Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 07-14 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 JULY 1.4, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and:was called to order. by .Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners .Ilolly Hal ecki , Nary Sinmon's, Uancy Manson Card and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection ' Ronald 11arren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Ai"nas had called to say he would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - _June 30, 1983 Notion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to approve the minutes of the June 30, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht',, Commissioners flalecki , Simmons,' Manson, Sand- •strom and Versteeg. Voting again9t: none. The motion passed: CONTINUATION OF APPLICATION 140. 83029 (lies ' Standard) Chairman Lucht then informed the Planning Commission and those present that Application No. 83029 would not be considered at this evening's meeting, but would be continued to a later date. APPLICATION NO. 83032 (Shawn Taylor) - Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots, the large parcel of land at 5435 Bryant Avenue North. The Secretary re- viewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 33032 attached) . Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there was any proposed building for either of the newly created lots. The Secretary answered that the lots were large enough for duplexes, but that he did not know of any plans for construction. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether she had anything to add. An undent-ified associate of the applicant answered that they had nothing to add. Commissioner Simmons asked about the status of fir. Erickson, for whom the plat is named. Shawn Taylor answered that fir. Erickson .is in a nursing home. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83032) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak to the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Plotion by Commissioner flalecki seconded by Commissioner flanson to close the public .hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECONIEN DING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 803032 Shawn Taylor) Motion by 70rnmissioner flanson- seconded by. Commiss.ioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83032, subject to the following conditions:. 7-14-33 -1- 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is .subject to provisions of Chapter. 15 of the City Ordinances. ' 3. The applicant shall remove driveway segments which encroach into the proposed Lots 1 and 3 and install a new driveway on Lot 2 prior to final plat approval . 4. The existing. 15' x 30' brick shed on the proposed Lot 1 may continue as an accessory structure. However, this building .. may not be used as a dwelling by either the current or future owners. 5. The applicant shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City prior to final plat approval for payment of deferred assessments for water service. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioner "lalecki , Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 33033 AND 83034 (Hilltop Builders, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business , a request for site and building plan approval to construct an apartment building on the north side of Bass Lake Road at a-parcel addressed 5839 Major Avenue North and a request• for a variance from Section- 35-400 and Section 35-700 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow front and rear setbacks and .the front greenstrip to be less than that re- quired by the ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Dios. 83033 and 83034 attached) . The Secretary also noted that the plans have been submitted to the County for their review and' that the County would have to approve any driveway; permit allowing access to the property. He explained that the County would only allow one access to the- property. In reviewing the variance application, the Secretary noted that the property has been zoned R5 at the same time the land for the apartments was zoned R5. and that no commercial development was ever per- mitted on this property. The Assistant City Engineer recommended two additional conditions: one dealing with the requirement for'a County permit for the access and a second requiring an easement over the southerly 7' of the easterly 15' of the property. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant and asked whether he had anything to add. qtr. Harry Gerrish, the architect for the project, stated that the applicant would concur with the staff analysis and that they would comply with the conditions recommended. Commissioner Manson stated that. the landscaped area appeared unusually small to her. She asked Mr. Gerrish how he felt about that. [Jr. Gerrish answered that the number of units on the site fall within the limitations of the Zoning Ordi- nance and that the setback deficiencies ave addressed in the variance request. He stated that he felt the site was. well landscaped and that this would help .make the site more attractive. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the driveway would be a problem getting into and out of the building. Chai.rman Lucht pointed out that tenants would have their own garages. Commissioner Simmons stated. that there was no real room for children to play on the site. She stated that any children living in the. complex would have "to go elsewhere to find a place to play. She acknowledged that there wasn't much that could be done about that. 7-14-83 -2- - PUBLIC HEARIi1G (Application No. 83034 Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the variance application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. t-1s.