Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 08-10 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 AUGUST 10, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The_P anning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . ROLL CALL Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki, Pierce, Book and Hawes. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Brtilding Official Will Dahn,Administrative Assistant Mary HC!rty, Director oF Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. APPROVE MINUTES (PLANNING COMMISSION) 7-27-78 Commissioner Hawes stated that the second line -in the third paragraph on the second page should read "the general industry area located at 50th and France Avenues North, rather than 62nd and France Avenues North. Motion by Commissioner Malecki , seconded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes of the July 27, 1978 meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Book and Hawes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce who explained that he was not present at that meeting. APPLICATION NO. 78043 (Jerry Harrington) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of considera%,-:on was Application No. 78043. submitted by Jerry Harrington. The Secretary explained the application was for site and building approval for the property at 4455 - 68th Avenue North. The Secretary further explained that the applicant proposed a "wholesale distribution center" for the property, and this was not a listed permitted use for the C2 (Com- .me.rce District) . He continued that a determination would be necessary that the proposed use was similar in nature to the permitted- uses in the C2 zone. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and described the existing land, uses surrounding the site. He stated that the area was zoned C2, and that the applicant contends that because of the nature of some of the existing land uses, such as, the NSP property adjacent to his property, which included the storage of', vehicles, and the Post Office at 69th and Lee Avenues which comprehended a great deal of truck traffic, he has been unable to market the commercial speculative building which had been approved under Application 77049. The Secretary continued that the applicant did not feel a commercial development was suitable for the area and desired the wholesale distribution concept proposed in this application. The Secretary stated the Commission had reviewed conceptual plans for the develop- ment at its June 15, 1978 meeting, and had looked at several approaches to the concept. He continued that the Commission had determined that the route most acceptable was to accept an application for the proposed development, and make a finding whether the proposed use was similar in nature to the permitted uses in the C2 District. 8-10-78 1_ The Secretary also commented that in 1973, the Planning Commission and City Council had reviewed a proposal for "mini warehouses" for the property. He explained that that proposal was for small storage warehouses, and that no commercial/retail was proposed. He continued that the City Council had not found the proposal simila w to- the C2 uses and had round the use more appropriate to the I-1- (Industrial Park) and I-2 (General Industry) Districts' The Secretary commented that there were several major concerns regarding the plans submitted for review. He explained that the applicant has proposed. three 20,000 sq. ft. buildings, but had not specified how much square footage would be devoted to retail use in each building. He also stated there was a concern with the park- ing as shown on the plan. He stated the applicant had calculated the required parking according to the industrial warehousing formula, and that approximately 100 additional spaces would be needed in order to meet the commercial parking require- ments. He continued that the applicant had not yet submitted revised plans, and that the application was presented for discussion purposes only. The Commission reviewed the site plan and .a discussion ensued. Chairman Engdahl iaquired whether the proposal was similar to American Bakeries. at 4215 .- 69th Avenue North. The Secretary responded that American Bakeries have been determined to be-a use similar in nature to the permitted C2 uses. He further explained that merican Bakeries had designated a portion of their building for retail use, and ,:ad provided adequate parking required by General Commercial use. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, Mr. Harrington. Mr. Harrington stated Ms leasing agent had made a study of the feasibility of commercial use on the . property. He stated that the biggest objection of prospective tenants was to the ;-;dvjtrial nature of the surrounding area. He concluded that that site was not suitable for commercial use. The applicant also addressed the issue of parking. He stated that it was his ►mderstanding that the former S & H Green Stamp Store located at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North had been unable to provide the total number of parking spaces required by the commercial parking formula,. He continued that the City- Council had approved the development when a restrictive covenant was filed against the property such that any use other than the S & H Green Stamp use would require additional parking. A discussion ensued relative to the development proposal . In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the applicant: stated -that the type of tenant who would lease in his project would require a large amount of warehouse space with office space for several office employees. He also commented that, ,if the project would ever go to a retail use, part of the square footage of one of the buildings could be used for parking. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the number of parking spaces .required. The Secretary responded that depending upon the particular use,approximately 200 parking spaces -would be required. Chairman Engdahl asked whether the applicant proposed to condominiumize the buildings. The Secretary and the City Engineer re- sponded that that was not proposed at this time, and if it were proposed in the future, replatting of the site would be required. A brief discussion ensued relative to the 1973 "mini warehouse" proposal . Chairman Engdahl commented that under that application, only storage use had been proposed. Commissioner Pierce commented that the use proposed by.:the present applicant would comprehend only a few tenants, and would be more controllable than the "mini ware- house" which comprehended multiple tenants. 8-10-78 -2 , ` The Commission again' reviewed alternative routes open to the applicant. Chairman Engdah1 stated he did not feel rezoning was feasible because it would constitute "spot:;zoning." The Secretary stated that if the applicant wished to pursue placing a restrictivel, covenant on the property, the document would have to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the City Council . Commissioner Pierce inquired as to how much of the total square footage of the building would be devoted! to commercial use. The applicant responded that ap-• proximately 15% of the total square footage would be used commercially. Commissioner Pierce also questioned whether there was any. way to monitor the amount of office space with the issuance of building permits. Building Official Will Dahn replied, that that was not feasible. Chairman Engdahl stated he felt the amount of office' space versus warelouse space should be limited by the conditions of approval . He' stated he felt the proposal had merit, but the Commission and the Council had to look beyond the immediate proposal . The Secretary suggested that perhaps those types of concerns could be addressed in the restrictive covenant. He stated that evidence that the covenant had been filed would be required before permits could. ' be issued. A discussion ensued relative to the required parking. The City Engineer stated that he had reviewed the site plan and according to his calculation, by eliminating some of the green area on the site, and reconfiguring the parking, it would be possible to provide an additional 55 stalls. He continued that this would provide for a total of 170 stalls, which would allow the building to be occupied by approxi- mately 40% commercial use and 60% industrial use. Chairman Engdahl asked how the need for increased parking would be monitored. The City Engineer answered that a', Certificate of Occupancy is required for a tenant space every time the tenant changes, and each prospective tenant could be reviewed with respect to parking needs. Commissioner Hawes inquired of the applicant as to the types of tenants in his Plymouth facility. The applicant responded that the tenants in the Plymouth facility required a small office area and large warehousing area. He added that he could make a list of the tenants of that facility for the Commission. Commis-' sioner Hawes also inquired whether any loading docks were proposed. The applicant responded that the buildings were designed with garage-type doors, but that loading docks could be constructed on the end of each building. Chairman Engdahl stated that after discussion of the application, the. Comnission could give the applicant a direction to work in. He requested the applicant to develop a restrictive covenant for review, submit detailed site and building plans so that the maximum commercial versus warehousing uses could be determined, and submit a plan showing the maximum parking available on the site. TABLE APPLICATION NO. 78043 (Jerry Harrington) Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded y Commissioner Book to table Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry Harrington pending submission of further information!. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78047 (Josephine Bovy) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine Bovy. The Secretary stated the applicant sought a variance to permit an enclosed'!, entrance to encroach into the corner side yard at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. 