Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 06-11 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JUNE 11, 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO O RDE R The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman William Hawes, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis and Mary Simmons. Also present were Director of Planning and Insp- ections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube, and Plan- ning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Hawes noted that Commissioners Manson, Lucht and Ainas had all called prior to the meeting to say they would be unable to attend. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 21, 1981 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the May 21, 1981 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki and Theis. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Simmons as she was not at that meeting. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81034 (LaVonne Malikowski) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a .home occupation special use permit to teach ceramics classes in the basement of the residence at 5509 Logan Avenue North. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81034 attached) . The Secretary added that the staff became aware of the home occupation earlier in the spring as a result of complaints from area residents regarding cars being parked on 55th Avenue North. He - also noted that he had received a letter from James Murschel, 5501 Logan Avenue North, stating he had no objection to the continuation of the ceramics class. Commissioner Simmons observed that the home occupation in question is well beyond the limits of the ordinance regarding the number of students in each class (twenty as opposed to four allowed by the ordinance) . She also noted that the classes are held every night of the week during two ten-week periods. Clearly, she said, this is a business and not a hobby. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the nature of the complaint re- garding the operation had to do with the parking of cars on the street. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Simmons referred to the visit by the Police Chief five Years before and asked why nothing was reported about the home occupation at that time. The Secretary answered that the former Police Chief apparently was not aware of the City' s Home Occupation Ordinance or perhaps thought it was'an approved home occupation and had simply given advice regarding the parking of vehicles. Commissioner Theis asked what the age group is of the clients. The Secretary answered that it probably consisted of all ages. 6-11-81 -1- PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mrs. Malikowski addressed the Commission and stated that she had close to fifty names of people who say they do not mind the home occupa- tion. She did add that two close neighbors felt they could not sign the petition. She briefly discussed the nature of the home occupation and the equipment, and commented on the satisfaction . that people get from turning raw material i4ato' a finished product. Commissioner Simmons pointed to the letter of application which talked about 19 to 20 persons per night attending these classes. She asked whether this meant that Mrs. Malikowski actually had 100 people a week attending her classes. Mrs. Malikowski answered in the affirmative, saying that she liked to help people who get much satisfaction out of ceramics. She stated that she would keep the cars on her own driveway as much as she possibly could. Commissioner Simmons asked Mrs . Malikowski whether she had ever looked for any other space to carry on her classes. _ Mrs. Malikowski answered that she could not make it financially if she had to move the operation to a commercial space. Commissioner Simmons suggested other non- business locations, such as the Community Center. Mrs . Malikowski answered that the operation takes a lot of energy and causes a mess that would probably not be tolerated at some other location. Commissioner Theis asked Mrs . Malikowski how much equipment she possessed for the ceramics operation. Mrs. Malikowski stated that she had two kilns, at a cost of $500 .00 each, and other materials and equipment that added up to about $900.00 per year of overhead. Commissioner Simmons explained that there was no question that the business was legitimate, but whether it should be conducted in a home. Chairman Hawes asked why the second session starts on February 1. Mrs. Malikowski explained that people do not have money for lessons immediately after Christmas and that it is also too cold in January. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the Building Official had in- spected the premises. ' Mrs. Malikowski answered that he had not, that she does not have exit signs from her basement, but does have a fire extinguisher. Chairman Hawes explained that the City's Zoning Ordinance allows for classes of not more than four nonresident students. He . stated that other people have sought the right to have classes for over four people, but have been denied. He stated that he did not see that the Planning Commission had any -choice but to limit the pro- posed operation to four students per class even though this would create difficulties for Mrs . Malikowski. Mrs. Malikowski asked why child care can have five children. -Commissioner Simmons pointed out that children don't drive and park at the residence all day. The Chairman added that the number of children in a child care operation has been set by State Law, not by City Ordinance. Commissioner Simmons stated that she still felt that other options are available to Mrs. Malikowski as a way of keeping her class size at 20 persons. Mrs. Malikowski explained that she had back problems and could not lift the equipment to move it to another location. Chairman Hawes stated that the City must draw a line someplace on the number of students attending a class and home occupation. He explained that the number is now set at four and, unless the ordi.