Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 08-24 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 STODY SESSION AUGUST 24, 1978 BALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl at 8:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Cha~ r a Engdahl , Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Hawes and Theis. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James No..ka, Building Official Will Dahn, Administrative Assistant Mary Harty and Director rf. Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (PLANNING COMMISSION) 8-10-78 - Motion by Commissioner MaleckTa—ndsi—c67nded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes of the August 10, 1978 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki and Hawes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioners Jacobson and Th 6s abstained as they were not at that meeting. APPLICATION NO. 78015 (Independence Ten) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was Application No. 78015 submitted by Indpendence Ten.. The Secretary explained that this appli- cation was for preliminary plat approval and is the result of a condition of approval for Application No. 77026 which rezoned from R1 to Cl , a triangular piece of property ►ccated northerly of Shingle Creek and easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard. COMMISSIONER BOOK ARRIVES Commissioner Book arrived at 8:12 p.m. The Secretary next reviewed a transparency and indicated that the northerly boundary of the property is the municipal city limits between the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park while the southeasterly property line was originally established according to the center line of. .Shingle Creek before the Creek was eal.icgned... : He pointed out that this meandering boundary line is also the northwest boundary line of the Wingard Addition which consists of several lots, and one of the purposes of the replatting is to clarify the boundary situation since the present Creek is to the northwest of that line. The Secretary reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this application on April 6, 1978 and had 'tabled the matter to allow the staff to meet with affected property cwners to resolve this boundary 'problem. He added that the Commission, on April 27, 1978, again reviewed the preliminary plat and the City Engineer reported on the results of the meeting held with the affected property owners. He explained that three of the four property owners in the Wingard addition, affected by the realignment of the Creek, were interested in participating in the replatting of this area, the fourth property owner is satisfied with the survey he already has. He stated that the affected property owners have agreed to share the extra costs of the replatting, and the Commission had tabled this application to allow the applicant time to prepare the preliminary plat. 8-24-78 -1- The Secretary reported that the Planning Commission had reviewed this application on April 6, 1978 and had tabled the matter to allow the staff to meet with affected property owners to resolve this boundary problem. Ne added that the Commission,: on April 27, 1978, again reviewed the preliminary plat, and the City Engineer re- ported on the results of the meeting held with-, the affected property owners. He explained that three of the Four property own,-,I,s in the "Wi ngard Addition, affected by the realignment of the Creek, were interesed in participating in the replatting of this area, the fourth-property owner is satisfied with the survey he already has. He stated that the affected property , wners have agi°eed to share the extra costs of the replatting, and the Commission*W tabled th:� application to allow the appli- cant time to prepare the preliminary ! lat. The Secretary also stated that one coil sideration aised daring the review of this preliminary plat was the need to establish an appropriate easement along Shingle ' Creek for future uses such as a trailway or bikeway which could be incorporated into future plans for the Shingle Creek trailway system. The City Engineer ex- plained the changes in the uld, propei�ty lines comprehended by this preliminary p'.at and how the meandering of Shingl -, Creek also affected these properties. He stated that since: the Crect. has been, ealignvd, the new platting would create a - dofinit:e north property line for thos homes ire. the Wingard Addition-which would bn affected. He explained that the,.rq,.w property lanes would be coincidental with, the Creek easement line A brief discussion ensued .relative tutha application with the City Engineer re- sponding to various questions by mem,'..Jers of the Corrmiscion. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. '8015-(Independence Ten) Following further discus ss on tlfiere was a mofl=' by Commit oner Hawes and seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend c.pproval of Application No. 78015 submitted Independence e'en subject. to the ',fo*, iswinJ an"ditions: 1 . The firiaY plat is subject toApprovai by the City Lngineer. ' 2. The final plat is subject. ;o the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ord I nancec. h 3. An appropriate easement shelrt be provided adjacent to Shingle Creek for pu poses of environmental protection and public recreational access (such as,' trailways and bikeways) as determined b the City Engineer. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, Hawes, Theis and Book. Voting against: none. The motion passod unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78047 (Josephine Bovy) The next item o busy ess was consideration. of Application No. 78047 submitted by Josephine-Bovy. The 3ecretary explained thatthe applicant was seeking a variance from the side yard setback requirement: o:rltained in Section 35-400 to build an approximate 10' by 16' enclosed entryta ' at 5946 Colfax Avenue North. He stated that the addition would encroach approx-mately 10 ft,. -into the 25 ft. side corner setback required for corner lots. He, r viewed a transparency' showing the location , and configuration of the property in question and stated that the applicant has submitted a letter explaining her request and outlining her justification for the variance. He explained that the applicant no Les that a patio door in the side yard of her split entry home has, in ssence,-,"become the main entrance to that home. 8-24-78 �2- He further stated that she points out that weather conditions often make this e tryway hazardous, and she contends that a hardship would exist if she was not P rmitted to construct the enclosed entryway. He pointed out that the applicant a so contends that the construction of an enclosed entryway would make this entrance s fe for access to the home during all kind of weather; provide a barrier against the elements that would make the home more nergy efficient; and afford privacy during the evening hours of darkness from t ose passing by on the street. Ihe Secretary reported that this item was tabled by the Commission on August 10, 1978,. and the staff was directed to further research the matter of 1976 zoning ordinance amendment to 'Section 35-400 (2) that allows "a single family dwelling and permitted accessory structures to be co structed to within 15 ft. of the side corner lot line on a residential corner lot which was of legal record on December 19, 1957 and which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to width." He explained that the staff was also requested to determine the number of sub- standard corner lots created after December 19, 1957. He reported that the i ,.?search undertaken indicates there are approximately 47 substandard corner lots M record created after this 1957 date, including the applicant's property. He further -reported that the research indicates that the December 19, 1957 date used is the current ordinance language had to do with subdivision requirements estab- lishing 90 ft. wide corner lots as the standard. He added that the side corner .•ard minimum setback requirement was also changed from 15 ft. to 25 ft. around that same-time. He stated that the rationale for the 1976 amendment was that the ordinance was working a hardship on properties of record prior to 1958 that rfuld have been built upon using the old si a corner setback requirement of 15 ft. Ne further stated that it also seems clear 'hat this amendment was not intended to address all substandard corner lots, but only those that were created under "he old ordinance standards. The Secretary further stated that if the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of this variance, they would, for all t. actical purposes, be saying that they would be prepared to recommend a possible t,n• more corner lot variances in the future. the Secretary reviewed the standards for granting a variance contained in Section 35-240 of the City Ordinances and stated that following the staff research, it is still felt, as was noted at the August 10, 1978 meeting, that the applicant does not meet these standards for a variance. He pointed out that the applicant. does not seem to meet the qualifications for a :ha.rds ii p as opposed to a mere inconvenience, nor are the conditions of the variance necessarily unique to this parcel . The Secretary next reviewed some options avl'ilable to the applicant, other than her proposal for an enclosed entryway in the side yard. He pointed out that a sidewalk could be constructed to lead from the driveway area to the front entrance c;' the home to discourage use of this side entry particularly during adverse weather conditions. He added that it was also his understanding that there is a door leading from the lower level of the home to the inside of the garage, and that it might be possible to design this area to provide a safer access to the home. He added it might also be possible for the applicant to erect a canopy over the open stairway to provide some protection from the elements. the Secretary also reported that the Commission had requested draft ordinance language that might address the applicant's problem. He stated that a draft ordinance eliminating the December 19, 1957 date contained in Section 35-400 (2) of the present ordinance has been developed and is presented to the Commission for its review. He stated that this ordinance language would allow all corner lots that are substandard, with respect to width, to be within 15 ft. of the side corner property line. He added that this i nguage should be thoroughly reviewed by the Commission and pointed out that the idoption of this language is not necessarily recommended. 8-24-78 -3- He further stated that the question relating to this ordinance language really is whether or not the 25 ft. side corner setback for corner properties is desirable, because the effect of the amendrr?nt would be to revert to the old 15 ft. standard for the most part. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the variance .request and the ordinance Ianguage. In response to an inquiry by..Chairman Engdahl , the Secretary stated that there are several substandard corner lots of record prior to ,the 1957 date: that have been built upon using the 25 ft. `side corner setback. He added that this seems to indicate that even prior to the establishment of the .25 ft. standard, there had been some encouragement to build farther back than the 15 ft. standard. Chairman Engdahl inquired . further if any building permits have recently been issued for substandard corner lots using the old 15 ft. setback standards. The Secretary responded that a building permit was recently _issued for the construction of a garage set back 15 ft. from the side corner property line, but the property was of record prior to the December, 1957 date. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, who stated the need for the variance 'in . .order-to construct an enclosed entryway which would provide a safe entrance to her home in all kinds of weather, that it would make the home more energy efficient, and would also provide more privacy. Further discussion ensued relative to the application with Commissioner Book in quiring regarding the 1976 ordinance amendments that affected setbacks. The Secretary responded that in late 1975 three applications for variances were sub- mitted regarding side corner yard setbacks on' substandard corner lots, setbacks on substandard interior lots, and rear yard setbacks. He explained that the re- sults- of these variance requests led to an extensive ordinance review of setback. requirements for the City. He explained that in 1976, following this research, ordinance amendments were adopted by tie City including the one in question which` allows structures to be built using the 15 ft. side corner setback provided the lots were substandard with respect, to width and were also lots of record prior to December 19, 1957. He stated that. present staff research into this matter in- dicates that it was the City Council's intention at that time to draw the line so- to-speak on side corner setbacks using this 1957 date because those lots of record could have been built upon using the old ordinance standard. He pointed out that it also may have been the CounciV s `intentio n to limit the effect of this ordinance to properties' of record prior to December 19, 1957 that had already been built upon using the old 15 ft.. ordinance.�standard. He pointed out that the present ,..ordinance language does not, make this distinction. The Secretary stated that setback regulations have been established to, among _,other things, keep dwellings. farther back from dust, noise and fumes of the street; to add to the attractiveness and comfort of a residential district; to provide for aesthetics, uniformity, open space for light, air, 'view and safety; reduce fire hazards; provide space for off-street parking and provide visibility, especially in the area of street corners. He added that the question before the Planning Commission with respect to amending the current ordinance to allow all , substandard corner lots to utilize the 15 ft. setback requirement is whether or not the current 25 ft. side corner setback is reasonable or desirable. ' He pointed out that the effect of the amendment would be to revert to the old 15 ft. standard ... for the most part. 8-24-78 -4- RECOMMEND DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78047 (Josephine Bovy) Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 18047 submitted by Josephine Bovy noting that the lot was created after December 19, 1957, that the current 25 ft. side corner yard setbacks should be maintained and that the appli- cation does not meet the standards for variances contained in the City Ordinances particularly with.respect to uniqueness and hardship. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki, Jacobson, Hawes, Theis and Book. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DRAFT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE REGARDING CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACKS The Secretary inquired as to how th-e Commission wished to proceed with respect to the draft ordinance language that had been presented to the Commission regarding- side corner yard setbacks. Commissioner Engda>> commented that he did not feel the Commission should recommend changing the ordinance standards particularly in tight of his feeling that the current 25 ft. setback is reasonable and should be maintained. He added that he felt the Council should be aware that the Planning Commission bad considered the possibility of an ordinance amendment. Commissioner Theis stated that he too felt the present ordinance standards should remain, and that he was not in favor of recommending the ordinance language. Following further discussion it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to noo. recommend an ordinance amendment relating to corner side yard setbacks. APPLICATION NO. 78051 (Brookdale Car Wash) The Next item of consideration was App ication No. 78051 submitted by Mr. Stephen Graham for the Brookdale Car Wash. The Secretary stated that the applicant proposes tc,} add two canopy additions along the west side of the existing Brookdale Car Wash loco ted at 5500 Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the purpose of the canopies is to provide screening from the sun and the elements for special wax jobs performed 6y the applicant. He noted that each canopy would be attached to the existing building and cover approximately 38 ft. where it is attached to the building and extend approximately 14 ft. outward and be tapered down to approximately 13 ft. at the outermost edge. He added that the height of the canopy would be 8 ft. at the outermost edge and 11 ft. where it attaches. to the building. He explained that the canopy will have a canvas cover and be supported structural grade to aluminum columns. He reviewed a transparency showing the location of the property. The Secretary stated that gasoline service stations and auto washes are special uses in the C2 District, and, therefore, a special use permit is also being re- quested in conjunction with this addition. He reviewed a copy of the standards for special use permits contained in Section 35-220 of the City Ordinances, and added that it is felt the applicant meets these standards. The Secretary also pointed out that the applicant has undertaken many site improvements with respect to landscaping and plantings without any urging on the part of the City. He further stated that it is felt that these improvements have substantially enhanced the area. The Commission next reviewed plans for the canopy additions, and a brief discussion ensued relative to the application. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdah opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing with respect to the special use permit. No one spoke relating to the application. It was also . noted that the applicant was not present. 8-24-78 -5- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unaninrausly. In 'response to an inquiry by Commissioner Jacobson, the Secretary stated that the, canopies would not be located in normal driving lanes, and that he envisions no problems with cars backing into the poles suppor4ing the canopy. In response to a further inquiry, the Building Official stated that the canopy would be a permanent type structure and would not be rolled up daily. He pointed out that, if the appli- cant proposes to remove the canopy during a particular time during the year, the canvas would be removed and the poles would be taken down. The Secretary showed the Commission sample materials to be used in constructing the canopies that had ,been' submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Hawes questioned' whether or not it would be appropriate to place & restriction on this application -ihat would prohibit the canopy from becoming dilapidated. He pointed out that he feels. the present owner of the building would be quite concerned, about the appear- Ilce .but that future tenants may not be as concerned, and the canopy might well ;' become an eyesore. The Secretary responded that this application is a special 'use permit and that special use permits are not transferable, and therefore, if owner- rhip does change hands, a new special use permit v,ould be required. Chairman Engdahl_ inquired if the applicant would be allowed to.have signery on the canopies. The Building Official responded by stating that such signery would be larohibi ted, RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78051 (Brookdale Car Wash) lullowing further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded Oy commissioner Hawes to recommend approval of Application No. 78051 submitted b vrookdale Car Wash subject to the ;ollpwing 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. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes ordinances and regulations, -and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. Voting in favor: Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki, ,Hawes, Theis and Book. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78055 (Meadow Corporation) The next item of consideration wds AppTication No. 78055 submitted by Meadow Corporation. The Secretary stated that the applicant sought preliminary plat approval for the area in "The Ponds" Residential Development that represents the third development phase. He explained that on June 5, 1978 the City Council approved Planning Commission Application No. 78029 consisting of site and building plans for this area. One of the conditions of that approval was that the sites of the proposed development are subject to replatting prior to occupancy of any ..of the units therein. He reviewed a transparency showing the location of the property in question and stated that this development involves roughly what is known as phase 7 and 8 on the master plan and consists of 112 rental units. ' He pointed out that the applicant is proposing replatting of the area so that it would be possible to sell these units individually at some point in time with these units later being incorporated into "The Ponds" Homeowners Association. 8-24-78 -6- The City Engineer noted that there was a slight change on the preliminary plat regarding the alignment of Unity Avenue to provide more of a right angle where it intersects with 73rd Avenue North. He explained that this matter will require easements and agreements with abutting property owners and the City of Brooklyn Park. He pointed out that there have been meetings, and that this matter will be worked out. The City Engineer also pointed out that it is intended that after the buildings are built, the final lines will be determined, and then the final pl.-.t would be approved. A brief discussion ensued relative to the discussion of Outlots considered pre- . viously by the Commission, and the possibility of including as a portion of that definition, roadway areas. It was agreed that the matter should be looked into lager in the meeting when the Commission reviews various ordinance language re- garding Outlots. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing. No one spoke relating to the application. He next recognized Duane Dietrich, representing fi!i_ applicant, who stated that the preliminary plat before the Commission is simply an extension of the previously approved site and building plans. He noted that this platting would allow this development area to be sold as individual units !omewhere down the road. He clarified a point made earlier in the meeting by c;,e Secretary and stated that if the units are sold, it might be possible that they would become part of the "The Ponds" Homeowners Association or that a separate Homeowners Association could be established. I re City Engineer pointed out that a Homeowners Agreement is not needed at this time, but added he felt it would be important that there be a stipulation that a Home- owners Association, which would be approved by the City Attorney, be part of the approval of this application. Mr. Dietrich responded that he did not see the h ed to establish a Homeowners Association at this time when it is not the intent t , sell the