?, rm Los � /111oN11i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81037 Applicant: Duane W. Enninga Location: 5435 Emerson Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant seeks a variance from Section 35-530 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow him to construct a single family dwelling on the front of a lot now occupied by a house located five feet from the rear property line. The existing dwelling will serve as a place to live during construction until the new house can be occupied, after which the present house will be demolished. The property in question is located in the R2 zone and is surrounded by other single-family dwellings. Section 35-530 of the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that in the R1 and R2 districts "in no case shall there be more than one principal building on one lot." Further- more, Subsection 4 of 35-530 provides that "No basement, cellar, garage, tent, trailer or accessory building shall * at any time be used as a residence or dwelling, temporarily or permanently." The original building on the property in question was built in 1928, most likely, as an out-building to be used temporarily as a dwelling until a permanent residence was built. Such an arrangement was allowed by special permit under the 1950 Zoning Ordinance which continued in effect until 1957. Prior to that time, the 1940 Zoning Ordinance permitted nonconforming uses and structures provided a bond of $5,000 was submitted to guarantee the demolition of the nonconforming entity within 10 years. There is no record of either a bond or a special permit for 5435 Emerson Avenue North. In any case, the dwelling at the back of the lot became nonconforming with the adoption of the 1957 Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he argues that the Standards for a Variance (also attached) are met on the following grounds : A) Demolishing the existing house before construction of the new home would cause delays, financial difficulties , and extra commuting costs. B) The situation is unique in that there are very few such "alley houses" left in the City (two on Emerson Avenue North) . C) The nonconforming status of the present dwelling was created by adoption of a City Ordinance (35-530),not by the owner of the property. The applicant gives his assurance that he has every intention of demolishing the existing dwelling and only seeks the variance as a means of facilitating the phase out of the existing nonconforming structure. D) The construction of the new dwelling will improve the property in question and the neighborhood in general . Staff acknowledge the validity of arguments contained in C) and D) . Generally, uniqueness pertains to conditions, of the land parcel , not the structures thereon. However,_ it is obvious that the presence of an "alley house" on the parcel is a fairly unique situation. The argument for Standard A) relating to hardship is clearly insufficient. The applicant cites a number of inconveniences and the likelihood that these inconveniences may cause a delay in his construction plans. But, this is not a hardship as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. 6-11-81 -1- Application No. 81037 continued The variance is, therefore, questionable. However, the goal of eliminating a sub- standard and nonconforming dwelling may be seen to outweigh the other deficiencies of the variance application. If the Planning Commission is disposed to look favorably on this approach, approval of the variance should at least be conditioned on the applicant entering into a standard performance agreement and on the sub- mission of a $3,000 cash escrow or a $10,000 construction bond. (The difference is because of different legal and administrative costs related to bond fore- closure) . This financial guarantee would be used to pay for demolition of the alley house in the event the applicant fails to accomplish this within the time limit set by the performance agreement. It is recommended that a completion date F be set of not over one year from the issuance of the building permit, with no extensions. 6-11-81 -2- BE C�9k5 E c> f T 14E ltDctqT O/v c> � ) m, rES�NToa.sE t�al,. bZE T� b u'. L d ©N E Fro WT c�,-P -rJ4 E LoT W',T Iles- fi �€F- T'l u TMG &L,5 E To T14E _ R Erg R c5� TO E- Lo� Lo HE 5Z E )95 ) t I W ERE }3ltuti� REcl )ems REmcuE -'T}}F- rXI'5 i��,H�3E r!� C,R 'Tee TH Cl��STr i.CT, C� c � /U c to 7,4sc-) _ . a7-ART o CoNS�TruCT+ o�� LPL Ld v E R T'llr-- E s7; m -nTC of �p _ ,18 /�Eq cA i R i tii tJ f En�1 � Zi-Af fr—�; _ _ 1 A lam_17 t �- TO _ )-i u E _ TN E EN!1 R.E E m a i s 0,k3 N 5-Tr u �95 &-T WoL�. , 3E THL PEF_d e-.3 5 �,��7E _ o G p sC L I Av E ')TWc3LkLd Ft ire J AJ 6�JE9 deb /v �06 ,47Ed CA) - ,5_ ,E ET .r o{rn T}P L- pro T>cb s E- To f� �- Acd E TAE �o pie Wtso _TT))E /�� 1 0 0od 1 LA , � ti _ 19► E5 SF_Jl3 J �o `�C U i N I v> -T- Ylq v E ARE � A--)FSP6SEJ 0-J a>U E 2�51,.ev J WF- U) "� rp R 14 ' , 1) 1 T !"! 0 Za 9 co D E Tz 19 j o-,� T}� E �-f opERTy. CCU a *3 ?q T\)ct: 3s - 53 © �5TOITES _ ► rt E R F_ 6 C. L FAO► J�J rn©R-E I j9 N) - © N_F p ®/ o ry DoT '� ECILA l) A1ZiANG • �-; i _ - Tni Z, CT- rz 7 110mE 1A RE7 -5 ig - _:_ A ) EARL BROWN •fir � • i'■ ..= MIMI Ml Ml IM MIM IM IM M i■ �� ■�■ =i ■ i■ ■■ ■� ■■!■■ C .Jn " �■■ a■■■ IMM ;■ . ; �■� ■■■ i r■ ■.■ ..� �■■ '�' �■ i ■■ ■ ®■r ■■� ■■■ r■ ■ �;■ ■.�.. ■■■i i�■ m ■ �■■ ■ "" "v fir■ ■■® IMIM " '�•• ■ i■ m ■ � � �■ iii � N � MIM 7 ■■ r■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■� �"" .= .�= .