- nance is changed to allow more students, the Planning Commission has little choice, but to enforce the ordinance in this case. 6-11-81 -2- Mrs. Cincotta, of. 5344 Newton Avenue North,- stated that the older people who attend Mrs. Malikowski's classes feel very bad about limiting the operation to four students per class . She stated that the senior citizens do not want smudge marks on their ceramics works which is what would happen if they had to be stored at a public place. Mrs. Shirley Hermes of 6233 Maryland Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, stated that the therapy from ceramics is unreal. She praised Mrs. Malikowski .as an excellent teacher and added that she had always made the students aware of the parking problem. She stated that the students would even be willing to car pool to a maximum extent, if necessary, to allow the 20 students to continue to attend Mrs . Malikowski's classes. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Seeing that there were no other comments forthcoming, Chairman Hawes called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public- hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Simmons explained to Mrs. Malikowski that while her neighbors may not mind the operation, there are other people in the community who complain about even the legitimate home occupa- tions that meet the ordinance limitations . She stated that to approve an arrangement involving 20 students per night, five nights a week, would seta precedent for the rest of the City that would be dangerous in most of the cases and would lead to a great number of complaints. Shirley Hermes of 6233 Maryland Avenue North asked the Commission whether the City Council would ever consider an ordinance change to allow more students. There was no immediate reaction from the Com- mission. Commissioner Simmons recommended to Mrs . Malikowski that she start looking for another location. Chairman Hawes suggested that the Secretary help her find another place. Mrs. Malikowski said that if she is limited to only four students per class, she would have to start selling her ceramics items in order to pay for her equipment. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81034 (LaVonne Malikowski) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 81034 . While the motion was on the floor, there was a discussion regarding the hours of operation with the applicant. Finally, it was agreed that the recommended hours would be from 3:00 p.m. to 10 :00' p.m. Monday through Friday. The recommended approval is subject to the fol- lowing 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 6-11-81 _ -3- Ordinance. 4. All parking will be off-street on space .provided by the applicant to the maximum extent feasible. S. The hours of operation shall be 3:00 p.m. to 10 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 6. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Building Official prior to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against none The motion passed. The Planning Commission discussed among themselves whether to send a recommendation on to the City Council regarding whether an ordi- nance amendment should be pursued. Commissioner Simmons suggested that possibly the ordinance could allow six nonresident students as long as the parking is on private property. Chairman Hawes asked whether the limit of four students is because of. parking. The Secretary stated that was his opinion. Commissioner Theis stated that the main guiding principle in evaluating home occupations is that they are secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises. He stated that the proposed home occupation with 19 or 20 students per night, five nights per week, simply is more than the ordinance comprehends as a home occupation, Commissioner Simmons added, however, that she felt hours of operation could have a greater impact on the surrounding neighborhood than the number of students if the parking stays on private property. Chairman Hawes asked the staff to look into the possibility- of an ordinance re- vision on home occupations and report to the Planning Commission. APPLICATION NO. 81036 (Jacqueline Bateman) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35-310, Subsection 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 261 , at 5130 Ewing Avenue North. .He reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Com- mission Information Sheet for Application No. 81036 attached) . There was a question by Commissioner Malecki as to whether the existing garage would be removed before the new garage would be built. The Planning Assistant answered in the affirmative. Com- missioner Simmons asked whether the application was to have a three-car garage or one which was 624 sq. ft. in area. The Secre- tary answered that it would be 624 sq. ft. The main- thing, he said, is that the garage be 100% of the dwelling area rather than the 75% as presently limited by the ordinance. Commissioner Simmons stated that some of the comments in the staff report and in the applicant's letter seem contradictory. She noted that the idea presented is that smaller houses will be more energy efficient and yet the applicant seeks a larger garage to house more cars which use more gasoline. She stated that this seemed confusing. The Secretary stated that the Building Official has had