Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 06-14 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 JUNE 14, 1984 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 Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 24, 1984 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the May 24, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom and Nelson. Not voting: Commissioners Simmons and Ainas because they were not at that meeting. The motion passed. Commissioner Manson arrived at approximately 7:40 p.m. APPLICATION NOS. 84015 AND 84016 (Byerly's, Inc.)_ Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a Byerly's store and attached shopping center at the southeast corner of Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway and a request for preliminary R.L.S. approval to subdivide into two tracts, the land on which this development would be built. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 84015 and 84016 attached) . Commissioner Simmons inquired regarding the traffic report mentioned in the conditions of approval. The Secretary stated that the staff had just received a copy of that report and would have to analyze it to see if signals were needed at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioner Simmons asked whether signals would indeed be needed. The City Engineer answered that staff could not say one way or the other at this time. He explained that the traffic study submitted only addresses traffic generated by the proposed Byerly's and shopping center uses. He stated that traffic generated by all of the other uses existing and Proposed in the area of the Industrial Park south of the freeway would have to be considered in determining whether traffic signals were warranted at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioner Simmons asked why the report was necessary if it did not determine the need for traffic signals. The Secretary responded that the report does provide part of the information that is needed. The City Engineer added that physical counts of existing traffic have been taken. He stated that the information in the study, along with the existing counts, could provide enough information to warrant putting in signals while the development is underway rather than waiting for the development to function for a period of time; or fail to function in the absence of signals. He also explained that the traffic counts were necessary in order to justify signals on a Minnesota State Aid Street (Shingle Creek Parkway) . 6-14-84 -1- Commissioner Sandstrom inquired regarding the need for security lighting. The Secretary responded that he assumed that there would be such lighting on the back of the building although it was not shown on the plans at this time. He suggested that Commissioner Sandstrom question the applicant on this matter. The City Engineer recommended an additional condition regarding any dewatering of the site, that it be done in accordance with State and local codes. The Secretary added that a condition acknowledging proof-of-parking should also be attached to the approval. The Planning Assistant also pointed out that the restaurant within the Byerly's building would apparently be over 10% of the floor area of the Byerly's building. He pointed out that this exceeded the level which is allowed in retail areas without providing additional parking based on the restaurant formula. Noting the excess parking contained in the proof-of-parking, however, he stated he did not think there would be a problem meeting parking requirements. Chairman Lucht then called on' a representative of the applicant to speak. In response to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding security lighting, Mr. Rice stated that such lighting would be provided and would be shown on the final drawings submitted for building permits. The City Engineer then inquired as to the meaning of the proposed driveway easement on the LaBelleI s property shown on the preliminary R. L. S. Mr. Rice stated that he did not know why the easement was shown in that location. The Secretary suggested that it might be related to the previous R. L. S. which proposed such a driveway easement for the Byerly's access off John Martin Drive. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84016) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing 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 Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84015 (Byerly's, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 84015, 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 mount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4.' Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6-14-84 -2- 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 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. 9. The R. L. S. for this property shall be given final approval by the City Council and filed at the County prior to the issuance of building permits. 10. The plans shall be revised prior to City Council consideration in the following manner: a. The driveway openings on John Martin Drive and Summit Drive shall be widened to meet the recommendation of the Director of Public Works and shall be revised to be at a 900 angle to public right-of-way. b. Additional shade and coniferous trees shall be provided along the east side of the site, north of the property line jog to provide better screening of the loading dock area and more attractive appearance. c. The exclusion of Tract B from underground irrigation shall be removed. d. Additional benches shall be provided in the sidewalk area in front of the shopping center building. e. The large parking lot island adjacent to the John Martin Drive access shall be landscaped with at least two decorative trees and shrubs consistent with landscaping by the building. f. An additinal fire hydrant shall be provided at the jog in the east property line to provide adequate fire protection to the loading dock area. g. Berms in the Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway greenstrip areas shall reach a height of 3' above street grade, subject to a maximum 3:1 slope. 11 . Traffic forecasts for the site including quantity and direction shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council in order to determine the possible need for traffic signals at John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. 6-14-84 -3- 12. Plan approval acknowledges a waiver of the policy for a 125' offset for the access onto John Martin Drive and of the limitation of a 30' driveway opening for the easterly access on Summit Drive. 13. An as-built survey of the site utilities shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to release of the performance guarantee. 