� ■ ■� m■ ■ ■■ A■ �,_ ■■� .,■■� ■ ■■o mm IM MINNEAPOLIS i i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81039 Applicant: DeVries Builders, Inc. Location: Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant seeks site and building plan approval for phase 2 of the Earle Brown Farm Estates townhouse development. The development is located south of Shingle Creek Parkway, east of "Old" Xerxes Avenue North, north of I-94, and west of Xerxes Avenue North and a proposed extension of Freeway Boulevard. The property is zoned R3 and the proposed use is permitted in that zone. The site plan for Phase 2 contains 12 townhouse units and is unchanged from the Master Plan for the Earle Brown Farm Estates development approved under Application No. 81021 . Parking provided in Phase 2 amounts to two spaces per unit (which equals the ordinance requirement) and three additional visitor stalls. In lieu of the 24' wide driving lanes,which will accommodate little if any extra cars , it is suggested that the Planning Commission review with the developer the possibility of providing at least three more visitor stalls for a total of six, or 1 for every two units. This does not seem unreasonable considering that most other townhouse developments provide 3 to 4 parking spaces per unit and the recommended addition would only bring Phase 2 to 22 spaces per unit. The present Master Plan provides 25 visitor spaces over the 100 unit complex for an average of 24 spaces per unit overall . It is also recommended that Phase 1 be amended to provide additional visitor parking at a rate of 1 for 2 units. The landscape plan is unchanged and appears to be adequate. Shade trees are scheduled along Freeway Boulevard. Within the residential site, decorative trees predominate. It is again suggested that the landscape plan be revised so that a greater proportion of the interior trees be shade trees rather than almost exclusively decorative trees (perhaps 1 shade or coniferous tree to one decorative tree) . The decorative species include: Russian Olive, Radiant Crab, Mountain Ash, Amur Maple, Shadeblow Serviceberry, Lilac, etc. These are not unattractive, but will provide very little in the way of shade, especially from the hot afternoon summer sun (there is only one nondecorative tree along the whole west side of the development) . Sod is properly indicated in all nonpaved areas. The drainage and utility plans were thoroughly reviewed by the Commission at its April 23, 1981 meeting and no significant change is recommended. Some minor changes to the grading plan will be necessary to accommodate an increase in visitor parking stalls. The design of the units is , of course, unchanged. Phase 2 will have 6 three- bedroom and 6 two-bedroom units. The plans are generally in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following 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 and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6-11-81 -1- Application No. 81039 continued 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements for phase o*�e►d�t prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. All common parking and driving areas shall be surrounded by B612 curb and gutter as shown on the approved drainage and grading plans. 6. Plan approval acknowledges a master plan for all phases of the Earle Brown Farm Estates Townhouse project. However, each additional phase is subject to preliminary plat approval and site and building plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council . 7. The developer shall take adequate measures to control dust and debris during construction. A viable turf shall be established and maintained in these areas subject to future development. 8. There shall be one Homeowners Association agreement to include all subsequent phases at the time of their approval . 9. Public sidewalk shall be provided on the south side of Freeway Boulevard in the area between Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. 10. The master site plan shall be revised to include at least one visitor parking stall for every two townhouse units prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall also be re- vised to show at least one shade or coniferous tree for every decorative tree throughout the complex. Particular attention should be paid to increasing shade trees along the west side of the development. 6-11-81 -2- � i • • v � - l Wall MOUND CEMETERY CITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING big oil 1 p. NN 1 11111 �_n, 0 OR IMAM". II • 1 I �I �I • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81040 Applicant: DeVries Builders Location: Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Blvd. , extended Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant requests preliminary plat approval for phases land 2 combined of the Earle Brown Farm Estates. The Earle Brown Farm Estates are located north of I-94, east of "Old' Xerxes, south of Shingle Creek Parkway, and west of extension of Freeway Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. The plat consists of 8 blocks, blocks 1 , 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 consisting of in- dividual townhouse lots and block 5 as the common area including private streets and green areas. Block 1 is a single lot for a service/office development at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. There are a total of 26 individual townhouse lots in the proposed preliminary plat for Phases 1 and 2.. The plat also sets up Outlots A, B, C, and D for future phases 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the- Earle Brown Farm Estates. The plat dedicates 60' of right-of-way for the extension of Freeway Boulevard from Xerxes Avenue North west and northerly to Shingle Creek Parkway. Additional land is also to be dedicated for the rerouting of Shingle Creek Parkway. A public sidewalk easement and a public watermain easement are designated through Outlots C and A, the watermain also covering a small area in Outlot D (Phase 6) . A sanitary sewer easement traverses the northern portion of the plat between blocks 3 and 2 of Phase 1 . One change which might be made to the proposed plat would be the extension of the individual townhouse lots to the point where private driveways meet private road- ways. At present, the individual lots end approximately 5' beyond the garages . This would technically make each unit's driveway only partially private. Since the bulk of driveway space would be left in Block 5, the common area, other residents or their guests might be considered to have a legal sight to use in- dividual driveway spaces. Aside from this change, the plat seems to be in order and approval is recommended, subject tout least the following conditions: 1 . The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Homeowners Association documents for all phases of the development are subject to approval by the City Attorney prior to final plat ;> approval of each phase. . `` The preliminary plat shall be revised so that each townhouse lot extends to the point where driveways meet the private roadways hin the development. .