8-10-78 -3- The Secretary showed transparencies of a map of the area and of a survey of the property. He painted out that the applicant's lot, being 77 ft. wide, was sub standard. He also noted there were many other substandard lots located in the .. immediate area. He explained that most,of those lots had been platted prior to 1957, when a Zoning Ordinance amendment changed the standards for corner lots from 75 ft. to 90 ft. He added that Mr:,. Bovy's lot had been platted in 1968. rite Secretary explained that the applicant proposed to add a 10' by 16' enclosed entryway to the side of the house which would encroach approximately 10 ft. into the required 25 ft. corner side yard. He continued that the applicant had sub- mitted a letter to the file explaining her request and outlining her justification for the variance. He explained that the access to the attached garage was from GOth Avenue, while the house faced Colfax Avenue. He stated that there is a patio door with steps leading to it from the driveway which has, in effect, become the main entrance and exit to her home. He ;explainAd the applicant had stated that the accumulation of ice and snow on the steps in the winter make it dangerously ; slippery: He continued that the applicant contended a hardship exists if she is hjoi: permitted to construct the enclosed entryway, and that the construction would x, 01-e the.main entrance safe for access during all kinds of weather, provide a iar•rier against the elements that would make the house more energy efficient, and prt vide privacy during the evening hours of darkness from those passing by on the .reet. ' ter: Secretary reviewed the standards for granting a variance containing Section 3b-240, and stated that it did not appear that the request met the qualifications, f a hardship, as opposed to an inconvenience, contained in the ordinance, nor that i.he conditions of the variance were unique to the parcel , and not generally common ..o other properties in the same zoning classification.,- He stated that -because of .';rig.., denial of the application was recommended. ►; lei►gthy discussion ensued. Chairmc:n Engdahl questioned whether the ordinance > k {.-`ndards had changed after the-house was built. 'The Secretary responded in the negative and explained that while prior to 1957, 75 ft. corner lots with a setback pi 15 ft. were permitted, the applicant's property had been platted in 1968 as -a' rulstandard corner parcel under`the Zoning Ordinance then in effect. He reviewed' several ordinance amendments which had been adopted in 1976 which spoke to sub standard lots. He explained that one of-these amendments-allowed the construction of single family dwellings and permitted primary accessory buildings 15 ff. from she corner side lot line on lots which had been platted prior to December 19., 1957. He continued that the applicant's property had been platted in 1968, but was sub- standard in width. He asked the Commission to consider whether it was the intent of the ordinance amendment to exclude"those substandard corner iots. which had been platted after 1957. The Secretary aiso-explained the circumstances surrounding the platting of the applicant's property. He stated that a subdivision which had been platted in 1947 and which contained deep lots along Bryant Avenue had been combined with an un platted parcel along Colfax Avenue to create the present Registered Land Survey of which the applicant's lot was a part He explained that the previous lot lines had been extended through to Colfax venue, creating the substandard corner parcels. Chairman Engdahl commented that most of the corner lots in the immediate area were substandard in width. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the Secretary stated that the December 19, 1957 date referred to in the ordinance was the date upon which the ordinance requiring 90 ft. corner lots with a setback of 25 ft. became effective. 8-10-78 �4- The Commission reviewed a map of the City showing the location of substandard corner parcels which had been platted prior to the ordinance change. Chairman Engdahl commented that he did not feel a variance should be granted since he did nut think the situation was unique, and that the granting of the variance would rei a precedence for setback variances. the City Engineer elaborated on the 1968 subdivision approval . He explained that the City could have required 90 ft. corner lots, but since the area was established with 75 ft. corner lots, the 77 ft. corner lots were allowed. He added that the Council recognized the variance on width in its subdivision approval . Commissioner Book questioned the purpose of the 25 ft. setback. The City Engineer responded that the purpose was for aesthetics, and improved safety, in that the distance from street traffic would be increased and obstruction'bf visibility on the corner would he decreased. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, Mrs. Josephine Bovy. Mrs. Bovy stated] .ht her major concern was with safety. In response to a question from Commissioner $`: rce, she stated that she proposed to add a 10' by 16' covered entryway. Com- missioner Book asked why she didn't use the front door as a major entrance. The .pplicant responded that because of the garage location, it was impracticable to. ' use the front door. Commissioner Book also inquired whether there was an entrance to the house through the garage. The applicant responded that there was, but that L;.