units individually. He stated that he did not object to the idea of p,oviding the necessary Homeowner Association documents at the time of sale that m t with the City's approval . r Tie City Engineer commented that fe felt it was a matter or working out an a reement and possible wording so that a Homeowners Association Agrement would be a proved by, the City at the time these units might be sold. C OSE PUBLIC HEARING FbIlowing further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes and seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application with the City Engineer re- sponding to, an inquiry by Commissioner Hawes by explaining the nature of a water and drainage problem in the area f 70th and Quail Avenues North. He noted that this matter had been discussed by the City Council recently and that it is felt the water problem is not associated with "The Ponds" Development. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLICATION NO. 78055, (Meadow Corporation) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Hawes to recommenc approval of Application No. 78055` 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. 8-24-78 -7- 3. An appropriate easement shall be provided adjacent to Shingle Creek nt al protection and ublic recreational ' onme P of envir p , for purposes aces �; as trai7vrays and bikeways as determined by the City Engineer_. 4. Final plat is subject to the development of• a Homeowners Association document approved by the City Attorney, or assurance, satisfactory to the City Attorney, that a Homeowners Association document will be put into effect when, and if, the development -changes from a rental to a condominium ownership development. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl, Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki , Hawes and Theis. Voting against: none. Not Voting: Commissioner Book. The motion passed. RECESS: The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission recess--d at 9:40 p.m. and resumed at 10:-02 tiPPLICATION NO. 78056 (B & G Realty, Inc.) -he n'—exitem of consideration was Application No. 78056 submitted by B & G Realty, Inc. The Secretary stated that the applicant is seeking special use permit and site and building plar, approval for an approximate 100 unit Budgetel Motel located nn James Circle, south of Freeway Boulevard, adjacent to and westerly of the re- c.eiitly approved Embers Restaurant site. He stated that the special use permit is required for a C2 use in the I-1 District and as provided by Section 35-330 (3) (•i`) . He reviewed a transparency showing the 'location of the property in question, Pnd-stated that the applicant has indicated that either expansion of the .proposed morel on the northerly portion of the site or a freestanding restaurant located ' in the southeastern portion of the site are being contemplated for future develop- tent. He noted that the applicant has requested deferral of certain site improve for tine area contemplated: as a potential restaurant site. He stated this recommended that a rolled bituminous curbing, rather than concrete B612 curb and gutter, be permitted in that area proposed for the restaurant site. He stated :hat the Commission may well wish to .require a specific time period for this deferral . The `secretary next reviewed the site and building plans with members of the Plan- riing Commission and indicated the site plan shows a total of 118 parking spaces including 4 handicapped spaces. He stated that the ordinance formula requires -- parking spaces at the rate of one space per unit and one space for each employee on any one shift. He added that the applicant has indicated that the maximum number of employees at any. one time to be 12 and, therefore, 112 parking spaces - would be required. The Secretary also reported that the plans indicate a live-in or housekeeping unit apparently for an on-site caretaker or resident manager. He stated that this aspect has been reviewed with the applicant by the staff, and it has -been indicated that residential living areas are not permitted in the I-1 or C2 zoning districts. The Secretary further reported that, the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission not consider the live-in residential space as part of its site and ,_ building plan review for the project. He added that the matter does not seem to affect the applicant's plans to construct the motel , but they would like future' consideration of the possibility of having such a live-in space in the motel . He pointed out that the applicant has been informed that it would be encumbent on him to show that such live-in spaces can be compatible in this zoning district. He further stated that !it has been suggested by the City Attorney that the.Planning Commission and the City Council might well want to review this matter in more detail within the upcoming !,months with the possibility of an ordinance amendment to permit such live-in ',spaces in hotels or motels if they feel ' it is warranted. 