• 6-11-81 ` i • '� 111 �� I+I (+ "1-} • \ t a1 rn cn rn ;:' fs 0 �U t►I �\• :�:; _ •'� ,. CRFE • '� i •► i. ~\ P eL rn age Aw- pq • i yak , rn `�: �\ , ,, ` •i . . ,/, . •i l' a is ; •a '•. m 1 ti's-: •�'' �` - ��^ � •'• ......... j T SCR .•�. - ------ B�VCfVq _ M'm 010. IL L6 1 i_ FUTURE TO.*1+MOUSES A $ a PHASE 4 . If * F b• i /' Q •i� D i pl Ct fir, i Ay ' i �ip', � QSF wy,. � ••:'.M � ;i+ ! 1a hi� a� ERST4le � i Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81035 Applicant: Summit Mortgage Corporation Location: Earle Brown Drive and Summit Dirve Request: Preliminary R.L.S. The applicant requests preliminary R.L.S. approval to resubdivide all of the land north of Summit Drive, east of Phases 1 and 2 of the new Ryan Construction develop- ment which abut Shingle Creek Parkway on the west. The R.L.S. does not include the newly dedicated Earle Brown Drive which was apart of the recent Ryan Construe- Lion plat. The property in question is bounded by Summit Drive on the south, by the new portion of Earle Brown Drive on the west and north and by Hwy. 100 on the east. Three parcels north of Summit Drive and east of the existing Earle Brown Drive are zoned C2. The remainder of the land is zoned I-1 . The R.L.S. consists of 10 tracts, a number of which will remain essentially as they have been in the past. The tracts abutting Highway 100 (Tracts A through E) will have the same interior property lines as in the past. However, these tracts are surveyed to the middle of Earle Brown Drive. Heretofore, Earle Brown Drive has been a separate, 80 feet wide, tract of land owned by Tropicana Holding Company, but with a City easement over it. After filing of the R.L.S. , each abutting parcel will own land to the middle of the street and the City will obtain an easement for a 60' wide rather than an 80' wide Earle Brown Drive right-of-way. The R.L.S. will also redefine the easterly property lines of Tracts A, B, C, and D to reflect the new right-of-way acquisitions by MN/DOT for I-94 and Highway 100. Tract F at the upper corner of Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive owned by Republic Airlines remains essentially unchanged except for surveying to the middle of Earle Brown Drive. Tract J belongs to Ryan Construction and reflects the transfer of 45 feet of land from the west side of what was formerly Tract B, R.L.S. No. 1380. The main changes proposed by the preliminary R.L.S. relate to the land occupied by the historic Earle Brown Farm buildings. Tract H will surround the horsebarn and hippodrome and is planned to accommodate an industrial use (Classic Electric Car Corporation) . Tract I, at the north end of the Farm area, abuts the new Earle Brown Drive and is planned for office development. Tract G includes a number of existing Farm buildings and the Summit Bank. The proposed site plan submitted with Application No. 81041 calls for moving a number of other outbuildings into this area in a compact formation. The remainder of Tract G, adjacent to Summit Drive is planned for an office development. Office developments are special uses in the I-1 zone. The proposed R.L.S. is deficient in a number of important informational items. Existing easements for water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer have been omitted and the former property lines are very unclear. The previous right-of-way lines are shown, but the proposed easement for Earle Brown Drive right-of-way is not. The R.L.S. should also provide land area information for each tract. Finally, the City Engineer has requested information showing the width of Tract G at its narrowest point just north of the Summit Bank. All this information should be provided on the proposed R.L.S. by the time it is considered by the City Council . As long as these additions and corrections are made, approval is recommended, subject to at least the following condtions: 1 . The final R.L.S. is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 6-11-81 -1- Application No. 81035 continued 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary R.L.S. shall be corrected prior to consideration by a City Council to include the following information: a) Location, width d purpose of existing easements. b) rN right-of- y location as well as existing. c) The 'ze o each tract in the new R.L.S. d) The wid of Tract G at the narrowest point just north f t e Summit Bank. e) Old , roperty ines should be shown more clearly. .-- • 6-11-81 -2- I i • s�',�1', J I oo �i11�L' a:ir7ca!' 1 *, t _ a . l ro C4 ev 1 -• ` - .�t•' i aF J ��.•:- � f y. oh Pnoposed �E�..i� crK`� LAND :��_. y0 Vi..Y �,, ,re. �t• vim, T f 03 ti �AIAVT «: 1rf 1 J rw11. :^ ::°C .• -�`�.4 .=N irt1•IS1 :aG ••�K....•..}•IU lGV`.n r �7 ,d•q�•OSq• •{♦,✓. �A+ ^��iyy� r f� 7; .3� i-ti.(.� I'L-t-� .• - 'ii _ tea. .�1� wq'r- . .