- Kathy Hoore, an attorney for the owner of the Twin Lake North Apartment complex, stated that she felt the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the Twin Lake North Apartment complex. She stated that the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance for front and rear setbacks make sense and should not be varied from in this case. She pointed out that the applicant -is asking the City to cut the requirements in half. She_ also noted that townhouses could be built on. the property without violating the setback requirements. She stated that the configuration of the parcel is not unique and that the hardship was created by the former owner of the property contrary to Standard (c) of the Standards for a Variance in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Cynthia Gonyer, a representative of the owner of the Twin Lake North Apart- ments, added simply that the land area of the parcel was extremely.small for the size building being proposed. Ms. Kathy Hoore stated that the possibility of a common driveway with the Twin Lake North Apartments was discussed with the applicant. She stated that a site plan was asked for, but- not received. No further negotiations were pursued, she stated. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the apartments are for adults only or for families with children. 11r. Gerrish stated that he had not been instructed by the applicant as to any tenant restrictions. Ms. Kathy Moore argued that granting of the variance would seta great precedent and would erode the City's Zoning Ordinance in other cases. Chairman Lucht answered that the applicant might build a 20' wide complex that would look rather ugly or would also require further variances. Psis. Moore pointed out that the variance could be minimized further. Commissioner Simmons asked whether anyone from the R1 property across Bass Lake Road was present to speak on the application. An undentified person from the audience made a comment regarding the existence of the farmstead prior to re- alignment of County Road 10. Chairman Lucht noted that the realignment of County Road- 10 came after the development of the apartment complex. Per. Gerrish stated that the plan for the apartment building was not considered lightly. He stated that the proposed apartment building seemed to be an economic use of the property and pointed out that the proposed plans were reviewed ex- tensively with the staff. i CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING (Applicati.on No. 83034) Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present had anything to add. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing.- Motion by Commissioner Plalecki seconded by Commissioner Hanson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether anything in the ordinance required a minimum play area available. The Secretary responded in the negative. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern that children have a safe play area. She asked whether the landscaping requirements had any functional intent or-whether they were purely visual in nature. The Secretary stated that the purpose of the landscaping re- quirements was primarily visual . Commissioner.Simmons noted that the parcel is. rather small for the proposed building and observed that the builder apparently wants to get as much density out of the property as possible. She noted that the neighbors do not like the proposed. building. Chairman Lucht asked the Commission to consider- whether the Standards for a Variance were met. Commissioner Sandstrom asked how the units would conform 7-14-33 -3- quality wise to the Twin Lake North Apartments. Chairman Lucht answered that the applicant has stated that they would be complimentary. Commissioner Sandstrom expressed concern regarding the relationship of the proposed .apartment building to the Twin Lake North Apartments. Chairman Lucht asked Commissioner Sandstrom whether he thought the proposed apartment building could be- injurious to the neighborhood. Commissioner Sandstrom responded in the affirmative. Chairman Lucht stated that he thought- that the apartment building could be a benefit to the City as a whole. The Secretary stated that he disagreed that the hardship was basically economic. He pointed out that .the property is unbuildable at its current shape relative to the requirements of the City Ordinance. Commissioner Simmons asked for a clarification that an R5 type use could not be built if the requirements of the ordinance were enforced. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, .noting that the building could not be more than 10' to 20' wide. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that townhouses could be built on the property: The Secretary agreed, but stated that these would also have to be only 10' to 20' wide. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that townhouses would minimize the needed variance. The Secretary briefly reviewed the uses that could be built on the property. Chairman Lucht noted that five townhouses could be built on the property. The Secretary stated that variances would also probably be required to develop the property for townhouses. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether too many units were being proposed. The Secretary responded in the negative, pointing out that no density variance was being sought. Commissioner Simmons stated that it seemed the Planning Commission had granted this type of variance before because it is basically impossible to build on the property without a variance. Commissioner Manson asked how -many similar lots there were in the City. The Planning Assistant answered that he was not aware of any other lots of that particular shape, but noted that there are a number of corner lots which could present.similar problems in meeting setbacks if the maximum density were sought. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the property was offered to the owners of Twin Lake North Apartments and that the owners of Twin Lake North did not care to buy the property at- the price being asked. He stated that he assumed that Turin Lake North would seek to build on the property if they had bought it and would probably seek the same number of units now being sought by the builder. Regarding the question of quality, the Planning Assistant pointed out that the building would contain units of about 1,100 sq. ft. each with direct connection between the residential building and the garages and a 6' wide corridor. He pointed to these aspects as. indications of quality. Commissioner Nalecki asked how the City and the property owner got into this predicament. Commmissioner Simmons noted that the City approved the development. of the apartments and was a party to creating the present situation. She a'l'so noted that the previous owner probably intended to use the property for a small commercial use although it was never zoned for commercial . The Secretary pointed out that there was a similarly shaped shallow parcel on 53rd Avenue North by the Brookdale Ten Apartments. Commissioner Manson asked whether it would be possible to restrict the building to families without children. The Secretary stated that that was .beyond the scope of the* Zoning Ordinance. He . stated that the Standards for a Variance must be addressed. Commissioner Versteeg asked how far away the closest Twin Lake North Apartment building was. The Planning Assistant answered that the Twin Lake North Apartment buildings were closer to each other than they would .be to the proposed building. Chairman Lucht• asked for comments on the variance application. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he did not feel a hardship was proven.. Chairman Lucht 7-14-03 -4- pointed to the fact that the property was basically unbuildable. Commissioner Sandstrom noted that a townhouse development would not require as much of a variance. Chairman Lucht stated .that he felt the Standards for a- Variance are met in this case. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83034 (Hilltop Builders , Inc. ) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 83034 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met. While the motion was on the floor, Commissioner"llanson stated- that she had a problem with Standard (c) regarding the requirement that the hardship not be caused by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the property. Com- missioner Nalecki pointed out that the City was a party to that decision. The Planning Assistant suggested that the Planning Commission consider the historical context of the parcel 's present configuration. He stated that the previous owner of the property allowed development 'of much of his property, while keeping a small area and his own residence intact for him to continue living there. He explained that when the previous owner died, his residence was torn down leaving a small vacant parcel . He likened the situation to that of the Earle Brown Farm where parcels have been created in order to preserve historic structures. Later, the farm buildings may be destroyed and the parcels are no longer appropriate. He stated that his might turn out to be poor planning, but that at the time decisions are made, they appear appropriate. In response to a question from Commissioner Manson regarding County Road 10, the Assistant City, Engineer showed the previous alignment of that road: Chairman Lucht commented; however, that the County Road was realigned prior. to the development of the Twin Lake North Apartments. There was a vote taken on the motion on the floor.. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Lucht then asked for comments regarding the site plan application. Commissioner Manson asked what would be .done with the area where a 12th unit was previously planned. Mr. Harry Gerrish, architect for the project, stated that .the decision had not been made as to what use to make of the space. He stated that the builder could expand one unit to make a luxury unit on the third floor or that a unit on the first floor could be used for a storage or recreation room. He stated that the builder would comply with the limitation of only 11 units. He stated that the likely solution would be to expand a couple of the apartment units into the space that would have been used by the. 12th unit. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83033 (Hilltop Builders, Inc.1 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 83033, subject to 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 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. 7-14-83 -5 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shah be appropriately screened from view. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving. areas: 6. The landscape plan shall be revised to provide for two 6 diameter trees in accordance with Section 35-410 of the Zoning Ordinance prior to consideration by the City Council . 7. Plan approval comprehends an 11- unit apartment building which is consistent with the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 8. Any construction within .the County Road 10 right-of-way shall be completed under a permit issued by 'Hennepin County. 9. The applicant shall enter into an easement agreement with the City for street and utility purposes, said easement to be over the southerly 7' of the easterly 15' of the property. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS fihe Planning Commission recessed at 8:55 p.m. and resumed at 9:13 p.m. APPLICATION NOS. 83035 and .83036 (Paul DesVernine/Iten Leasing) aor`eques for si esaddtbui dingtp �niand°special useepermit approval U remshi the commercial building at 4301-68th Avenue North for use as an auto and truck rental and leasing center and also, a request for a variance from the Sign and Zoning Ordinances to allow .the continuation of a nonconforming sign board more than two years after the previous message has been removed. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 83035 and 83036 attached) . The Secretary also showed the revised plans to the Planning Commission. Chairman Lucht asked if the variance were denied, whether the sign board would be determined not to be a part of the building. 'The Secretary agreed. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether no other signs would be permitted. The Secretary answered that all signs would have to meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance, whether they were wall signs, freestanding signs or roof signs. In answer to a question from Commissioner Simmons, the Secretary explained that the sign board was not an integral part of the building, but that if the parapet along the north wall were extended along the. east and west walls as proposed, that this would be considered an integral part of the building. He stated that in this case, the sign board could extend to 6' above the parapet line. He ex- plained that the entire sign board was considered part of the sign and that even if the lettering were kept below this 6' level , it would still be considered a sign violation. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he was interested in comparing the visibility of the old Servomation building with 'the Iten Chevrolet building. tie asked whether the Servomation building was further away from Brooklyn Boulevard' than the Iten Chevrolet building. The Secretary stated that he was not sure which building was further away, but that he did not think the Servonation building was much further than the Iten. building. Commissioner Versteeg asked for the 'location of the roof sign in quesion. The Secretary pointed- out that it was at the north- east corner of the. building. Commissioner Manson asked whether a sign would be allowed on both sides if a variance were granted. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. There 7-14-33 -6- followed a brief discussion of the existing area of the sign and that permitted by the Sign Ordinance. The Secretary stated that the present area of the sign is about 325 sq. ft. , but that it would fall within 190 sq. ft. limitation if it were not more than 6' above the parapet line. He also explained that part of the sign would be wall sign below the parapet line. In answer to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding the Ryan Olds sign, the Secretary stated that the sign at Ryan Olds has been changed from the original Velie Olds sign. He stated that the variance granted in the early- 1970's was really just for a message change, not for reusing a nonconforming sign two years after it had been discontinued. Commissioner Sandstrom-asked whether the case in question is not also a message change. The 'Secretary pointed out that there is presently no message on the sign board and there has not been one for over four years. Chairman Lucht stated that granting the variance would defeat the nonconforming use provisions of the Zoning and Sign Ordinances. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not feel this was really. a hardship case. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the application met Standard No. 3 of the Sign- Ordinance Standards for a Variance (that there be- no detrimental impact on surrounding property) . Chairman Lucht pointed out that if this variance were granted, everyone .would want a higher than permitted roof sign and that everyone would basically be entitled to one. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt that the breakdown of the Sign Ordinance would be detrimental to property generally throughout the City. Commissioner Sandstrom stated .that he felt the sign board was -part of the building. Commissioner Manson agreed, but stated that a sign board only 6' above the parapet dine would look better than the existing sign. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the parapet line was not the roof line. The Secretary pointed out that it would be considered the roof line if the building- were remodeled in accordance with the proposed site plan. Commissioner Malecki pointed out that to recommend a variance, all of the three standards have to be met. She stated that she felt the first two standards were not me.t at all . Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt a hardship could be shown in this case. The Secretary pointed out that the applicant proposes to take down the existing screen fence which extends from the Iten Chevrolet Service building to an area east of the Servomation building. He pointed out that if this fence were removed, it would allow much greater visibility of the building in question and would allow for the use of a great deal of conforming wall signery. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the applicant had made a trial run to see if a sign 6' above the parapet line is adequate. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Mike Iten, of Iten Chevrolet, explained that all of the property occupied by Iten Chevrolet and the old Servomation building is owned by Iten Automotive Sales and Service, which leases the properties -to Iten Chevrolet and Iten Leasing. Chairman Lucht asked whether all the property is owned by one entity. Mr. Iten again explained that two separate corporations lease property that is owned by one company. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires platting of.mu ltiple parcels - into one parcel if they are occupied by a common use and are under common ownership. He noted that the two parcels were under different uses although the same ownership. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant why he was leaving- in a second driveway to the west of the building. . Mr. Iten explained the background of the Iten involvement with the Servomation building. He explained that the building had been gutted and used for storage about four years ago. He pointed out that Servomation did not want to leave their sign on the building and so it was painted over. He stated that, after much scrutiny, the decision had been made to use the building for a leasing business. Mr. Iten went on to explain other details .of the business 7-14-33 -7- arrangement. He stated that Iten had originally agreed to close the westerly ` access in order to meet the parking requirement. He explained that the business that would be moving in, would not- need all the parking that .is required under the ordinance since most of the building would still be in storage. Mr. Iten went on to say that there was no drainage problem on the site. He felt that curb and gutter were not necessary and stated that confining the water on the site would require the use of storm sewer. He added, however, that he would be willing to put in the curb and gutter if the Rockwell people, (the business to the west) , asked for it. He concluded by saying this part of 68th Avenue North looks bad and that reuse of the building-would benefit property values in the neighborhood. The Assistant City Engineer recommended that the Planning Commission consider re- quiring curb and gutter along the west side of the site for the purpose of deline- ation of a greenstrip area and to control drainage. He stated that uncontrolled drainage would affect the adjacent property with the runoff from the paved area. He also pointed out to the Planning Commission that opportunities to require im- provements in business sites are rare and recommended that the Planning Commission take the opportunity to require the improvements that would be required of a new site. Mr. Iten pointed out that no one in that area has curb and gutter but the Osseo Brooklyn Bus Garage. He stated that if the paved area were bounded by curb and gutter, something would have to be done with the blocked up drainage. He stated that there is no water problem now. He appealed to the Planning Commission on the grounds that he was trying to clean up the area and make it look better. Chairman Lucht stated that he was bothered by the attitude of: if I get what I want, I will clean up. He asked whether there was no other motivation to clean up the site. Mr. Iten stated that he would have to reconsider the project if they did not get the approval they wanted. He -stated that he might lease out the building to a whole different company.