8-24-78 -8- l["he Commission next reviewed the site and building plans and the City Engineer commented on the grading, utility and berming plans as well as a detail of light ixtures proposed for the outside area. He stated that it has been suggested to he applicant that approximately three trees, 22 inches in diameter, be planted In the 'area that is proposed for ceferral . He pointed out that it is felt- that hese treescould be moved at a f ture date if there was indeed development of a estaurant on this site at some time in the future. He added that in the mean time hese trees would be given the op ortunity to grow and would be desirable land- caping for that area. He noted 4 4hat it is also recommended that a berm be pro Wed at the south End of the property in the area where certain landscaping reatments are recommended for de erral . He also pointed out that the applicant as proposed that a stone material be used instead of a wood mulch in various reas on the plan. He explained 1hat the staff has recommended a wood mulch be. sed because of problems that havc been experienced on other sites where stone ather tham mulch has been used. Lengthy discussion ensued relative to access to the site from the proposed hingle Creek Parkway Interchange with the Secretary and the City Engineer re- aonding to various questions rel ting to traffic flows . Chairman Engdahl com- anted relative to deferring of c nsideration for the live-in residential area .nd inquired if the Holiday Inn, hen it had made application for site and bu-ilding Lan approval , had requested such a live-in accommodation. The Secretary responded :hat it was his understanding that in the preliminary review of the Holiday Inn ite and building plans, there had been discussion about the possibility of a live-in resident manager r. He stared that it is further his understanding that the utter was dropped and not pursued during the site and building plan review. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman r� man Encg ahl opened the meet ng for purposes of d public hearing relating.,.. . the soec! al use permit. No onO spoke relating to the application. - CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING ot�on by Commissioner Jacobson-s conded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passel unanimiously. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. J seph Spang, representing the applicant, and ..a lengthy discussion ensued relativ to the application. Mr. Spang stated that it is their intention at some point in the future either to expand the motel or to develop a freestanding restaurant on the site. He pointed out that in all likeli- ood, there would not be. both pro osals. He further stated that they are request- ng a deferral period of approximitely three years for the various landscape improvements discussed earlier by the Secretary. He noted that Budgetel presently as an agreement with Embers Restaurant that they will not build a restaurant on their site for at least three years. �hairman Engdahl inquired as to tie applicant's feeling regarding a wood mulch reatment around the buildings anJ various plantings areas rather than the stone indicated on the plan. Mr. Spang responded that it has been their experience that there has been little or no problem with the stone, and that they wish to detain it. He added that he is a are of the City. Engineer's concern that stones ight be used to damage windows, ut that they have not experienced this problem ith any of their other motel operations. In response to further inquiries, Mr. pang explained that the exterior of the building would be a stucco-type finish 1�ith a batten board overlay and tiat the mansard treatment would be uniformly pplied on all four sides of the building. It was the consensus of the Planning omission that the applicant provide three 22 inch trees in the deferred area; provide a berm in the area recommended for deferral as approved by the City Engineer; and that the stone treatment around the building and in other areas be retained. 8-24-78 -9- Further discussion ensued relative to the landscape plan and the utilities plan with the City Engineer responding that the utilities for this site will be adequate. A discussion ensued relative to the location of a trash enclosure with Mr. Spang stating that they would recommend that it be in the northwest area of the site and that the exterior would be of the same material as that proposed on the motel building. Chairman Engdahl suggested that the applicant might want to provide a roof over the trash enclosure especially in light of the fact that Shingle Creek Parkway will be above the site. The City Engineer stated that he felt the amount of trees located. in that portion of the site would also provide .some screening in addition to the enclosure. Commissioner Book -inquired if the parcel to be built on has been subdivided by a play. The City Engineer responded that presently it is all one parcel which in- cludes the bowling alley site as well as the Embers site. He explained that the final plat will be before the City Council at its next;Council meeting. Commis' sioner Book also inquired as to how the deferred area in the southeast portion of 111h^ site would- be treated. The City Engineer responded that the area would be 1^)'t in its natural state unless it was disturbed because of the possibility of ",ure expansion into this area. He pointed out that if the area was disturbed, i would require rejuvenation. Commissioner Book commented that he felt the Commission was looking at an incomplete set of plans and was uneasy about the proposal . RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78056 (B & C Realty, Inc.) 'Following futher discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes and seconded k• Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval 'of Application No. 78056 submitted b%, B & G.Realty, Inc. subject to the'foliowing conditions: 1 . Building plans arc subject to review and approval by the Building Official with resp,act to applicable codes prior to the issuance c'. omits. 2. Site gradi=ng, drainage, utility and berfiling 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 site improvements, 4. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 5. The Permit is subject to all applicable ordinances, codes, regulations, and violations thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 6. The property shall be subdivided by plat or registered land survey prior to the issuance of permits._ 7. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical ' equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 8. The building is to be equipped with an automatic_fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 9. Smoke detectors shall be installed in all sleeping units as per Minnesota Building Code requirements. 8-24-78 -10 10. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved i by the City Engineer. 11 . Plan approval' is exclusiv of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Or( finances. 12. Concrete curb and gutter around the area proposed for a future restaurant site shall be deferred for a three year period and a rolled bituminous curb shall be provided during that time. 13. The area proposed for a ftiture restaurant site shall be main- ined with a viable turf other landscape treatments in this area are deferred for a three year period. 14. Plan approval does not include approval for an on-site live-in nit as indicated on the plans; this matter will be the subject of further review and discussion. 15. hree 2% inch trees and a berm in the area deferred for improve- ments shall be provided as approved- by the City Engineer. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki , Hawes and Theis. Voting against: Commissioner Book who stated he felt the plans were incomplete. The motion passed. APPLICATI N NO. 78032 R. L. Johnson) The Secre ary introduced the next item of business, that of a status report on Applicati n No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson. He explained that the City Council , t its August 14, 1978 meeting, voted unanimously to deny R. L. Johnson's request t rezone from R-3 to C2 t e property located northerly of Shingle Creek and weste ly of Brooklyn Boulevard based.on the Planning Commission's recommend- ation . H explained that the City Council had also referred the application back to the Planning Commission with direction to study the feasibility of amending the Comprehen ive Plan to allow split zoning on the property (C1 in the southerly portion aid C2 in the northerly portion)' He added that the Council also directed that the following items be consid red by the Planning ,Commission in -its review: 1 . The adjacent land in Brooklyn Park which is zoned for a higher ensity commercial use; 2. he soil conditions of the land which might make building . ifficult; 3. The fact that this C1/C2 zoning might provide a buffer area etween the already existing R3 development (Creek Villa) nd the commercial development in Brooklyn Park; 4. The fact that the R3 zoning for', that land may not be desirable because of the commercial development in Brooklyn Park and; 5, The "Commission should also consider the possibility of rezoning the landlocked acreage west of Mr. Johnson's property and northerly of Shingle Creek to Cl . 8-24-78 -11 The Secretary discussed the feasibility of amending the Comprehensive Plan to e flow for C2 development along Brooklyn Boulevard, He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses Brooklyn Boulevard and acknowledges Service/Office uses and Multipe Family Residental uses as desirable.along this thoroughfare. He recommended that the Commission be very careful in making any possible recommendations for changing the Compreheasive Plan at this time. He added that to recommend a split zoning that incl ,,ded C2 zoning, in his opinion, would be contradictory to the.;Comoretensive Plan. He pointed out that a Cl zoning or an R5 zoning would be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, but that a C2 Toning would raise certain contradictions. He also pointed out that the City y Attorney, at the August 14 1978 City' Council meeting, had expressed his concern that C2 zoning on this `parcel , 'whether or not the Comprehensive Plan was amended, could have a potential effect for possible other C2 rezonings all along Brooklyno Boulevard. Commissioner Book commented that he did- not feet the issue at hand was a matter of . ure zoning, but a matter of what the current zoning is He stated that he did feel R3 zoning for this property was the best zoning. Commissioner Hawes f.cmmented that he would like to see some R3 zoning retained in the southerly portion `his property, and a Cl zoning in the remainder. Chairman Engdahl commented that did not know how any C2 zoning could be justified on this 'parcel :!,airman Engdahl then recognized Mr. R. L. Johnson who submitted a proposed replat- :;ng for the property to accommodate a 'split,Cl/C2 zoning, with the property ;Iusest to Shingle Creek being zoned Cl and the property abutting the municipal ,,order with Brooklyn Park being zoned C2. Mr'. Johnson stated Lnat he felt- the zoning ff' the property in Brooklyn Park immediately to the"north of his property was the t:ey to the issue. He explained that a Cl zoning for that portion of the property ;iosest to Shingle Creek would create an adequate buffer for the R3 property south kf Shinglo Creek, and that C2 zoning on the northerly portion of the :property would I,e compatible with the existing uses In, Brooklyn Park. The Secretary commented that development proposals in conjunction with rezoning i-Lquests can be extremely`valuable, .but .he pointed out that any rezoning of the ;)roperty to C2 would allow the development of-any of the C2 permitted and special uses contained in the Zoning Ordinance: The Secretary further stated that there are a number of other uses along Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Park, such as the Century Court Apartments, that are not zoned comparable to Brooklyn Center's C2 zoning. Commissioner Book commented that he would not object to any C2 development contained in. the City Zoning Ordinance for this property if the split C1/C2 zoning were- to occur. The City Engineer stated that the primary function of Brooklyn Boulevard is that of an arterial highway to move heavy volumes of traffic. He acknowledged that there were a number of C2 uses along Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Park, but pointed out that any C2 zoning of this property might well have an effect all along Brooklyn Boulevard resulting in other requests for C2 rezonings in the area. He pointed out that this would create a conflict with the primary function of Brooklyn Boulevard, that being an arterial or traffic mover roadway. 