�, ��.. .lam ♦ ... /QZ,..w..h� t� 'l{n�v r.i • . ' — CA . .:.rt:J.ir,li- — .VCrly ne'ry�'r•N.p• _ ��r' /�9'�� I F Ci' PM MOM IMM MIM MINE mm MINE MIN NOR 00 1 SEE mm I NONE Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81041 Applicant: Summit Mortgage Corporation Location: 6100 Summit Drive Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to authorize the relocation of a number of buildings on the Earle Brown Farm into a more compact complex near the main residence. The property to be used for relocation of the buildings is bounded generally by Earle Brown Drive on the east and north, by the 3rd Phase of the Ryan Construction development on the west, and by Summit Drive on the south. The land is zoned I-1 and a variety of light industrial and commercial uses are potential uses in that zone. Without going into the specifics of which buildings will be moved where, staff would offer simply a review of the various issues involved in the relocation of Farm buildings and the future of the Farm area generally. These issues break downinto concerns regarding zoning, historic preservation, and development . Zoning Concerns 1 . The structures on the Farm either are or were devoted to agricultural or resi- dential uses, both of which are now nonconforming uses in the I-1 zone. Those buildings which have ceased to be used in a nonconforming capacity must in the future be used in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The structures, provided they have no active use, may be moved to a different location on the site. Buildings which are being used in a nonconforming fashion cannot be moved, as stipulated in Section 35-111 :2 of the Zoning • Ordinance. 3. Any future use of Farm buildings will require that both the buildings in question, and the use site pertaining to those buildings, conform to the maximum extent feasible with the provisions of the State Building Code and the City ordinances. For instance, any useful structure exceeding 2,000 sq. ft. must be fire sprinklered and connected to a remote monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. Setback and parking re- quirements must also be met. 4. The buildings on the site which continue to be used in a nonconforming fashion (i .e. residential ) cannot be expanded by the addition of other structures to them. 5. All site improvements, including the relocation of buildings must be guaranteed by a standard performance agreement and an appropriate financial instrument. Historical Preservation The Earle Brown Farm has significant historical value, not only to the community of Brooklyn Center, but to Hennepin-County and even the State of Minnesota. Once , this resource is demolished, it can no longer be retrieved for appreciation as a historic resource. Concern for the Farm, however, is not unanimous. The greatest interest has been shown by long-term residents and people generally interested in historic preservation. The value of preserving the Farm buildings, while signifi- cant, is not absolute. It must be seen in the light of competing values, such as financial feasibility and the public health and safety, as reflected in state and local codes and ordinances. Briefly, the potential means of preserving the Farm include at least the following: 6-11-81 -1- Application No. 81041 continued 1. A private and voluntary effort by the property owner. This would involve no direct public subsidies, though tax advantages for restoration might be pursued. The farm buildings would have to • be put to some economic use which is competitive with other in- vestments that could be made on the same land. These uses would have to comply with zoning restrictions and, in light of the restoration costs, would have to be quite original in their concept. 2. Purchase by a `public agency. Technically, the City or the State Historical Society could pursue purchase of the site and operate it as a park, a library, or even a commercial enterprise. However, considering the fiscal strains that all levels of government are experiencing, there is no real likelihood that the substantial funds necessary would be available for such a purchase. 3. A Tax-Increment District. The City might declare a tax increment district over the Farm property and other property nearby (for instance, the Ryan Construction land and Byerly's) . The increase in taxes which is bound to occur within this area would help to pay off tax increment bonds. The bonds would constitute the write-down cost to the City between its purchase price and the sale price to a private developer who would agree to restore and operate the Farm in a manner compatible with historic preservation. This is a more feasible option than alternative No. 2, but would require much timely research by City staff into financial feasibility and potential buyers for the Farm before commencing with any action. Time may already have run out for this option. • 4. Special Regulation. If there is sufficient public interest, the City could adopt special regulations pertaining to historic sites and structures. This might take the form of a Historic Preservation Overlay District and a Historic Preservation Commission (possibly the Planning Commission) . If the site were nominated to the National Register of Historic Places and accepted by the Department of Interior as a National Historic Place, then even if the owner chose not to be placed on the Register, the site would be considered eligible and, therefore, subject to certain restrictions if they are adopted by the local unit of government. These restrictions and the appropriate regulatory vehicles for imposing them on development of the Farm will be explained by correspondence from the Minnesota Historical Society. We have not received that correspondence yet. It must also be noted that the public mood regarding the Farm is not really known' at this time. It is hoped that recent community surveys will shed light on this question. Development Concerns It must be understood from the outset that the presence of the Farm buildings, while providing a unique asset for the property, also pose a definite drain on the investment potential of the land on which they are located. It is chiefly for this reason that the owner of the