many inquiries for garages larger than the Zoning Ordinance permits at present. He stated the opinion that the guiding principle of the Zoning Ordinance is to keep the residence the principal structure on any .lot. He also added that provisions of the building code regarding residential 6-11-81 4 occupancy and the size of a free floating slab both limit the size of garages to 1,000 sq. ft. The Secretary suggested that perhaps the ordinance requiring 880 sq. ft. of dwelling before more than one accessory structure can be built is inappropriate and should be modified. He further suggested possibly allowing garages up to 100% of the ground coverage of any dwelling which is not over 1,000 sq. ft. , or two accessory structures, the combination of which .is not greater than the ground coverage of the dwelling. Chairman' Hawes asked whether temporary accessory buildings are included in the square footage limit. The Secretary responded that temporary storage sheds under 150 sq. ft. are not. Commissioner Simmons noted that metal sheds could therefore ameliorate the sit- uation for Mrs. Bateman. The Secretary acknowledged this, but suggested that if the Commission is in favor of an ordinance amend- ment, it should 'table the application until an acceptable ordinance amendment can be prepared. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to speak Mrs. Jacqueline Bateman addressed the Planning' Commission. She stated that her understanding of the Zoning Ordinance was to protect property values. ' She interpreted this to mean that the City does not want to see a small house on a lot with a pole barn for an accessory structure. She explained that two people living in a small dwelling do not wish to expand their dwelling and bring on added expense just to be granted the right for a larger garage. She stated that the primary need is for more storage space for the family vehicles. She stated that she did not agree with the method proposed by the Secretary to change the ordinance. Finally, she made the argument that by housing her vehicles inside the garage, she would improve the appearance of the neighborhood. Commissioner Simmons explained to Mrs. Bateman that the Secretary is actually arguing in her favor and that it is a preferable pro- cedure to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for larger garages than to grant variances. Commissioner Theis stated that his con- cern would be accessory buildings that are actually larger than the dwelling on the lot. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing. There was no comment from other residents in the area. Chairman Hawes explained to Mrs. Bateman that with respect to her situation under the existing ordinance, a garage is allowed ofily 75% of the ground coverage of the dwelling. For her to have the size garage she applied for, either a variance or an ordinance amendment would have to be passed. He stated that* the Planning Commission and the staff both prefer a change in the ordinance over a variance. He suggested tabling the application to allow for an ordinance amendment to be drafted allowing for accessory structures 100% of the ground coverage of a house less than 1,000 square feet. The Secretary also stated that there are basically those two options open to the Planning Commission, the variance or the ordinance change. He acknowledged that the timing of an ordinance change would take longer than a variance. Mrs. Bateman complained to the Secretary that he seemed to be stuck on the letter of the law and not the spirit. The Secretary answered that it is not up to the staff to enforce what, in their opinion, 6-11-81 -5- is the "spirit" of the law, but rather the ordinance the way it is written. He added that in this situation the ordinance states that the applicant is entitled to one accessory structure no more than 75% of the ground coverage of the principal building. He pointed out that it is his opinion that the standards for variances are not met particularly with respect to uniqueness of this situation. He acknowledged that the ordinance might in some respects work hardships on small houses , but that the proper way to address these problems would be through an ordinance amendment which would-effect all situations in a like manner. Mrs. Bateman stated that she t4ought requiring a larger house to get a larger garage is wrong. She added that a big house is a waste of energy and is, therefore unpatriotic. She also stated that a garage is a better storage area, from an economic standpoint, than area within the dwelling. Commissioners Theis and Simmons expressed some agreement with these remarks, but added that an ordinance amendment is preferable to granting a variance. The Planning Assistant explained to the Batemans that the process of changing the ordinance is not so lengthy that the garage could not be built by this fall and that they should, therefore, not feel that there would be an unreason- able delay. Commissioner Malecki suggested that the Planning Commission simply deny the variance application and send it on to the City Council so that the applicant could gain a quick hearing of her variance request. The Secretary explained that a variance application is a traditional vehicle in bringing ordinance amendments before the Council so that the entire issue can be reviewed. Commissioner Theis agreed with this approach, noting that the -City Council would only have to consider the matter once if the variance accompanied an ordinance amendment. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING TABLING OF APPLICATION NO. 81036 (Jacqueline Bateman) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Simmons to table Application No. 81036 and to direct staff to bring new ordi nance language at its June 25 , 1981 meeting. Voting in favor: ' Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Theis and Simmons . . Voting against: none. The motion passed, APPLICATION NO. 81037 (Duane Enninga) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request by the resident at 5435 Emerson Avenue North for a variance from Section 35-530 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a new dwelling with an existing "alley house" remaining on the property during construction. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for_ Application No. 81037 attached) . Commissioner Theis asked whether the applicant is living- in -the alley house at . present. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Simmons asked whether he would be building the house himself and whether he was a carpenter by trade. The Secretary answered in the affirmative on both questions. 6-11-81 -6- The Secretary stated that he considered the applicant to have more of an ordinance-related hardship since the other standards for variance seem to be met. He suggested that a temporary variance would be consistent with what was used in the case of the Sign Ordinance regarding Federal Lumber and President Homes . He stated that the ordinance was very strong in its prohibition against living in a garage, but that this is a dwelling which would be torn down when the new house is built. Chairman Hawes distinguished between living in a structure which is already built during construction of a new home, as opposed to building a structure to live in while constructing the new house. He suggested that a condition of the variance be that the alley house be demolished within 30 days of occupancy of the new house or within one .year, whichever comes first. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant and asked him whether the one year- deadline is acceptable to him, or the 30 day limit after occu- pancy. Mr. Enninga responded in the affirmative. The Secretary asked Mr. Enninga whether he would be prepared to post a bond for the demolition of the existing alley house. Mr. Enninga responded that an escrow would be difficult to arrange. He added that he has already demolished one alley house that existed on the northern side . of the lot in order to build the existing garage. Chairman Hawes explained to Mr. Enninga that his word was not necessarily doubted, but there is a need for concrete assurances in the form of a bond or an escrow. There followed a brief discussion regarding the nature and procedures of obtaining and submitting performance guarantees. The Secretary explained that the guarantee would be part of a regular performance agreement which is entered into by developers . Com- missioner Malecki pointed out that the amount of the escrow, $3,000 .00 , would equal the rent for ten months on an apartment. Mr. Enninga stated that he could probably borrow the $3,000 .00 to put up as an escrow if necessary. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81037 (Duane Enninga) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by. Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 81037 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met, and that the granting of the variance will expedite the elimination of a substandard and non- conforming dwelling. The granting of the variance is subject to the following conditions : 1. A financial guarantee consisting of either a $3,000 .00 cash escrow or a $10 ,000 .00 bond shall be submitted in conjunction with a standard performance agreement to ensure demolition of the existing "alley house." 2.- The existing alley house shall be removed within one year of the granting of the building permit, or 30 days following the issuance of an occupancy permit for the new house, whichever comes first. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioner Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 6-11-81 -7- RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:43 p.m. and resumed at 10 :11 p.m. APPLICATION NOS. 81039 and 81040 (DeVries Builders, Inc.)- Following the recess, the Secretary introduced Applicati ns 81039 and 81040, site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for Phases 1 and 2 combined of the Earle Brown Farm Estates. He re- viewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 81039 and 81040 attached) . Chairman Hawes asked at what time the new Freeway Boulevard would be installed that would provide access to the townhouse development. The Assistant City Engineer answered that the public hearing on the new construction would be held in early July. Commissioner Simmons noted that the property lines for each in- dividual unit would not extend to the internal roadway and inquired about cars parking in front of the individual units, whether they would be on private driveways or Association-owned property. The Planning Assistant clarified that the City Engineer had expressed no preference between running the property lines along the end of the private driveways or closer to the townhouse units as long as they were a uniform distance from each dwelling unit. He added that the maintenance of the individual driveways would become an Association concern if the property line is drawn close to each individual unit. Mr. John DeVries, the builder of the 100 unit townhouse development explained that FHA wants the Association to own as much of the drive- ways as possible so as to make maintenance of those driveways subject to a uniform standard. He added that he has decided to alter the property line so that they are a uniform distance from the townhouse units. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. DeVries went on to explain that he has no opposition to a change in the land- scaping since he pays roughly the same thing for each planting, but he added that decorative trees do give more of a variety of color and must be used in the area directly under the power. line. He also stated that he agrees entirely with the request for more guest park- ing stalls and would work out their location with staff in the future. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded' by Commissioner Simmons to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81040 (DeVries Builders, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 81040, preliminary plat approval for Phases l and 2 of the Earle Brown Farm Estates, subject to 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. 6-11-81 -8- 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. 4. The preliminary plat shall be revised so that each townhouse lot meets with the approval of the City Engineer. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81039 (DeVries Builders, Inc. ) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Ma ecki to recommend approval of Application No. 81039 , site and building plan approval for Phase 2 and amended approval of Phase 1 of the Earle Brown Farm Estates townhouse development, 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 re- view and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits . 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure com- pletion of approved site improvements for phases one and two prior to the issuance of building permits. _ 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. S. 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 6-11-81 -9- 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 revised 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. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81035 (Summit Mortgage Corporation) The Secretary introduced a request by Summit Mortgage Corporation for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide the land north of Summit Drive from west of Highway 100 and south and east of the proposed extension of Earle Brown Drive into 10 parcels . The Secre- tary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Com- mission Information Sheet for Application No. 81035 attached) . Following presentation of the staff report, the Assistant City Engineer added that the City has taken bids on Earle Brown Drive. He stated that the easement of 60 feet in width, close to the intersection of Earle Brown Drive and Summit Drive, would be in- adequate for a sidewalk and a right turn lane. He stated that there would be a need of approximately 250 to 300 feet along the north side of Earle Brown Drive where the easement is 40 feet from the center of, the roadway, rather than 30 feet. The Planning Assistant also pointed out that the various information required by Condition No. 3, have been accomplished already with the plat submitted just that day. APPLICATION NO. 81041 (Summit Mortgage Corporation) The Secretary then introduced a companion application to No. 81035, a request for site and building plan approval to move a number of structures on the Earle Brown Farm complex to a more compact area. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Com- mission Information Sheet for Application No. 81041 attached) . airman Hawes called on Dennis Gimmestad of the Minnesota Histor- ical Society to present the position of the Historical Society regarding the Earle Brown Farm. Mr. Gimmestad referred to a letter that he had sent to the Brooklyn Center City staff a few days pre- viously regarding the Farm's status and the way to preserve the Farm structures. He stated that the Historical Society preferred to preserve the site as it was historically, rather than moving a number of buildings into a space which would become cluttered and untrue to the history of the Farm. He suggested that the moving of the buildings be looked at on a case-by-case basis . He stated that the restoration of the Farm within a commercial area would make preservation more difficult, but also more interesting as .a unique resource within a commercial district. Commissioner Simmons asked Mr. Gimmestad to clarify whether he meant that moving buildings might not be good, but actually could be detrimental to the historic site. Mr. Gimmestad responded in the affirmative, saying that certain buildings could be moved if they are carefully placed so as not to disrupt the historic site 6-11-81 -10- that existed on the Farm years ago. Commis-sioner Theis stated that this sounded to him like the Farm site should be kept pure, but the City should take what it could get. Commissioner Theis acknowledged that all involved would have to live with the economics of the situation even though that will not necessarily result in the best preservation. He asked Mr. Gimmestad whether the Historical Society has an alternative proposal for moving some buildings. Mr. Gimmestad responded that he could not elaborate on such a pro- posal immediately, but commented that some minor buildings on the Farm could probably be sacrificed. Commissioner Simmons stated that she saw three alternatives . 1. Don't do anything. 2. Sacrifice some buildings to save others . 3. Bring everything into a compact site at the risk of creating clutter. She stated that she considered Alternative No. 2 to be the most realistic and that this seemed to be what the Historical Society is recommending. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes regarding Fort Snelling, Mr. Gimmestad explained that State and Federal funding has been used in the past to restore that site, but that no Federal funds would be available for the next couple of years . He stated that an entrance fee can be used to offset operating costs . Chairman Hawes noted that Bradley Electric Car Corporation had indicated that they would like to move into the Hippodrome and he asked what the next step would be in the restoration of the Farm. Mr. Gimmestad suggested that he sit down with members of the City staff and the owner of the property and develop a new alternative. Chairman Hawes stated that he felt strongly about preservation of the Farm and added that he considered that it would be a mistake to destroy the Farm at this time. Mr. Gimmestad commented that adaptive uses, other than agri- cultural, certainly could be acceptable occupants of the Farm build- ings, but that these uses must respect the continued preservation of the buildings and their aesthetic features. Mr. Gimmestad also mentioned historical commissions as a means of preserving the build- ings over time. Chairman Hawes called on Roger Newstrum, representing B.C.I.P . Mr. Newstrum stated that he had nothing much to add, that he would have to react to what the community wishes regarding the Farm site. The Secretary called on Mr. Newstrum to react to the comments of Mr. Gimmestad. Mr. Newstrum stated that he had sent a revised drawing to the Planning staff that had taken some of Mr. Gimmestad' s suggestions into account. He noted that there were fewer buildings moved into the central site of the Farm. Commissioner Theis asked for a timetable as to when the barn pre- sently in the path of the proposed Earle Brown Drive would be moved. The Assistant City Engineer stated that it would have to be moved by late June or early July. The Secretary added that permits to move the structure have been issued. Mr. Newstrum acknowledged this and pointed -out that the barn would not be placed on a new foundation until a site plan for the Farm was approved. He warned, however, that if a plan is not agreed to before winter time, it will be im- possible to move any buildings then. Mr. Newstrum also noted that Mr. Gimmestad's letter mentions a historic district defined by the State Historical Society. He said that the reason the parcel boundary 6-11-81 -11- lines on the proposed R.L.S. do not conform with the State District is because those parcels are based on building areas to land areas for future development. He asked the Planning Commission to consider a compromise to leave the two barns on the northerly parcel so long as they do not interfere with new development. Commissioner Simmons stated that the revised plan .still seems to bring in a number of buildings to the original homestead on the Farm. Mr. Gimmestad commented that moving Barn No. 4 into the immediate farmstead• area would destroy the historicity of the Farm site the most, but that smaller buildings would have less impact. Mary Jane Gustafson, of the Brooklyn Historical Society brought up the idea of running Earle Brown Drive through Barn No. 4, which would give the barn some ambience. There was a discussion among the Planning Commission for the best location for Barn No. 4 . Mary Jane Gustafson asked what uses would likely go into the Farm. Mr. Newstrum answered that an industrial use was scheduled to go into the horse barn and hippodrome and that some of the smaller buildings might be used for property management offices for B.C.I.P. Mary Jane stated that some of the buildings looked quite bad after years of neglect, but that work is finally being done to improve them. Commissioner Theis stated that he wanted to see a counter proposal from the Historical Society which recognized the constraints out- lined in the staff report and set down by the policies of the Historical Society. Mary Jane suggested that a historical district and a historic preservation commission could be created to implement the preservation of the Farm. Commissioner Simmons stated her opinion that Barn No. 4 does not appear as important to preserve as the barn immediately north of the horse barn and hippodrome. In discussing the borders of a historic district, Mr. Gimmestad stated that although the current state district boundary lines do not include the Summit State Bank, the bank should be included in any new district drawn to preserve the Farm. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81035 (Summit Mortgage Corporation) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded y Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. '81035 , subject to at least the following conditions : 1. The final R.L.S. is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 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 revised prior to consideration by the City Council to include a revised easement for turning lane and sidewalk along the north side of Earle Brown Drive for approximately 300 ft. north of Summit Drive in accordance with the recommendation of the City Engineer. 6-11-81 -12- Voting in favor: . Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. As to direction to staff regarding Application No. 81041, the Secretary stated that staff had not had enough opportunity to re- view the comments of the Historical Society prior to the evening's meeting. He asked for direction regarding zoning concerns , land- scaping, and whether a full site plan should be required for the buildings which are to be moved or only for those buildings which Mill have a new use to occupy them in the foreseeable future. Commissioner Theis stated that he would be willing to consider a special historical district as long as the concerns of health and safety are not watered down. Chairman Hawes asked whether a special historical district would have to follow the property lines laid out in the proposed R.L.S . The Secretary answered that that would not be necessary. Commissioner Theis suggested that if the his- torical district regulations point out precisely what can't be done with buildings within the district, the zoning ordinance may not be necessary to enforce within that district. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 81041 (Summit Mortgage Corporation) Motion by Commissioner T is seconded by Commissioner Simmons to table Application No. 81041, a site plan for the Earle Brown Farm, with direction to staff to work with the owner of the property, or his representatives, and the Historical Society, to come up with an alternative site plan and appropriate regulations . Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81042 (Lynbrook Bowl) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a 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. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report. (See Planning Commission In- formation Sheet for Application No. 81042 attached) . Commissioner Theis asked why an outlot was being created with the plat rather than a Block 2 . The Secretary explained that an outlot is unbuildable by definition until combined with another standard parcel and since the area -should only be used for parking associated with the Spanjers property, the outlot designation was most appropriate. PUBLIC HEARING C airman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He called on Steve Nelson of Lynbrook Bowl to speak to the application. Mr. Nelson explained to the Planning Commission that Outlot A of the plat will be purchased very soon and will be combined with the Spanjers property to resolve the parking questions surrounding the use entering the Spanjers building. He pointed to condition No. 4 , of the staff report regarding a copy of the option agreement and stated that it would be unnecessary for the City to keep a copy of that agreement on file since the purchase would take place at the time of the final plat. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed. 6-11-81 -13- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81042 (Lynbrook Bowl/Steve Nelson) Motion by Commissioner Maleck.i seconded y Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 81042, subject to the fol- lowing 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 parking agreement 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 consideration to include the City property at 65th Avenue North and North Lilac Drive. 6 . The plat shall be amended to provide land areas for each respective parcel prior to final plat approval. - Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis_ and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81027 (Howe, Inc.) The Secretary announced to the Planning Commission 'that Application No. 81029 for a variance from Section 413 of the zoning Ordinance, was being withdrawn by the applicant since the matter was essentially subject to the decision of Judge Sedgwick. He then introduced Ap- plication No. 81027, a request for site and building plan approval for demolition of some industrial space and rebuilding of new indus- trial storage space and 1,530 sq. ft. of office space at 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81027 attached) . The Secretary corrected a few misstatements in the staff report noting that the plan as revised does not show 40 ft. of buffer area eliminated from the buffer to the east of 3129-49th Avenue North. The Secretary also pointed out that the approval of some variances under Application No. 79069 permitted a 24' driving lane along the north side of the middle building. He stated that the widened driving area north of the middle building was to allow for a better turning radius for a truck making the turn around the northwest corner of the middle building. He stated that this was essentially consistent with the approval of,Application No. 79069 . Commissioner Theis asked whether the fence would be extended along the north side of the Soo Line right-of-way for two residential lots. The Secretary answered in the affirmative, explaining that all materials and equipment stored outside in the I-2 zone should be screened from abutting residential property. 6-11-81 -14- Mr. Tom Howe, representing Howe, Inc. , reviewed with the Planning Commission the location of various catch basins on the site and a transparency of the design of the catch basin and 5 ' manhole to be installed within the Soo Line property near the dike. He ex- plained that the valve within the manhole would allow someone to shut off water traveling into the Ryan Creek storm sewer system in the case of an emergency. Chairman Hawes inquired as to the construction of the northerly building. .'Mr. Tom Howe answered that it would be a metal building for storage of equipment and warehouse purposes . He briefly re- viewed the interior of the addition to the middle building with the drainage controls to contain any chemical spill. In answer to another question from Chairman Hawes , Mr. Howe stated that the addition to the middle building would be concrete block. The Secretary interjected that the original plans for the north building showed that it would also be a concrete block building. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes, Mr. Bill Kranz, the builder for Howe Fertilizer, stated that the north building would have to meet energy codes as well as safety codes. In answer to a question from Commissioner Theis regarding the proposed metal building, Mr. Kranz stated that it would be 24' high, but that the landscape plan for the buffer area in front of the building would be attractive and would somewhat shield the building from the residential neighborhood. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He also established ground rules for comments to be restricted to the site plan submitted for approval and not to take into account old grievances or information already a part of the record. Mr. Leo Hanson, of 4912-49th Avenue North, stated that if Howe Fertilizer wanted a variance to rebuild, he was for no more variances . Re- garding the north building, he stated that it would be built out of tin and would look ugly soon. He encouraged the Planning Commission not to decide on the plan until the judge has made her final ruling. He concluded by saying that he does not want the business to spread out as it has continually over the last 35 years . Chairman Hawes commented regarding the requested variance for an extra 40 ' of area out of the buffer strip that no such variance would be allowed unless Judge Sedgwick rules in favor of Howe, Inc. Mr. Hanson complained that Howe Fertilizer keeps expanding and disrupting the neighborhood. Mr. Bob Wirth, of 4901 Zenith Avenue North, questioned what the sound of large semis would be when they entered the metal building and whether this would not contribute to the noise problem at the site. Mr. Kranz stated that people had misunderstood the. nature of the metal building proposed. The Secretary stated that today is the first time he has heard that the north building would be a metal building. He pointed out that the plans which have been submitted to the Planning staff have shown a concrete block construction on both the northerly and the middle building. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the City has not approved a metal building in many years. ' There was lengthy discussions regarding the confusion that had arisen regarding whether a metal building or a concrete block building would be built. 6-11-81 -15- Mr. Larry Butler, .of 3201-49th Avenue North, stated that he did not care to be awakened by trucks coming in and out of the Howe Fertilizer at 3:00 a.m. in the morning. Mr. Kranz pointed out that when Howe Fertilizer had been before the City Council previously, the City Council had asked why Howe Ferti- lizer should build a better building that would continue after the nonconforming use was phased out or moved to another location. The Secretary answered that the suggestion that Howe, Inc. build a cheap building is a dead issue at this point. He stated that the building to be built is likely to last for some length of time whether or not Howe Fertilizer occupies the site and should be aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Bob Wirth asked the applicant whether the office construction would be of wood. Mr. Kranz answered that it would be steel frame with wood construction and a stucco exterior. Commissioner Theis stated that he would much rather see a break off block construction than metal on the north building. Mr. Tom Howe consented to this suggestion and said that Howe Fertilizer can go forward with a concrete block building on the north side of the site as well. Commissioner Theis stated that in- the future, the parcel in question will certainly be used for something, whether or not it is a fertilizer manufacturing operation. He stated that he, therefore, preferred a more permanent structure. Mr. Tom Howe stated that he could agree with that logic, that a concrete building would certainly have a longer life which would be more beneficial to both the company and the City. Chairman Hawes asked whether the office building would be painted. Mr. Kranz answered that it would be painted white to .match the existing treatment of the office building. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public hearing. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81027 (Howe, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 81027, site .and building plan approval for Howe, Inc. at 4821 Xerxes. Avenue North, 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, 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 y 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 ti_i i_szi -16- from view. ' 5. All new buildings are 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. No fire sprinkling system shall be required in the existing middle building so long as it is separated from the proposed addition by an appropriate fire wall so that it can be classified as a separate building as approved by the Building Official. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped 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 driving lane allowed 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. 14. The northerly building shall be concrete block con- struction with an exterior painted an earth tone color. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81029 (Howe, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ma ec i seconded y Commissioner Theis to acknowledge withdrawal of Application No. 81029 , a request by Howe, Inc. for a variance from Section 35-413 of the Zoning Ordinance. 6-11-81 -17- Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary explained to the Planning Commission that Hussman Investment Company had withdrawn its request for a rezoning of some property south of 70th Avenue North in the area of Bryant Avenue extended. He asked for an action by the Commission to acknowledge the withdrawal of Application No. 81019 . ACTION ACKNOWLEDGING WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81019 (Hussman Investment Company) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to acknowledge the withdrawal of Application No. 81019 , a rezoning request by Hussman Investment Company. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis and Simmons . Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 1:39 a.m. Chairman 6-11-81 -18-