-.e of that entrance was also impracticable. he applicant presented a petition in favor of the proposed addition which contained "lie names of 15 of her neighbors. UBLIC HEARING Ciairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been scheduled and recognized. thej r sident-of 906 - 60th Avenue North. She stated she was not opposed to the granting c :;he variance and thought the addition was a good idea. No one else spoke re'-,- 1J..p4ng to-the application. Motion by Commissioner Malecki, seconded by Commissioner � ,�rce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. i extensive discussion ensued. Commissioner Pierce stated he felt staff should be directed to research the matter to discover whether there were any similar substandard lots which had been platted after 1957. He suggested that if there ` re not, perhaps a variance could be granted. Commissioner Malecki stated she felt the permitted 15 ft. setback should apply to all substandard corner lots, not just those platted to 1957. Chairman Engdahl commented that the 1957 ordinance , I, change had worked a hardship on those existing 75 ft. corner lots, but that no such hardship had been worked on those substandard lots created after the ordinance change. A discussion ensued relative to the status of the lots facing Bryant Aivenue which had originally been platted in 1947. The City Engineer stated that technically the legal descriptions of those lots were of record as of 1968. Commissioner Book commented that it appeared most of the substandard corner lots ' re pre-1957. Chairman Engdahl stated he would like to see more research done on the matter. He commented that since the City had allowed the creation of substandard c rner lots since 1957, it might be unfair to have two separate standards. He a ked the Secretary how long it would take to complete research on the matter. The Slecretary .responded that the results of the research could be presented at the s1tudy meeting. Chairman Engdahl informed the applicant that the Commission would: #ble theapplication pending further research and would reconsider it at its n xt meeting. 8-10-78 -5- I'' TABLE APPLICATIOK NO. 78047 (Josephine gov following urger discussion, t ere was a motion 'by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Book to table Application No. 78041 submitted by Josephine Bovy to ` allow time to further research the matter. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 78048, 78049, 78050 (Meadow C rporation) The next item of consideration was App ication t�1os. 780481 78049 and 78050 submitted by Meadow Corporation. The Secretary explained that the items were related and should be considered jointly. He stated that Application No. 78048 was for site and building plan approval .and special use permit amendment for Phases 3 and 4 of The Ponds Development, that Application No. 78049 was a preliminary plat of The Ponds - Plat 3, and Application No. 78050 was a preliminary plat for The Ponds - Plat 4. He stated that Plats 3 and 4 were located at approximately 70th Circle and,Unity Avenue North. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and pointed out the location and configuration of the two proposed subdivisions. The City Engineer stated that the proposed plats were basically in order with the approved master plan of The Ponds. He commented t'',at there were two revisions re- quired on the proposed Plat 3. He explained that the cu.-de-sac on the west side" of Unity Avenue had originally been proIposed as a private roadway, b►it that it was now proposed as public street. He continued that a 35 ft. front setback was there- fore required, .and that the plat should be revised to indicate this '. He explained that the second revision was that a dedicated walkway he ,provided from Plat 3 to Zane Elementary School located to the west in the City of Brooklyn Park. He stated that the location of the roadway would be confirmed with the school district and with the City of Brooklyn Park. He pointed out an approximate location on Plat 3. A brief discussion ensued relative t the walkway and preliminary plats. In re- sponse to a question from Chairman E gdahl , .the City Engineer stated that the wa lk- way would be a dedicated easement an would be maintained by the Homeowners A:;sociation. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. guar 'Dietrich who represented the applicant. A,_ discussion ensued relative to the configuration of the preliminary plats. Mr. Dietrich -briefly explained The Ponds latting and development process. He explained that the configuration of the subdiwi ion followed the configuration of the original Outlots which were platted under. The �onds Addition. In response to questions re- garding the walkway, he stater! that Superintendent of the Osseo School District ' had.-requested provisions of.. a walkw?he to .Zane Elementary School in order to avoid the necessity of the children from Ponds development having to walk down Unity Avenue to 69th Avenue in order to get to school . He continued that the school board had been asked for input on the walkway location, but that the developer had not yet received,a response. He also noted that the walkway would be approximately 4 ft. wide in order to avoid any vehicular traffic In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , Mr. Dietrich discussed the proposed cul-de-sac off Unity Avenue. He stated that an island was proposed,for the center of the cul-de-sac which would help delineate traffic and could be used to store snow in the winter. Chairman Engda 1 commented he thought the island made the cul- de-sac more aesthetic and would imp ove the control of traffic. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing- had been scheduled on -all- three applications. He recognized Mr. Tra y .Tyler of 7043 Regent Avenue North. Mr. Tyler stated that the original Council approval of The Ponds Development had com- prehended phasing of the development in order to review any problems which might arise as the development progressed. He stated that he had had a problem this summer with water in his basement, Which he attributed -to the grading being con- ducted at The Ponds. He also stated that a. drainage ditch had been plugged and there was stagnant water standing in the area , which seemed to, cause an increase` fn the number of mosquitoes in the area. 8-10-78 -6- Tha City Engineer responded that the grading of the development and the drainage system which was being installed should improve the drainage in the overall area a d should not have caused the water in the neighbors basement. Mr. Dietrich re- f Irred to the conditions of the area prior to the development and discussed the drainage system being installed at The Ponds. He stated that he felt that the drainage situation had improved with The Ponds development. He continued that the,', past two years there had been four rainfalls that exceeded the 100 year flood level , and that because of this, many residents in the Metropolitan area were experiencing water in their basements. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public' h rings. The motion passed unanimously. T e Commission reviewed the site plans and preliminary plats. Commissioner Pierce q estioned whether the grading plan was the same as had originally been approved. ,' Ttle City Engineer responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Pierce also asked Mr,. Dietrich how many lots had been sold in Phase 2. Mr. Dietrich responded that l' o the 68 lots in Phases 1 and 2, not including the three mGdels, there were only ', t tree unsold lots. Also in response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, Mr. Dietrich stated that the townhouse units were essentially the same buildings with , approximately 10 variations. I CcImmissioner Pierce asked whether the landscaping plan was consistent with the approved master plan. The City Engineer responded that it was. The Secretary ccmented that the 'required fencing along the R-1 Zoning District line was being i stalled as the phases developed. F ll wing further discussion, Chairman Engdahl stated he was ready for separate mc ti ns on the applications. i R COiMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78048 (Meadow Corporation) Mt ti n by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Ma ecki to recommend 'ap p ov l of Application No. 78048 submitted by Meadow Corporation subject to the f ll wing conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to she issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to approval by t he City Engineer r P rior 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 completion of approved site improvements. 4. Development of this portion of the Planne d Residential Development nt shall also be subject to applicable conditions of the original development approval by the City Council on October 18, 1976 under 6O4 Application No. 7 1 9 including the provision for screen fencing ar along the R-1 (Single Family) Zoning Dist boundary. Y. 5. Viable turf, such as sod or seed shall be provided for all open space areas in accordance with approval by the City. 81'' 1 -78 -7- Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Pierce and Hawes. Voting• against none. Not voting: Commissioner Eook3 who stated he had an interest in the application. The motion passed. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78049 (Meadow Corporation) Motion by Commissioner MaTeRki- s-econded by Commissioner Pierce to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 78049 submitted by Meadow Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1. final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subJect to the requirements of Chapter, 15 of the City Ordinances: 3. A sidewalk easement as .approved by the City shall be provided. 4. Modifications of the cul-de-sac westerly of Unity Avenue- as approved by the City Engineer shall. be submitted .prior to City Courcil review. The motion passed, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78050 (Meadow Corporation) Motion by Commissioiier Hawes seconded y Commissi©rare Ma ec,i to recommend ap- proval of Application No. 78050 subml :ted by Meadow Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1 . The Final plat is' subject -co=review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the 'requircments of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. M.. Voting n favor: Chairman En dahl , o�imissioners Malecki , Fierce and Hawes. 9 9 Voting against: none Not voting: Commissioner Book. The motion passed. RECESS The PTanning Commission recessed at 10`15 p.m. and resumed at 10:30 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 78052 (Delbert Holmin) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78052 .submitted by Delbert Holmin. The Secretary stated the applicant sought a variance on the front setback for the property located at 6315 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and stated the applicant sought`a variance from the required 50 ft. front setback along major thoroughfares in order to build a house with a 35 ft. front setback, in line with the existing houses to the north. The Secretary stated that the applicant had been asked to respond in writing to the standards -for variances. He stated that such a response .had not been received. The Secretary also showed a transparency of a survey of the property, showing the location the applicant proposed for the house, and showing the location of the same house in a manner which met all of the setback requirements. He continued that it appeared the matter was one of design, riot one of hardship. He stated the applicant preferred to build the house in Tine with the houses to the north which were built in 1955 prior to the ado tion of the 50 ft. setback standard along major thoroughfares. He pointe4lout that the existing house to the south of the applicant's property was set back $3 ft. j and that the applicant's house could be built in line with that house. 