property wishes to relocate a number of the buildings into a more compact complex, thereby creating larger vacant areas which can be developed for office buildings. Staff do not consider it likely that the owner would in some fashion donate the Farm buildings either in a restored or unrestored state to the Historical Society for public use. If the buildings are to be restored and retained on the site, there must be a realistic possibility of putting the buildings to some use which will allow 6-11-81 -2- • I • Application No. 81041 continued for some return on the investment. Considering the cost of that investment and the likely return, the private development of the Farm seems to be a shaky proposition at best. This prospect must also be acknowledged by public bodies that would devote public monies for subsidizing in some way the restoration of the Farm. In conclusion, the restoration of the Farm is not a simple matter. More in- formation is needed as to the public demand for the restoration of the Farm, the cost of restoration, the potential use of the Farm buildings, means of financing the improvements , and alternative investments on the land. In the meantime, current zoning and building requirements should be enforced to insure the public health, safety, and general welfare. Absent the information needed to judge the appropriateness of the proposed site and building plan, it is recommended that the application be thoroughly discussed, but tabled until a later time. 6-11-81 -3- 1 �� i� z w tom; .-__ - • '► i C4 0 I db i r RA L // Q o - // 94 W.8.— CD � 1 PROPOS R WAY _ — — �"—'� PROPOS 0 g G 94 E.B. 00 `A V I R7 z it I ! X11 _ X11 iSU&IAll-r cc CIA PA I w P s ApptrcArl 81041 o f N No, ,. I y y1 O EARL BROWN F EPP GRANDVIE W % SCHOOL J PARK TM t 4 _ 507" z = Z 5 7TH Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81042 Applicant: Steve Nelson/Lynbrook Bowl Location: 6357 N. Lilac Drive Request: Preliminary Plat The applicant seeks preliminary plat approval to resubdivide the property north and west of North Lilac Drive, east of Camden Avenue North, and south of 65th Avenue North (excluding the old City liquor store property) into three lots and one outlot. Beyond the immediate right-of-way abutment, the property is bounded on the south- east by the I-94 entrance ramp leading from T. H. 252 to I-94, on the west by the Chippewa Park Apartments, and on the north by vacant and underdeveloped C2 property. The property in question is 8.8 acres and is zoned C2 and the proposed uses of the property are permitted in that zone. The plat consists of lot 1 for the existing Spanjers building at the corner of North Lilac Drive and Camden Avenue North, lot 2 for the Lynbrook Bowl operation, and lot 3 south of 65th and east of Camden Avenues which will be vacant. An Outlot A is also created south of lot 3, west of lot 2, and north of lot 1 . The Outlot is 81 .5' wide, abutting Camden Avenue North. The purpose of the outlot is to provide an area of land which, using a proof-of- parking, will provide sufficient land for the Spanjers building to convert to a full blown retail development should that eventuality .arise. Presently, the Spanjers property has only enough land for approximately 25 parking stalls. A prospective buyer, however, has expressed interest in eventually obtaining enough land to market the property as a complying retail site with 100 parking stalls. He has, therefore, negotiated an option to purchase Outlot A, with approximately 75 additional stalls, at such time as these stalls would be required by ordinance. In the meantime and actually, in perpetuity, a joint parking agreement will be filed for all the land in lots 1 and 2 and Outlot A. Since the business entering the Spanjers building is an interior decorating business , a low traffic generator, and since no building permits are presently being sought, staff have agreed to accept the present parking deficiency so long as the option exists to expand available parking when necessary. The proof-of-parking submitted with the plat shows a different parking layout than that shown on the approved site plan (Application No. 81032) . In addition to showing adequate parking for Spanjers, it also shows 288 stalls..on lot J,for Lynbrook Bowl. This is 34 more than the 254 spaces required by ordinance. The . lot dimensions are, therefore, adequate to meet zoning requirements for parking. The proposed plat shows dedication of additional right-of-way on North Lilac Drive so that there is 50 feet of right-of-way east of the Lynbrook Bowl building, 40 feet directly adjacent to the addition, and 35 feet from there to the Spanjers building. At that point, the right-of-way belongs to the State and increases to 90 feet at the intersection with Camden Avenue. However, since there is a 4' chain link fence running through this area, the effective right-of-way cannot exceed 40 feet to 45 feet. The area of Camden Avenue North right-of-way will now be described by plat, rather than by document. The plat does not presently include the City property at 65th and N. Lilac Drive. However, it was expected that this land would be included with the City bearing • the additional expense. It is recommended that the City property be included in the plat prior to City Council consideration. 6-11-81 -1 Application No. 81042 continued The proposed plat shows no areas for individual parcels. This should be provided before final plat approval . Altogether, the plat seems to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 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. A joint parkingAagreement covering lots 1 and 2 and Outlot A shall be submitted to the City Attorney for his review and approval prior to final plat approval . 4. A copy of the option agreement for the eventual purchase of Outlot A by the Spanjers property shall be submitted to the City to be kept on file. 5. The preliminary plat shall be revised prior to City Council consider- ation to include the City property at 63th Avenue and North Lilac Drive. 