8-24-78 =12- airman Ingdahl next recognized Mr. Louis Terzich who ;,noted that the Northwest Ne.ighborh(:od Advisory Group, of which he is a member,, had spoke in favor of Mr. hnson's proposal for a split Cl/,2 zoning of the property.. He urged the Planning mmissiorl to look favorably oi su h a rezoning. In response to an inquiry by airman ngdahl , Mr. Terzich ;tat ad that he did have an interest in the transaction r a pos ible restaurant on a portion of the site, but had not participated in the ting on the matter when the 4ort1west Neighborhood Advisory Group had considered airman ngdahl then ,recognized C until member Celia Scott, who commented on the ty Coun il 's action and dire.-tioi given to the Planning Commission. She pointed. it that he Council was not t lli g the Planning Commission to act favorably on split z ning, but only look urt er into the matter. '+, She explained that the until hid denied a C2 rezoni g f r the entire portion! of the property, but Mr. hnson hid indicated that he nl y desired C2 zoning for the northerly portion the pr perty. She indicate that the Council requested the Commission to look, the various points to see ff there was merit in a split zoning which would compass some C2 zoning for t o parcel . airman Engdahl expressed the opinion that to allow for the split zoning, the missiop would have to also recommend an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan :to knowled a C2 zoning along Br ok1 n Boulevard. e City ngineer commented on traffic generation associated with various zonings. pointe out that one of the pro lems with a C2 zoning on Brooklyn Boulevard is e amoun of traffic generate which would conflict with the intended use of loulevard ooklyn as an arterial iighway to move heavy volumes of traffic. He . , ted th t in terms of traffic volume, R3 zoning woul account for approximately . trips er acre per day, while Cl zoning would accou t for approximately 250 ips per acre per day, and that C2 would account for approximately 500 trips per re per ay.. He stated that in terms of trips per ac e, C2 zoning would generate. ice as ny trips as Cl and almost 10 times as many ;s R3. He'pointed out that is situ tion would be magnified as more property alog Brooklyn Boulevard were zoned f r C2 uses. He adde that such rezonings wou d be a major departure om the ity's Comprehensive Plan. He pointed out that he did not feel it would approp iate at this time tc go ahead with such a rezoning particularly in light. the fa t that the City is row involved in an updating of the Comprehensive Plan mandat d by State law. He further stated that the,, City has retained a Consultant advise in this Comprehensive Planning process, and that a rezoning. would volve a amendment to the C mpr hensive "Plan, at the j- proper time. He added at perk ps advice from the ConSLltant regarding this matter should be sought. airman ngdahl and Commissioner Jacobson agreed that advice from the Consultant this t me regarding Brooklyn Boulevard would be worthwhile, and recommended at such advice be sought. mmissio er Theis commented regarding the split zoning proposal and stated that i seems hingle Creek already pr vides a natural barrier for this property. Re- rding a buffer, he stated that te felt it would be an injustice to leave this operty zoned R3 and have it abut a C2 type use in Brooklyn Park. He added that did not feel R3 zoning for this property was the best. e Secretary clarified that it has been indicated to the Commission that there 11 may a merit in rezoning this property to something other than R3. He pointed it that a Cl rezoning similar to that which happened On the property directly ross B oklyn Boulevard fron thE property in questiol'n might well have some merit, would possibly rezoning this property to R5. He pointed out that both of these types of rezoning would be co sis ent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. -24-78 -13- u ACTION DIRECTING FURTHER RESEARCH Following further discussion there was a motion by Chairman Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table further action to the request for split zoning of this property and to direct the staff to contact the City's Comprehensive Plan Consultant for further input regarding the desirability of such a rezoning for a possible report at the September study meeting. The motion passed unanimously. DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING OUTLOTS A Srief discussion ensued relative to a draft ordinance defining Outlots. The City Engineer referred to the Commission's discussion regarding the possibility of including roadway areas in this definition, as was discussed earlier during the Commission's consideration of Application No. 78055 submitted by Meadow Corporation. He recommended deferring further consideration of the draft ordinance to give the City Attorney the opportunity to review it. ACTION DEFERRING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT ORDINANCE REGARDING OUTLOTS Motion by Chairman Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Theis to defer further-consider- ation of a draft ordinance regarding Outlots until a later Commission meeting to give the staff the opportunity to further review it. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hawes :,cco;ided by Commissioner Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :58 p.m. ._ ' Ch ai z 8-24-78 -14- r 1