8-10-78 8 i Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the zoning of the property. The Secretary re in that block ai st the property sp nded that there were restrictive covenants- ag n whilch did not allow any uses other than single family residences. He continued that the Comprehensive Plan and zoning recognized the area as R-1 (Single y l Re Family idence) . Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant Mr. Delbert Holmin. Mr. Holmin stated that because of the design of the house, if it were set back 50 ft. he would have a view of his neighbor's garage. He stated he liked the area at 63rd and Brooklyn Bo levard and wanted to build his home with a good view of Brooklyn Boulevard. He al `o stated that if the house were set back 50 ft. , he would have a small rear yard, an that he preferred to have the yard area in the rear rather than in the front. Helalso stated that the existing home to the south was the home of the original owner of the land in the area, and had been built long before the other houses The Secretary stated that because of the angle or Brooklyn Boulevard, setting the ho se back 50 ft. should not obstruct the view of the street. In response to a vu-.stion from Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated that he and the Building 0 4r ial had reviewed different designs for the location of the house on the P r perty, and that there were other configurations which would meet all the setback rc irements. He continued that the plan presented had used the exact dimensions ciilvhe house the applicant proposed. A" rief discussion ensued relative to the covenant. The applicant stated the covenant was an extended contingency covenant. He explained that the property had!,I be n platted in approximately 1955, and that the covenant had been added in 1957. ii Hr% continued that the covenant had been tested in court, and that it stood. Inlresponse to a question from Commissioner Book the applicant stated that he wanted hi {souse built at a 35 ft. setback, and pointed out that if the house had been bu It at the same time as the other houses in the block, the 35 ft. setback would ha a been permitted. He also stated -ghat the large front yard created by the 50 ft setback would be of no use to him since it fronted onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that he had owned the property for approximately 13 years and also owned a' 1! vacant corner lot in the same block at Halifax Drive and Brooklyn Boulevard. PU SIC HEARING Ch irman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been scheduled and recognized the re ident of 6306 France Avenue North, who stated he was in favor of the variance to build the house in line with the other houses on the block. He continued that l' th vacant lot had been an eyesore for 21 years, and that he had frequently called) t City regarding trash on the lot with no success. He also commented regarding t covenant. C 4irman Engdahl recognized the resident of 6325 Brooklyn Boulevard who stated s o would like to see the variance granted. She continued that she felt a 50 ft. S tback for the house would spoil the line of the neighborhood. C SE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public h ring. The motion passed unanimously. A ', extensive discussion ensued. Commissioner Hawes stated he felt the 50 ft. s aback standard was established with a great deal of thought because of the noise] VO hazards arising from the heavy traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that h 1, felt the protection from the traffic provided by the 50 ft. setback was an a Vantage. He also pointed out that if the house were built at 50 ft. , it wound b '', approximately in line with the existing house to the south. 8-110-78, -9- Commissioner.Book stated he was more in favor of granting the variance than against it. He agreed with the applicant that rear yard area was more desirable than front yard area. He stated he saw some logic in granting the variance due to the .unique configuration of the lot, which was, somewhat irregularly shaped. The Secretary stated that the setback standard along major thoroughfares applies to all buildings in all zoning districts. Ha coint"inued that if a clear case of hard ship" and uniqueness were not proved, that a precedent would be set for violating the 50 ft. standard. Commissioner Malecki questioned whether the other buildings in the block were "grandfathered in cinder the pr^sent ordinance. The Secretary responded that they were. Chairman Engdahl stated he could see problems with setting a precedent by granting the variance. Commissioner Pierce stated that the purpose of the. 50 ft. setback:was for protection for the homeowner. Commissioner Book questioned whether a commercial development could utilize the front setback area for .any�hing other than grePnstrip. The Secretary reviewed the setback and cdreenstrip requirements, and stated that part of the setback could be (iced for parking i in a commercial development. Commissioner Hawes pointed out that another reason for keeping the 50 ft. setback would be to provide an adequaL, ;area fora turn-around driveway which would increase safety for access onto Brookly,. Boulrvard. RECOMMEND DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78052 (Delbert Holmin) Following further discussion there wa.s a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 78052 submitted by Delbert Holmin in that the application -does not meet the standards for a variance. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Malecki , Pierce and Hawes. Voting against: Commissioner Book. Not vu fig: nonc.. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 78054 (Lund Martin 0m_pany) The next item of consideration was ol, Application No. 78054 submitted by Lund Martin Company. The Secretary stated the application was for site and building plan ap- proval to construct a 20' by 20' freestanding storage building to store lithium on the Medtronic site, 6700 .Shingle Creek. Parkway. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and stated the applicant had sub- mitted a letter explaining the desirability of the storage building. He stated that lithium reacts violently when exposed to 'water and must be stored in a temperature and humidity controlled environment. He continued that at present lithium was stored in air tight containers located in` a nonsprinklered area in the southeast portion of the Medtronics building. The Secretary continued that the buildin would be located approximately 40 ft. from the existing building and would-be constructed with 12 inch concrete block. He stated no fire sprinklers would be provided in the building, but that other fire detection system would be supplied. He stated that the Fire Chief has reviewed the plans and had suggested that heat and smoke detectors connected to a centrally monitored alarm system should be installed. He added that the applicant had con- curred with these suggestions. He briefly reviewed the recommended conditions of approval . The Commission next reviewed the site and' building plan. ' In response to questions from Chairman Engdahl the Secretary stated that the area proposed for the building was now a green area, and that the building met all setback.- requirements. The City Engineer stated that due to the location of an underground storm sewer, it was. recommended the building be moved approximately 4 ft. `easterlyo 8-10-78 -10J Ch irman Engdahl recognized a Lund Martin Company representative, and Mr. Pete Wilkin of Medtronic, Inc. In response to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Wilkin -explained that the exterior of the storage building would match the existing. building. He stated that the mechanical and electrical systems would run on a hea',It pu p and would be located behind a parapet on the roof. Commissioner Hawes quest-' io ed whether anyone would work in the building. Mr. Wilkin responded that the building was for storage purposes only and that no one would work in it. A Jiscussion ensued relative to the safety precautions involved in using lithium. Mr. Wilkin explained that training sessions have been held for the Fire Departme4 re arding lithium, and that the Fire Department was fully aware of the dangers and,'. co siderations involved. Commissioner Book inquired as to the use of lithium. Mr: Wi kin responded that lithium was used in producing batteries for the pacemakers . '' ma ufactured by Medtronic. He further explained the nature of the element lithium,, an submitted a revised site plan showing a new location of the storage building which avoided the storm sewer. IE OMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78054 (Lund Martin Company) Fo lowing further discussion there was a Notion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Conmissioner Pierce to recommend approval of Application No. 78054 submitted by Lu d Martin Company subject to the following conditions: 1 . The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. Any grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. The proposed building will be equipped with a lithium-type fire extinguisher inside the door of each section of the proposed storage building. 4. Heat and smoke detectors will be provided in each section of the building and will be connected to an approved fire monitoring system. 5. Any rooftop mechanical equipment exceeding the height of the . proposed parapet shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The exterior of the storage building shall be compatible with the exterior of the existing building. , motion passed unanimously. ER BUSINESS I POSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 78032 (R. L. Johnson) h next item of consideration was disposition of Application No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson for rezoning of the property located in the 7200 block on the West side of Brooklyn Boulevard from R3 (Townhouse and Garden Apartments) to C2 Commerce' . The Secretary stated that at its July 27, 1978 meeting the Commission'' ad voted to direct the staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of the p lication. He continued that the resolution was presented for the Commission's e view and action. 