6. The plat shall be amended to provide land areas for each respective parcel prior. to 121 approval . l 1 ` 6-11-81 -2- �I �I ;' r CIV At 0 • K n- 7y N 1 p wn S ��, ^U 4 � •D t rIt\ S.'tpy,rt?CN FIN• ti - _' 9� s\ swap 1y/ --_ rz, IV u4 'V V K. — --... •tre rs�a77Wt -- x sd,20ds 2j Ir e p h n 85 y -,- cr to y (�r CEO \ '�'• W ;' vw 4 CJ i I, 1 I i • • � f •I Y1F, O ri ;_1;4 1 4, ra sM •r 3 f '>.�`♦\•J : f,»rM,san3µ' 1^ syosf°� ° ^ I' r \ gyp S6f p :h a � M-BS FgfBN 2LD�. - M..85,SF,S81V S N / �, S 6 � F J / �, �. � \ �v � ti!♦``�/ ° 1\irk •�:c �.S•�O— v v + e /1 tj o t v Q /,• ,•t,: o,1R �oo�1R' .4 $• �4 ' { ► �--�-"''� �00-•' `vie y„��O`,t • Wy �3 ��� �6 .r6jt�i1/J/,y �1f�1sb'a'1N/ L,00, db ■ 'ii i i ■ ■ mail s ',HOOL ME ii ii ii�� ii • iii ■ , ii ■ F/ ' ,. �� � •�i ii a SIMMONS EWii 1 •• 1 -t . mar -- ■� �i�'i iii i � �i� �i �i � µ �' � �■ ii �i iii iii i t Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81027 Applicant: Howe, Inc.: Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to replace in a modified fashion the building which was destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979. The initial site plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its May 7, 1981 meeting. The plan was tabled because of deficiencies in the plan and uncertainties regarding possible action by Judge Sedgwick regarding competing motions for amendments to the findings of her original order. As of this writing Judge Sedgwick still has not delivered her decision. However, the applicant has submitted an improved plan and asks for the Planning Commission's consideration, in the :event a ruling is delivered by Thursday's meeting. Most of the material in the original staff report for the application is still valid and is reprinted here for the Commission's review. Matters relating to the landscape and drainage plan will be taken at the conclusion of this report. As a part of this plan, they also propose to remove the potato shed and a small portion of the middle building. For replacement they propose two smaller industrial buildings and an addition to the office building. Industrial space and office space, based on density factors are not equivalent, therefore, the total amount of building is less than the sum of the burned out building -(16,200 sq. ft.) , the potato shed (3,023.75 sq. ft. ) and the portion of the middle building (919.25 sq. ft.) . We have used the parking formulas to determine the ammint, of allowable sq. ft. for this plan. (Office parking requires one space for every 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area; while industrial parking requires one space for every 800 sq. ft. of gross floor area) . One hundred seven parking stalls were required for the site at the time of the fire. To maintain this number for parking approximately 4,500 sq. ft. must be eliminated from the allowable industrial space if the office addition goes forth. This has been acknowledged on the site plan. Total proposed construction includes a 6,075 sq. ft. freestanding storage building along the north setback line; 8,080 sq. ft. (145,507 cubic feet) of additional storage and lunch room area to the middle building; and a 1 ,530 sq. ft. (13,770 cubic feet) second storey addition to the office on the east side of the site. The total parking demand as determined by City ordinance formula, will remain at the 107 spaces required by ordinance for the total building area on the site prior to the fire on January 6, 1979. The proposed site plan shows 77 potential parking stalls on the site, a deficiency of 30 stalls. While staff are somewhat skeptical about whether some of these stalls shown can actually be used, the overriding consideration in this case is the applicant's right to rebuild up to a capacity equivalent to what existed prior to the fire on January 6, 1979. The variances granted under Application No. 79069. on December 17, 1979 acknowledged this right and the parking deficiency which is inevitable unless other variances are granted from buffer and greenstrip requirements. Tlie action taken in approving certain variances and denying others under Application No. 79069 has been the basis for the staff review of this plan. It is not necessary that the action be retaken at this time although acknowledgment of those variances should be a part of any plan approval . The parking deficiency on the site plan is, therefore, accepted based on the variances granted under • that application. (Copy of the City Council minutes for December 17, 1979 attached for the Commission's review) . 6-11-81 -1- e Application No. 81027 continued the proposed site plan, however, does not conform' entirely with the variances approved or denied under Application No. 79069. The proposed plan shows outside storage approximately 40 feet within the required 100 ft. buffer area immediately east of the residence at 3129 - 49th Avenue and the applicant,, under Application No. 81029 has requested a variance for this purpose. This type encroachment was not approved under Application No. 79069 and is not recommended for approval at this time. Encroachment within the southerly portion of the required 100 ft. buffer for parking and driving purposes was approved under the December 17, 1979 variance request and an _ enlarged area is also shown on the proposed plan. As noted in the staff report for Application No. 81028, the existing 8 root high opaque fence is proposed to be relocated to coincide with the westerly property line of Howe, Inc. from the Soo Line tracks to the proposed south property line of 3129 - 49th Avenue North (The zoning line separating the R1 and I-2 districts) , thence easterly along that south property line to the southeast corner of the property at 3129 - 49th Avenue. At that point, the proposed fence line departs from