14. Any soil correction on the site and/or dewatering of the site shall be conducted in a manner consistent with State and local codes. 15. Plan approval acknowledges a proof-of-parking for 435 parking stalls on the Byerly's site and 247 stalls on the shopping center site. The applicant shall agree in writing to provide such stalls upon a determination by the City that proposed parking for the site is inadequate. Such written agreement shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84016 (Byerly's, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Maleckitto recommend approval of Application No. 84016, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final R. L. S. is subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. The final R. L. S. is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Cross access and cross parking easements over the entire R. L.S. shall be filed with the R. L. S. at the County. 4. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility maintenance agreement with the City as required by the City Engineer. 5. Property irons shall be verified by the Engineering Department prior to release of the performance guarantee posted for Planning Commission Application No. 84015. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 84017 AND 84018 (Evelyn Borgen) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the parcel of land at the southeast corner of 73rd Avenue North and Fremont Avenue North and a request for a variance from Section 15-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance and Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow creation of a single-family lot less than 9,500 sq. ft. in area. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 84017 and 84018 attached) . Chairman Lucht then asked whether the applicant had anything to add. Mr. James Merila, representing the applicant, stated that he had nothing to add to the staff report. 6-14-84 -4- • r. s F • E PUBLIC HEARING - (Application Nos. 84017 and 84018) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the subdivision variance and the proposed plat and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84017 (Evelyn Borgen) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of Application No. 84017, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The existing portable shed to the south of the garage shall be removed from the proposed Lot 2 prior to final plat approval. ' Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84018 (Evelyn Borgen) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 84018 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 84019 (John Guider) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request from Section 35- 400 of the Zoning Ordinance to: a) expand dwelling space into a garage less than 5 feet from the north side lot line and b) to construct a new garage to the south of the dwelling less than 10 feet from the south side lot line. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84019 attached) . The Secretary briefly showed the Planning Commission a survey of the property and a proposed layout for the new garage in addition to the existing structure. He explained the ordinance provisions which effect the application at hand. He stated that footnote 12 of Section 35-400 may apply to allow the expansion of dwelling space into existing garage space at a setback that is at least 70% of what the normal setback requirement would be for dwelling space. The Secretary briefly recalled the case of Jack Clifford in 1982 which led to the adoption of footnote 12 to allow expansion of either dwelling space or accessory structure space along an existing setback line if that setback were at least 70% of the normal requirement. He stated that staff had originally felt that footnote 12 did not apply because the ordinance differentiates between dwelling space and accessory space. He felt, however, that the Planning Commission could find that footnote 12 does apply in this case rather than grant a variance in a situation which did not seem to be unique. 5-14-84 -5 The Secretary also added that the Building Inspector had inspected the premises and reports that it has the characteristics of a two-family dwelling. He explained that, based on this classification, the existing use is a nonconforming use in the R1 zoning district and, therefore, cannot be expanded. Commissioner Simmons noted that the conversion has already begun and that the five bedrooms within the residence were being used as a two-family dwelling. She stated that the Assessor may know that this is a two-family situation and is taxing it as such and that is why the taxes are so high. The Secretary acknowledged that this may be the case. He explained that the Assessor's records indicate that there are two kitchens and essentially two dwelling units within the structure. He explained that, based on the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance, the lower unit does meet the requirements for a second dwelling unit. He stated that the staff could not really show that the property has not been used as a duplex since 1968 when it became nonconforming. He explained that a nonconforming use cannot expand by occupying a greater area of land, but that the nonconforming use, under Section 35- 111, could expand throughout the existing structure. Commissioner Simmons noted the many complications involved in this case, but stated that she felt there was no hardship. She suggested the possibility of building additional dwelling space on the south side of the house and leaving the existing garage, a garage. She noted, however, that there seems to be a need for more garage space if this is a two-family dwelling. She asked whether the two-family dwelling status was legal. The Secretary explained that the two-family dwelling could continue as a nonconforming use, but that if it ceased to function as a two-family dwelling for a period of two years, it could not be resumed. Chairman Lucht stated that the question boils down to whether the applicant wants a two-family dwelling or whether to become a one-family dwelling and seek a variance to place a garage to the south of the dwelling. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt there were implications for other decisions that have been made by the Planning Commission in recent years if the variance requested here were granted. The Secretary stated that he felt the total circumstances of this case were fairly unique from anything that has been decided recently. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt a two-car garage is a necessity in the Minnesota climate and that the lack of such garage would constitute a hardship for the applicant. He also noted that the Assessor apparently acknowledges a second dwelling unit in the premises. The Secretary explained that the Assessor looks at property differently from zoning. He stated that the Planning and Inspection Department had concluded that the property was a two-family dwelling because of structural characteristics required under the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ord inance, not because of the Assessor's records. He stated that a variance should not be granted on the basis only of the Assessor's findings. Commissioner Sandstrom again stated he felt that a two-car garage is a necessity and that the lack of it constitutes a hardship. The Secretary explained that the Standards for a Variance require that the hardship be ordinance related. He added that City ordinance does not require a garage, although garages are required in some communities, and, therefore; a hardship is not based on the ordinance. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that if a person has two cars he needs a two-car garage. Chairman Lucht countered, however, that that logic would mean that a person with five cars is entitled to a five-car garage. - Commissioner Ainas asked whether there was any R2 zoned land in that area. The Secretary responded in the negative, but added that there are some licensed two- family dwellings as nonconforming uses in that area. 6-14-84 -6- . h Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. John Guider, of 5115 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that he had moved into the property six to eight years ago and that he has worked continuously to upgrade the property since that time. He explained that he has a problem with water draining in from the street, into the garage, and finally down into the basement. He explained that it would be very expensive to raise the level of his garage above the level of the street and that if he did so, the door would be too low to get a truck into the garage. He explained that he wanted a 20' wide garage on the south side of the house and that only a corner of that garage would encroach into the 10' setback requirement. He stated that he had considered the option of a detached garage, but had been told by the Planning Department that a variance from the frontyard setback would probably not be considered favorably. Regarding his status as a two-family dwelling, Mr. Guider stated that his neighbors to the south and the north are all two-family or three family dwellings. Chairman Lucht pointed out to Mr. Guider that a two-family dwelling is a nonconforming use in that zoning district. He asked Mr. Guider whether he wished to stay as a two-family dwelling. Mr. Guider responded in the affirmative. Chairman Lucht explained that, if he continued to be a two-family dwelling, his house would continue to be a nonconforming use and would not be allowed to expand. The Secretary clarified that the ordinance would allow the conversion of the garage to dwelling space, but that it would not allow the nonconforming use to cover a greater area of land. Commissioner Nelson asked whether a garage expansion could be distinguished from a dwelling space expansion. The Secretary responded in the negative. Commissioner Simmons noted that Mr. Guider had had house problems for years and asked whether it was really necessary for him to have a larger garage than he presently had. Mr. Guider stated that it was important for him to have a garage that was large enough to make the dwelling more marketable and not be a liability in trying to sell the property. Mr. Guider then discussed with Commissioner Simmons the problems with the existing house and garage and the expense of making the existing garage workable. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Guider whether he intended to remain a two-family dwelling. Mr. Guider stated that he had to, in order to afford to live in the property. Chairman Lucht explained that the City's ordinance does not allow the expansion of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Malecki noted that most of the neighbors in the area have the same problem. She suggested that the property be rezoned and there would be no problem with an expansion. The Secretary noted a variance would still be needed for the garage expansion to the south. He briefly recapitulated the way the issues were stacking up in this case. He explained that the conversion of the existing garage to dwelling space could be permitted without a variance if the Planning Commission made a finding that footnote 12 of Section 35-400 applied in this case. A new garage, however, could not be permitted since the property was classified as a nonconforming use and an expansion would constitute a use variance. Finally, he pointed out that if the property were zoned R2, a variance could be comprehended and would be required for the addition of a garage to the south of the dwelling. Chairman Lucht briefly recalled the adoption of the ordinance amendment that put footnote 1.2 into the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he did not see any conflict in applying that footnote to the proposed garage conversion in Part A of the application. He added, however, that since the property is a nonconforming use, 5-14-84 -7- interior space could be converted, but that an additional garage structure could not be added. The Secretary agreed and noted that the applicant has applied for a rental license for the second dwelling unit. Chairman Lucht noted that, if the property were zoned R2, an expansion for a new garage would be allowed, but that a ,variance would still be needed. Commissioner Ainas asked what percent of the homes in the area were two-family dwellings. The Secretary stated that he did not know for sure, although he knew there were some licensed two-family dwellings in that area. He stated that the property could be rezoned, but that this would take further analysis. Mr. Guider stated that he already had a loan for the work and that he wished to proceed. He stated that he could withdraw his application for a rental license and rent the space in the lower level to a relative. The Secretary answered that a two- family dwelling status is not determined by who is renting the property, but how the property is used. There followed a brief discussion between Chairman Lucht and Mr. Guider regarding the layout of the house. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84019) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing 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 Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There followed a discussion of footnote 12 of Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance and the precedent of other variances in the past. The Planning Assistant again explained that Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance did not permit a nonconforming use to expand by covering a greater area of land, whether that be a dwelling addition or a garage addition. He added that that section does allow conversion of space within an existing structure. He also pointed out that footnote 12 would allow the expansion of existing dwelling space along an existing building line that was less than 5 feet from a side interior property line, although it did not directly address the question of converting garage space that was less than five feet from the property line to dwelling space. Commissioner Manson stated that she felt the conversion of the existing garage to dwelling space is acknowledged by footnote 12. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the applicant's request could be met and stated that the property should be rezoned to R2. The Secretary acknowledged that the property could be rezoned at some point in the future,but that that question could not be settled within the time frame that the ordinance sets for a variance request. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt that finishing the existing garage was acceptable under City ordinance, but not the adddition of a new garage. Commissioner Simmons gave the same opinion. The Secretary stated that the first part of the application should.be handled through an ordinance interpretation and not a variance. He stated that the second part of the application could not be allowed because the property is a nonconforming use and a use variance must not be granted. Mr. Guider stated that the Commission was assuming that his property was a duplex. He stated that it was not a duplex yet, but that he was applying for that status. The Secretary disagreed. He stated that Mr. Guider had a two-family dwelling. He explained that, if a rental license was denied, it would be on the basis of a failure to meet other Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance requirements, not on the basis that the structure is a not a two-family dwelling. 6-14-84 -8- } ACTION RECOMMENDING A FINDING REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF FOOTNOTE 12 TO PART A OF APPLICATION 84019 Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend a finding that footnote 12 of Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance applies to the request to convert the existing garage to dwelling space and that no variance need be granted for that portion of Application No. 84019. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PART B OF APPLICATION NO. 84019 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend denial of Part B of Application No. 84019 on the grounds that the property is determined to be a two-family dwelling; that it is, therefore, a nonconforming use; that a nonconforming use under Section 35-111 of the Zoning Ordinance is not permitted to expand by covering a greater area of land; and that, therefore, to grant such a variance would be a use variance contrary to City Ordinance and State law. Voting in favor: .Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10:00 p.m. and resumed at 10:18 p.m. APPLICATION NOS. 84020 AND 84021 (Randy Rau) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the next items of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to convert an existing superette at 4401 - 69th Avenue North to a service garage and to build a new superette to the east of this building, and for preliminary plat approval to combine into a single lot the two existing parcels at 6849 Brooklyn Boulevard and 4401 - 69th Avenue North for a combined development. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 84020 and 84021 attached) . The Secretary explained that the demolition of the gas station and the remodeling of the superette to a service garage could be allowed prior to the filing of the plat. Chairman Lucht noted that the plan called for brick on the north and east elevations and concrete block on the other sides. The Secretary acknowledged this and pointed out that the Planning Commission and City Council have allowed different materials in other cases provided there was a consistent overall appearance. He mentioned the Dale Tile application and the Spec. 14 application which involved different building materials at certain points, but a unifying theme. He pointed out that there would be a consistent facia treatment around the entire building and that the color of the rock-faced block would be consistent with the color in the brick to provide a similar appearance. Commissioner Manson asked whether the coloring of the block would be permanent. The Secretary stated that he assumed so. Commissioner Manson expressed the concern that if the paint peeled from the concrete block, this would certainly detract from the appearance. She inquired as to screening requirements for this development. The Secretary explained that screening of parking and driving areas, while generally sought, is only required under the ordinance when there is a residential abutment. He explained that there is no such residential abutment in this case and, therefore, no screening is required. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Randy Rau, owner of the property in question, stated that he was interested in trying to improve the site from what presently exists. 6-14-84 -9- PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 84020 and 84021) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the special use permit and the preliminary plat for this development and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding these applications. Mr. Robert Grosshans of 6920 Lee Avenue North stated that he had no objection to the proposed development as such. He stated that it appeared to be an improvement of the property. He did express some concern regarding access to the site. He noted the high traffic volume on 69th Avenue North. He stated that the closing of the access on Brooklyn Boulevard would appear to improve the general access situation. He also pointed out that a particular problem is vehicles turning left from Brooklyn Boulevard onto 69th Avenue North going west and then left again immediately into the site. The Secretary explained that improvements planned for the intersection of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard would include a median on 69th Avenue North extending past the access to this site. The Secretary stated that the main traffic generator in this area is the freeway itself. Mr. Grosshans stated that the Post Office also generates a fair amount of traffic. He stated that a median on 69th Avenue North would improve the problem left turns into the Mobil station. Mr. Don Lowry of 6914 Lee Avenue North asked what oil company would be represented at the site. Mr. Rau stated that he was looking at three or four different companies and also, the possibility of becoming an independent and that he has not yet decided. Mr. Lowry asked whether the modification to 69th Avenue North would include the lowering of the street relative to Lee Avenue North. The City Engineer stated that that possibility was being looked at, but had not been decided. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There being no further comments from persons present regarding these applications, Chairman Lucht called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84020 (Randy Rau) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 84020, 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. 1 Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6-14=84 -10- 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitiate 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. 9. Freestanding lightposts within public right-of-way shall be relocated onto private property. The freestanding lights adjacent to existing pump islands or accesses to be closed shall be removed during construction of.the project 10. Landscape plantings shall not be installed in the site triangle at the southwest corner of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. 11 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 12. Plan approval is subject to the recommendations contained in the City Engineer's letter to M. V. Rich Company dated June 7, 1984. 13. The final plat combining the parcels shall be filed at the County prior to issuance of any bulding permit for construction of the new superette building. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84021 (Randy Rau) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 84021 , subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The preliminary plat shall be revised in accordance with the letter of the City Engineer to M. V. Rich Co., Inc. dated June 7, 1984. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS (MeDonald's) The Secretary briefly reviewed with the Planning Commission a proposed plan to make a minor addition of a pay window at the McDonald 1-s Restaurant on Xerxes Avenue North. 6-14-84 -11- He pointed out that the proposed addition would have no real impact on setbacks or parking requirements and that it was simply an addition to facilitate the flow of traffic through the drive-up. He asked the Commission to make a finding that this proposal did not represent a significant addition or alteration to the building and does not need Planning Commission review. ACTION REGARDING MCDONALD'S ADDITION Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to find that the proposed addition of a pay window at the McDonald Is Restaurant is not a significant addition or alteration to the building and does not require Planning Commission or City Council review. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DR. LESCAULT RESIDENCE The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission a proposed addition to the residence at the southeast corner of 62nd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard which is presently owned by Dr. Lescault. He explained that Dr. Lescault conducts a chiropractor home occupation within his dwelling. He explained that the original garage of the residence was converted to offices in 1975 and that the home occupation was considered at that time to be a professional office and, therefore, a permitted home occupation under Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary explained that Dr. Lescault wishes to add two more offices and a dining room and garge to his dwelling. He explained that the residence has no garage at present and gains access off 62nd Avenue North. The Secretary stated- that the real question is regarding the home occupation. He stated that such a medical use was a high traffic generator, certainly in the category of beauty shops and similar operations. He explained, however, that this use has been considered a professional office and, under the Zoning Ordinance, a permitted home occupation in the R1 zoning district. He asked the Commission for direction as to whether this use should be looked at as a special use permit and whether the proposed addition would lead the home occupation to go beyond the point of being secondary and incidental to the residential use of the premises. He also pointed out that an existing site plan of the property indicates that the proposed addition would encroach into a side interior setback and that if a building permit application were submitted, an as-built survey of the property would also be required to verify setback information. Commissioner Simons stated that the plans seem to make the residence look like an office with living quarters. The Secretary stated that he felt a doctor's office should be considered a special home occupation. He stated that the Commission could require that a special use permit application be submitted for the proposed addition and review the home occupation ordinance along with the home occupation at that time, or it could recommend that the staff simply find that the home occupation would no longer be secondary and incidental and let Dr. Lescault appeal such a finding. Commissioner Simons stated that it already looks like an extensive operation within the home and that it would become more so with the addition. The Planning Assistant also-pointed out that the addition of more office space apart from the single-family dwelling might create the possibility that the residence would be used as a two-family dwelling in the future, or even a boarding house. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the doctor's office should be considered a special use. 6-14-84 -12- Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt the doctor's proposal simply would not be an incidental use within the premises. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the doctor's office should be considered a special use and that the matter should be reviewed under a special use permit application, rather than denied by staff and then appealed. The Pl-anning-Commission and planning staff discussed the option of an appeal or a special use permit application and eventually decided that the proper procedure would be to take a special use permit application. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjour the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion pass animously. The an ing Olt Commission adjourned at 11:28 p.m. r a i 6-14-84 -13- 1 1