10-78 -il- Commissioner Hawes raised a question relative to the second point of the resolution. He commented that the Neighborhood Advisory Group had recommended approval of the split zoning concept whereas the language in the resolution implied they had favored retaining the present zoning. The Secretary responded that the language in the,.. second point referred to testimony offered by the notified property owners at the public hearing and not to the Neighborhood Group's recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 78-1 Commissioner Malecki introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION:_OF APPLICATION NO. 78032 SUBMITTED BY R. :L. JOHNSON The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commis- sioner Engdahl, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Engdahl and Commissioner Malecki , the following voted against same. Commissioner Hawes; not voting: Commissioner Pierce who stated he had not been present at the meetings during which the application had been discussed,. and Commissioner Book who stated that while he had originally made the motion to direct staff to prepare a resol ution .,recommending denial of the application, cir- cumstances had arisen in the interim which caused him to abstain to avoid a conflict of interest. Said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. A discussion followed. Commissioner Hawes stated he had voted against the resolution because he felt there was some merit to the request in that the 100 .ft. easement along Shingle Creek made development of the ,parcel difficult,and the town- house residents to the south of the property did not seem to object to the proposed Cl use on the southerly portion of the- parcel .` Commissioner Book pointed out the proposal. was to rezone the entire property to C2 and that there would be no guarantee that the souLLherly portinn of the f,ite would be developed with a Cluse. Chairman Engdahl stated that it was; his recommendation that the applicant pursue a C1 zoning for the entire property, develop'.the southerly portion with such a use, and upon review of the development, perhaps a C2 zoning could be considered for the northerly portion of the site. Commissioner Pierce commented that although he had not been present during consider- ation of the application, he recalled initial discussion of the matter, and felt _ . that the site was more conducive to Cl ,use than to intense C2 use. Commissioner Book stated that he was strongly opposed to split zoning of the site because he felt it would constitute spot zoning. He added that he felt C2 uses would generate traffic which would be too intense for the location� of the property on Brooklyn Boulevard. He also stated that he felt the R3-zoned property to the south was adequately buffered by the 100 ft. Shingle Creek greenstrip and that those residents should not dictate the use of the adjacent property. The Secretary and the City Engineer also discussed the issue of providing enough parking on the site to support a C2 use.' The Secretary commented that, although the applicant had mentioned the possiblity of `providing parking on the adjacent property in Brooklyn Park, the issue was more than a routine Joint Parking Agree- ment and would require further in-depth review. Commissioner Hawes noted that at the July 27,' 1978 meeting, the applicant had stated that he was being assessed for the provision of utilities to the Real Estate 10 property across Brooklyn Boulevard, and asked if this were true. The City` . Engineer responded that Real Estate 10 was paying the entire cost of provision of utilities to the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard, and 50 of the cost of provision to the west side. He explained that if the cost were assessed traditionally based upon frontage of the properties to be benefited, the cost to Mr. Johnson would have been greater. 8-10-78 42_ OVER BUSINESS GROUND ROUND LANDSCAPING PLAN T e-next item of consideration was review of the landscaping plan for the Ground R and Restaurant located at 2545 County Road 10. The Secretary stated that the s aff had et with Bill Sheehy regarding problems with the site work. He stated t at some f the shrubbery which had been approved was not actually hardy enough t grow in Minnesota. He stated that the new plan showed provisions for hardier rubs, an for a wood retaining wall along the sloping area on the easterly side',' o the site. He also stated that the applicant proposed to replace some of the S d in areas where it had been killed by the overlap of parked cars with a 6 inchl, . w od mulch treaL-ment. A! discussi n ensued relative to the landscaping revision. Commissioner Pierce a d Hawes ointed out that along the easterly side of the site, there could be p oblems m intaining the walkway due to the type of shrubbery proposed for that ea. It was the consensus of the Commission that the developer work with City' •j ff in c mpleting revisions to the plan. UDY .MEET NG fie Commission next reviewed several items proposed for consideration at the gust 24 study meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to review those siness items at the study meeting. JOURNMEN tion by ommissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Book to adjourn the etin 9 he motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at'' -� 11 :20 a.m. Ch man ii i i L 10-78 -13- i 1 1 1