what was acknowledged under previous variance approvals and travels to a point roughly 40 feet west of the 100 ft. buffer line and thence northerly to the 50 ft. setback and buffer line along the north side of the property. The . latest plan calls for a rounded fence line just east of the southeast corner of 3129 - 49th Avenue North. The rounded fence line will follow a 75' radius to allow large trucks visibility of oncoming vehicles as they round the northwest corner of the middle building from either direction. The fence would be carried to the edge of the buffer strip then towards 49th Avenue North. It is felt that the enlarged driving area is within the intent of the variance granted under Application No. 79069 based on the revised plan submitted. Staff would also recommend that the 8' opaque fence continue west along the Soo Line right-of-way to screen any outside storage within the leased area west of the Howe site proper. The proposed plan includes an addition of a second storey to the office building on the east side of the property. It should be pointed out that the office is . only 20 feet from the westerly right-of-way line of Brooklyn Boulevard rather than the normally required 50 feet. However, there actually exists a separate parcel , within the City of Minneapolis, which lies between the office and the public right-of-way. The office setback might technically be considered an interior sideyard setback which need only be 10 feet. Another consideration is . that there is some excess right-of-way on the ;crest side of Brooklyn Boulevard. The office is roughly 55 feet from what the normal right-of-way line would be. Based on these considerations , it is recommended that the addition to the office not be considered in addition to a nonconforming structure and no variance would be required. Such an approach to interpreting the appropriate setbacks from right-of-tray was employed in approving the site plan for Cass Screw under Appli- cation No. 79053. It should also be pointed out that the proposed Comprehensive Plan calls for either a light industrial or "non-retail commercial " use on the Howe site in the eventuality that the nonconforming fertil.izer manufacturing operation is removed from the property. The proposed new structures are, there- fore, not inconsistent with the direction of the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposes to fire-sprinkler all new additions , including the entire office building. With the addition to the middle building they are proposing a two hour fire separation so that the addition can be considered a separate building and not require full fire sprinkling of thi-s middle building. If the addition- can be classified by the Building Official to be a separate building, such consideration can be given. If not, the .entire middle building will require fire sprinklers. 6-11-81 -2- Application No. 81027 continued The drainage plan has been revised to meet the recommendations of the City Engineer regarding the "Interim Considerations" for drainage control submitted by Hickok and Associates . (A copy of the City Engineers May 6, 1981 memo is again attached for Commission review) . The applicant is also complying with the recommendations of the City Engineer regarding drainage control on the westerly side of the site and within the Soo Line right-of-way leased by Howe, Inc. In addition, 8612 curb and gutter will be installed along the west property line of the site, easterly along the south property line of 3129 - 49th Avenue North then continuing easterly curving around the 75' radius; and then due east to the edge of the full 100' buffer area (The applicant has requested the withdrawal of the variance under Application No. 81029. If the Judge's ruling changes the City's ability to enforce the buffer requirement, the plans would be revised to allow storage area 40' into the buffer strip) ; then north to the north buffer line; and then east to the northwest corner of the new north building. The east side of site will have no curb and gutter. The City Engineer does not feel that curb and gutter around driving and parking ' areas will necessarily aid the control of drainage which is ultimately controlled by the dike on the Soo Line property to the southeast of the Howe site. The applicant and the City Engineer have agreed on a catch basin design which will allow drainage from the Howe site flowing into the Ryan Creek storm sewer system to be cutoff in the event of a chemical spill . Landscaping for the site has also been augmented. The existing Spruce trees within the north buffer area will be relocated to the buffer area east of 3129 - 49th Avenue North. A 4' high berm will be located through the middle of the north buffer area to change the slope from 49th Avenue to the 8' opaque fence. New plantings will include: Marshall Ash (4) , Grenspire Linden (2)., Scotch Pine (6) , Jade Glen Norway Maple (2) , Russian Oliver shrubs (8) , Amur Maple Shrub (9) . The plan submitted essentially meets the requirements of Application No. 79069. Staff, therefore, recommend approval of the proposed site and building plan. It should be noted that should .Judge Sedgwick rule in favor of the applicant regarding the 40' variance from the 100' buffer strip requirement, the site plan will be amended to allow the extra 40' of usable space. The following conditions of approval are recommended: 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. All new buildings are to be equipped with an automatic fire ex- tinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City ordinances. 6-11-81 -3- Application No. 81027 continued 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all land- scaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances . 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas on the western portion of the site as indicated on the approved plan. 9. Emergency drainage provisions shall be installed in accordance with the "Interim Considerations" recommended by Hickok and Associates and required by the City Engineer. 