- There followed a discussion regarding the use of the westerly side of the property. Mr. Iten explained that it was. being used at present by Iten employees as overflow parking. Chairman Lucht pointed out the need for a parking agreement between the two sites. The Secretary stated that it is important to have as much landscaping as possible on 68th Avenue North, but that the provision of an additional access was not an ordinance violation. Mr. Iten then addressed the matter of the sign variance. He stated that he felt that the existing sign structure should be relettered._ He stated that he did not think there was any detriment to the surrounding area. He explained that the re- lettering of the existing sign board should be allowed to provide the new firm with as much visibility as possible. He stated that it was a hardship if a person could not use his property. He stated that he did. not think there was anything negative. about the requested sign variance except in relation' to the ordinance. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not have qualms ei.th.er, except for those raised by the ordinance. . Mr. Iten pointed out that he had taken his time to make what he felt was the right business decision about the use of the Servomation building. Now, he said, he is being penalized for taking time to make ttie right decision. Commissioner Simmons pointed out in return that Mr. Iten took his time, not as a favor to the City, .but out of business judgment. She stated that the City must take the opportunity to get rid of a nonconforming use. She also stated that other businesses would want the same sort of sign if this variance were granted. Mr. Iten interpreted her comments as being opposed to signs generally. Commissioner Simmons explained that the City does allow many signs which conform to the ordinance. Chairman Lucht stated that the proposed variance would have to meet the Standards .for •a Variance. Mr. .Iten stated that the same sign could have been used when I'ten had bought the building, but not now. He cited cost factors and stated that his 7-14-33 -8- hardship is economic. Chairman Lucht stated that •he did not think the situation was at all unique. Mr. Iten stated that he thought the sign was unique. The Secretary pointed out that many g.as stations have parapets that once were in- tended for signs, but that these have been discontinued since the adoption of the Sign Ordinance. He stressed that imposing the Sign Ordinance does not dis- allow legitimate signs , but that it does require phasing out of nonconforming uses. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83035) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the special use permit for auto truck rental and leasing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the- application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close . the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83036) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the sign variance application. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. - The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Manson asked how far the blacktop went on the west side of the site. Mr. Iten explained that it went all the way to the property line. Mr. Paul DesVernine stated that there was no water problem on the site. Commissioner Sandstrom stated. that if there was no problem, there should be no need for curb and gutter. Chairman Lucht pointed out that curb and gutter is an ordinance re- quirement and that this is one of the opportunities the Planning Commission would have to bring the site up to conformance with current standards.. There followed a discussion on the need for curb and gutter. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that there-was no return on the investment in curb and gutter. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that the lack of curb and gutter could result in a cost to the neighboring property. Chairman Lucht stated that the curb and gutter would make the site look better. He pointed out the normal requirement for a 5' greenstrip along the west property line and stated that curb and gutter would be needed to protect- that greenstrip. Mr. DesVernine asked why the 5' greenstrip was needed along an interior property line. The Secretary explained .that it is the policy of the Planning Commission to require 5' of green area along the interior property line from each abutting use so that a 10' green area is established. Mr. DesVernine asked whether this. was. an ordinance requirement. The Secretary responded in the negative and ex- plained that it is a standard policy. Mr. Iten asked what the purpose of the policy is: The Secretary answered that it is primarily an aesthetic consideration. Chairman Lucht stated the purpose was to do what the applicant has stated he wants to do, -namely make the site look better. Chairman Lucht asked for comments on the sign variance application. Commissioner. Sandstrom asked the applicant if he could live with a reduced roof sign. fir. Iten answered that if that is what is allowed, he could probably live with it, although 'the ideal.would be to have the existing sign board: Mr. Iten stated that' he would prefer to have a roof sign 6' above the parapet line, than to take the sign board down entirely. ACTION RECO14MENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83036 (Paul DesVernine/Iten Leasing) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ma ecki_ to recommend denial of Application No. 33036, on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not 1-14-83 -9- ._ met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners' Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. _ Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECO1IME[jDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 83035 (Paul DesVernine/Iten Leasing) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recomnend' ap- proval of Application No. 83036, subject- to the. following' conditions: 1.. The special use permit is subject to. all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations, and any violation thereof shall grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 5. A site performance agreement..and supporting financial 3 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. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. The building is to be equi,pped- 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. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all .parking and driving areas. The plan shall be modified prior to review by the City Council to indicate curb and gutter along the west side of the site and a 5' greenstrip. 11. The, existing roof sign at the northeast corner of the building shall be removed or reduced to no higher than 6' above the parapet wall line -prior to the issuance of permits. 12. Legal agreements for cross. access, joint parking and drainage across property lines shall be filed at the County covering the Iten Chevrolet property and the Iten Leasing property prior to the issuance of permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83037 (Cramer Company) The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, a request for site and 7-14-33 -10- building plan and special use permit approval to construct an office park de- velopment on the R5 zoned property at the southwest corner of I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed .the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 83037 attached) . The Secretary explained the process for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which required a public hearing by' the Planning Commission and review by the Metro Council prior to adoption by the City Council . Chairman Lucht explained that four Commissioners-would be absent on the July 28 meeting and that that meeting'would have to be rescheduled. Following a brief discussion, it was agreed that the meeting could be held on August 4, 1983. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Larry Cramer of Cramer Company explained to the Planning Commission that he was a building contractor and that he had studied the property for two years to find a suitable use. He noted that the property is zoned R5, but stated that he felt the noise at that inter- section would make a residential use unsound. He explained to the Planning Com- mission that there is a trend in the office market toward office condominiums and that the proposed development would be geared to that market. He noted the re- quirement for a special use permit for office uses in the R5 zone. Mr. Cramer pointed out the low density of the development and stated that the site would be well landscaped. He compared the proposed 21,000 sq. ft. of office space with the possibility of larger areas of either townhouse or apartment living space. He also stated that the traffic. generated by the development would be experienced primarily during the daytime and .that the area would be fairly quiet at night. He showed the Planning Commission a set of slides of the property in question and of a similar office park development in Golden Valley. Mr. Cramer stated that he felt this development was compatible with the- neighborhood and meets a market demand as well . He stated that he had talked with the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding traffic movements on Brooklyn Boulevard and pointed out that the plan is to extend the median in Brooklyn Boulevard south of the existing access to prevent left turns in or left turns out. He also noted that the traffic pattern of the proposed use would not be similar to a factory where masses of people come and go at the same time. He stated that the various office users would come and go at fairly different times, preventing a major traffic problem. Commissioner flalecki asked Mr. Cramer how he would control kids getting to the open holding pond in the middle of the site. Mr. Cramer answered that the pond was not-absolutely necessary, but was proposed as an aesthetic asset to the site. He -stated that if the Planning Commission were opposed to a pond, it could be re- placed with some kind of landscaped area that could be commonly used by the office users. Chairman Lucht added that fencing around the perimeter of the site abut- ting residential- areas could be required. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern about small children wandering into the site in the. evening when no one would be present in the office complex. Mr. Cramer explained that the pond would have a catch basin at a certain height so that the water-would never get very deep in the pond. - He added that the area adjacent to the residences could be fenced. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that a fence is sometimes considered a challenge by young children. The Assistant City Engineer stated that he has asked Minnesota Department of Transportation for drainage calculations of the runoff from Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the applicant has not calculated the drainage flows for the entire site and that this must be done before any judgment can be made as to whether the ponding system will work. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 83037) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. fir. Don Finnvik of 6.101 Beard Avenue North and Ms. Dawn Harre addressed the Planning Commission regarding the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. fir. Finnvik pointed out that people would have to make a right turn out of the project and that even a right turn onto Brooklyn 7-14-83 -11- Boulevard is very difficult in this location. He also stated that when people turn left into the residences south of the proposed office complex, they would experience a problem because of the increased traffic coming out of the office complex. He stated that there were a lot of accidents in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard and asked how emergency vehicles would get to the-property. Ms. Harre stated that people-have tried to buy the property in question in -the past and were not allowed access onto Brooklyn Boulevard. She stated that there was not enough room between the exit ramp from the freeway and the proposed access to the property for people to react. She asked why the developer was not re- quired to acquire homes along the entire-block to provide an access further south on Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary explained that there were legal covenants restricting the use of a number of the lots to the south and disallowing any commercial use. He explained that any commercial use of these properties would have to be approved by everyone i.n- Pearson's Northgate Addition and that there are between 100 and 200 property owners in this subdivision. He stated that the staff have encouraged previous developers to combine property, but explained that the City cannot deny the use of the property if it is of an acceptable size. Mr. Finnvik stressed the access problems to the site. Commissioner Simmons interpreted his statements as saying that a right hand turn onto Brooklyn Boulevard is about as dangerous as a left hand turn in many other locations. There followed a brief discussion of the problems of traffic along Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not think 50 townhouses on the property would be any better from a traffic standpoint than the proposed use. Commissioner Sandstrom agreed and pointed to the low density of the proposed use. Mr. Finnvik asked how to change the covenant on the properties to the south, The Secretary answered that it would have to be lifted by all of the people partici- pating in the covenant. Ms. Harre stated that the traffic coming out of the office complex would disrupt the business .which she runs out of her home at 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, a business machine repair operation. Chairman Lucht asked-whether this was a licensed home occupation. fts. Harre answered in the affirmative. She .stated that the proposed median extension would either cut people off from turning into her property or would encourage people to do U turns in front of her property. Commissioner Simmons stated that this was a problem similar to living on a one-way street and she stated that one-way streets are not all that rare. Mr. Finnvik stated that he did not think the resulting traffic pattern on Brooklyn Boulevard would be fair to the residents in the area. Commissioner Simmons answered that Brooklyn Boulevard has changed a great deal since it was originally built and that traffic has increased many times over the years. She stated that the traffic problems on Brooklyn Boulevard are a fact of life. Commissioner Sandstrom added that the traffic along the Boulevard will force a change in the use of the property along the Boulevard. Mr. Finnvik concluded -by saying that he did not think the . . access onto Brooklyn Boulevard would work. Chairman' Lucht summarized the concerns of fir. Finnvik and f1s. Harre as being: access traffic and vandalism. Mr. Bill Williams, of 4018-65th- Avenue North, stated that the proposed office complex is the nicest proposal that the neighbors have seen in 20 years. He stated that he would like to see a fence adjacent to the residential properties and also expressed concern regarding light pollution.from the parking lot lights. He also expressed concern, regarding access to the site, but did not belabor the -point. The Secretary clarified that the ordinance requires a 15' greenstrip where offices abut single-family residential and that some type of screening device is required, although it is not necessarily fencing. He stated that the choice of the screening device was open to review by the Planning Commission. fir. Williams stated that berming does not keep anything out and expressed concern regarding undesirable characters coming to the office complex at night and perhaps burglarizing surrounding homes. 7-14-83 -12- The Assistant City Engineer explained that the City has asked for comments from the Minnesota Department of Transportation regarding the access question. He stated that he expected the Minnesota Department of Transportation to require improvements that would make the access to the property as safe as possible under the circumstances. Mr. Finnvik suggested the possibility of a right turn out merge lane as well as the right turn in merge lane indicated on the plan. The Assistant City Engineer stated that that option would be looked at. Mrs. Hitch of 66th and Indiana stated that fencing would not keep kids out -of the property. She expressed concern about kids getting down into the property and also expressed concern regarding runoff and -dirt from the parking lot causing pollution generally in the neighborhood. She also expressed concern regarding the possibility of gaining access to the site from Indiana Avenue North at the northwest corner of the site. . Chairman Lucht assured those present that the Planning Commission would not allow access off Indiana Avenue North. The Secretary asked the applicant whether he intended to meet with the people who dived in the area. Mr. Cramer stated that he would be happy to meet with the residents, that he had intended to meet prior to the Planning Commission meeting, but it became impossible to reach everyone before the meeting. ACTION RECOMMENDING CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 83037) ' Motion by Commissioner Nalecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to continue the public hearing regarding Application No. 83037 until the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissiopers Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83037 (Cramer Company) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Application No. 83037 until the August 4, 1983 Planning Commission meeting at which time .a hearing will be held on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary referred the Commission's attention to a Draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a Draft Ordinance Amendment which related to the application pre- viously considered. He asked them to review these drafts prior to the August 4, 1933 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. T nning Commission adjourned at 12:02 a:m. hair 7-14-83 -13- i 1