10. Plan approval acknowledges and is consistent with the variances granted under Application No. 79069 on December 17, 1979. 11 . The widened .dr.iving lanf all owed .to encroach into the setback area is consistent with the variance granted under Application . No. 79069 on the basis of the revised site plan and layout. 12. No other variances are granted or implied by the approval of this application. 13. An 8' opaque fence shall be installed along the north side of the Soo Line right-of-way to screen outside storage of materials and equipment within the land area leased by Howe, Inc. -from the Soo Line. 4� CL roll- 6-11-84 -4- t • CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B.Dm 'v BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 FROOK LYN TELEPHONE 561-5440 ENr"ER EMERGENCY-POLICE-FIRE 561-5720 TO: Ron Warren, Director of Planning, and Inspections FRCM Sy Knapp, Director of Public vbrks DATE: May 6, 1981 RE: Howe, Inc. - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan. In reviewing the preliminary plat and the proposed site development plans as sukmitted by Howe, Inc. I refer to the memorandum entitled "Proposed Guidelines for Fire- Fighting and Storm Runoff Water Controls at Chemical Storage Sites" dated December 12, 1979, and prepared for the City of Brooklyn Center by Eugene A. Hickok and Asso- ciates, Hydrologists-Enaineers; and to the letter report from the Hickok firm, also dated December 12, 1979, in which specific recommendations are made for application of the guidelines to the Howe, Inc. site. Two exhibits from the Hickok report (Fig- ures 1 and 2) are attached hereto. Primary site drainage (see Figure Isb. 3) is provided by a 54 inch storm sewer which traverses the southeasterly corner of the site. This storm sewer also provides an integral part of the Ryan Lake/Twin Lake watershed drainage system. connecting Ryan Lake to Ryan Creek. It must be noted that when this storm sewer is blocked or closed, there is no outlet for drainage of the Ryan Lake/Twin Lake watershed area. Following the fire at Howe, Inc., which occurred in January, 1979, the MPCA did order this storm sewer bulkheaded in order to prevent discharge of contaminated water into Ryan Creek/Shingle Creek and the Mississippi River. Fortunately, no heavy runoffs oeeured during the period of time during which the storm sewer was bulkheaded. Had a heavy rainfall occured, the City would have had two choices, i.e. : (1) continue to retain the water, resulting in possible flooding of,properties surrounding Ryan lake and Twin Lake; or (2) remove the bulkhead from the storm sewer, allowing the contaminated water to discharge into Ryan Creek/Shingle Creek/and the Mississippi Fiver. The problem with the existing system is that it is very difficult to isolate (or shut- off) site drainage from the Howe site, while keeping the storm sewer functional. The Hickok reports rend that provisions be made which would make it possible to isolate the runoff from the Howe site in the event of another catastrophe, while keep- ing the storm sewer operational for the balance of the Ryan Lake/Twin Lake watershed. • The report contains suggested concepts for a permanent system (i.e., a 990,000 gallon detention pond, with liner, outlet control and provisions for discharge of polluted graters to the sanitary sewer system--see Figure No. 1 attached) an4 for an interim system (i.e., construction of a dike, with provisions for stopping flow into tae storm sewer via the two on-site catch basins--see Figure M. 2 attached) . May 6, 1981 Merro to Ron Warren RE: Howe, Inc. - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan Page 2 At our meeting with Zbm Howe on April 21, 1981, I requested that current improvement plans incorporate provisions for implementation of the "Interim" plan, adding details which would assure the ability to positively prevent on-site drainage from entering the storm sewer in the event of an emergency (i.e. , some relatively minor modifica- tions to the catch basins and manholes on-site) . My review of the site development plan submitted by Howe, Inc. on April 27, 1981, indicates that this plan does not accomplish the objectives of the interim plan in that it does not provide adequate retention area, and makes no provisions for positive isolation of the on-site drainage from the storm sewer. I recommend: (1) that one condition for approval of the preliminary plat should be the incorpora- tion of a conceptual plan to incorporate on-site retention of .contaminated storm water--as proposed by Hickok's Interim Plan; and (2) that one condition of site development plan approval should be the development of a detailed plan meeting the City Engineer's approval. • Sy �aPP Director of Public Vbrks CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER cb •Attachements: Figures 1 and 2 - frcm Hickok Report Figure 3 - Existing Drainage Facilities Sketch (by City) • -- — _ -- I ST A v E M HAPPY HOLLO/W �1 r, PARK z T M -.Ay Z AVE N. Y.� Z o = O c x x m t. N � • AA TN It 3 > � � �` 49 TH AVE N. APPLICATION NOS. 81027, 81028, 81C � J V w,C J .Y LAK t ' U W > i > � ` x C 46T AVE q � u r � z 0 o r s > z c o u t o x —' AL BRAUN W i ' °A 1'4 .a•.:.-.. ,• ,� . +.a.+ar t �r.� `r.7✓N,.t !_:.�r� 1' �,� �tL <•-��' I ` '< �t 71 is ��� tjr •:aas>..et I� -_� '- '• t try ' �:��e: t {3♦L` ,'`•W+.avnr.a.an %//.// A, \ <<•b� --9=.` _ \ l Y•1 b a•s 1�� -••..:"`°�.. �:/ 1 - �U�� .. >ii�;vq� !J �;�,__'`�. �T� I� I ": J a t, 14 IIIJ s' I ��`\� v IG.�rt ,4 ia•i. 'F .� l •� J - �` 7 l� tits `S• .. `1� i j f�;s 114 all r Sad �: f� - _ - .. ///.//`>L `_ `/�.� �'rr r _ i•ry`�..,,, ry /s • �` A tea. '�� "�'•' �� :-r-'"''-�>4� `—_ F'�.__---.•--_...- _ ----- � .... a<t♦a tat::. VTe ,.rr..,as.. S ��+. ,..a.ea ., Lea+4,641b i:r-•C. t T , i • I