Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 09-14 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTAi REGULAR SESSION SEPTEMBEIR 14, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER TWe Panning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . ROLL CALL Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malec i , Jacobson, Pierce and Hawes. Also present were Director of Public Works James Morita, Building Official Will Dahn, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (PLANNING COMMISSION) August 24, 1978 Motion by Commissioner Malecki second d by Commissioner Jacobson to approve the minutes of the August 24, 1978 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor:. Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson and Hawes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce, who stated he was not present at that meeting. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 78053 (Eloise Lowry) ollowing the Chairman's explanation, lthe first item of consideration was Appli- cation No. 78053 submitted by Eloise owry. The Secretary explained the appli- cation was for a special use permit f r a home occupation at 6914 Lee Avenue North, con_isting of porcelain art instructions. The Secretary showed a transparency o' the area and noted the applicant had submitted a letter outlining the proposed home occupation, which includes instruct- ing individuals in the basic procedur s for brush strokes and application of paint on porcelain, and instructing basic a,t concepts in connection with porcelain painting. He continued that the applicant proposed to hold three classes per week for two eight week sessions, one in the fall and one in the spring. He pointed out that the applicant had a so indicated that. she desires to have six or seven students per class. The Secretary reported that the Building Inspector had inspected the applicant's home and found that there should be no problem with code-related concerns with the application. He stated that the 'Building Inspector also indicated that off- street parking for four nonresident students could be provided in the applicant's driveway. The Secretary reviewed the standards for special use permits as well as the definition of special home occupations. He stated that a special use permit was required for the teachinglof more than one, but no more than four non- resident students at any given time. He noted the applicant had been informed of this ordinance requirement. The Secretary also reviewed the recommended conditions -of approval and explained that a fifth condition was recommended, that the operation be limited to not more than four nonresident students, as provided in Section 35-900 of the City Ordinances. A discussion ensued relative to the intensity of the proposed use. Chairman Engdahl pointed out that since there could be a need for up to four parking spaces, the use was more intense than a home ',beauty parlor operation. The Secretary agreed and explained that because ofithe size of the .driveway, the Building Official had determined that adequate off-street parking space could 'be provided. 9-14-78 °1- i I Commissioner Pierce questioned whether all the students would be present at one. time. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and pointed out the applicant ,, could encourage carpooling in order to minimize the traffic generation: He ex- .. plained that the applicant proposed two morning,'classes per week from 9:30 a.m. to 11 :30 a.m. , and one evening class per week, but had not indicated the hours` for the evening class. Chairman Engdahl. recognized' the applicant, who further explained her proposed schedule. She stated that she proposed two eight week sessions, one in the fall and one in the spring, and would not hold classes during school vacation time. She continued that she proposed three classes per week; which would be on Monday morning, Tuesday morning, and Tuesday evening. In response to a question from Commissioner Jacobson, she stated the evening hours would be from 7:30 P.M. to 9:30 p.m. In response to questions from Commissioner Pierce and Chairman Engdahl regarding traffic generation and parking problems, she stated that the family cars would be parked in the garage during the teaching sessions, and that she anticipated some -:r•.:�pooling among her students. She also pointed out that some students came to •lass on the bus. She explained that with seven students she would anticipate f'c:vr cars. She stated her desire to have five to seven students per class. Chairman_ Engdahl pointed out only four students were permitted at any one time, the ipplicant responded that in her special use permit request, she was asking for permission to have seven students. The Secretary explained that the special use -ermit was required for more than one -student, but did not permit any more than �uur students at any one time, Chairman Engdahl asked whether the students were adults and the applicant responded its the affirmative. -Commissioner Jacobson inquired whether the applicant would ' Like to add another class per w(- •k in view of the fact that she would be limited. to four stuJents. The applicant responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Pierce explained that the Commission could establish maximum hours of operation and permit four classes per week during those maximum hours. A brief discussion followed,'.,, , regarding the hours of operation. The applicant stated she would add. a daytime. , class rather than an evening class. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Engdahl stated that a public hearing had been scheduled. It was noted that none of the notified neighboring property owners spoke relating to the appli- cation. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In further discussion, Chairman Engdahl recommended establishing maximum hours of 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and a maximum of two classes per day Monday through Thursday. Commissioner Hawes asked she applicant whether there would be any delivery of materials to the house.` : The applicant responded that she supplied the materials, and that there -would be no truck deliveries. Commissioner Hawes inquired whether there would be any flammable materials stored on the premises.. Mr. Lowry responded that turpentine was the only flammable material which would be stored on the premises, and that the Building Official had shown them how to handle and store the substance. The Secretary also pointed o.ut the applicant had indicated there would be no smoking allowed during the classes. 9-14-78 -2 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. �178053 (Eloise Lowry) . Motion by Commissioner Maleckl seconded y Commissioner Jacobson to recommend approval of Application No. 78053 submitted by Eloise Lowry subject to the fol !;ow- ing conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the proposed use and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to allllapplicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation shall be grounds for revocation. 3. All parking related to the special use shall be off-street parking on appropriate space ',provided by the applicant. 4. The operation shall be limited to not more than four students us provided in Section 35-900 of the City Ordinances. 5. The hours of operation shall be 9:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday, with no more than two classes per day and four classes per week. 1*iie motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 78043 (Jerry Harrington) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78043 submitted by Jerry {Harrington. The Secretary explained that the applicant sought site and building plan approval for a wholesale distribution center on the property locateu at 4455 68th Avenue North. ' ill., Secretary showed a transparency of the area and reviewed the application He stated that the applicant proposed a wholesale distribution center consisting of three 20,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse buildings on the C2 (Commerce) zoned pr perty located easterly of the NSP facility and westerly of the Iten Chevrolet site. ; He continued that the same applicant had received site and building approval and r Application No. 77049 in October, 197p for a commercial speculative building ro- posed for multiple tenancies on the same site. He stated the applicant had n t been able to market the concept and contends the site is not well suited for standard commercial/retail uses due to its location, accessibility and the nature of neighboring land uses. He continu d that the Commission had first reviewe µ conceptual drawings of the applicant : proposal on June 15, 1978 and had Bete mined that there were three possible approaches to the concept: one, to rezone the ;tland to I-1 (Industrial Park) ; two, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for c stain special uses in the C2 district, such, as wholesale distribution; and three, to accept .an application for the proposed development and make a finding that th proposed use was similar in nature to' -other uses permitted in the C2 district The Secretary stated that the Commission had determined the third alternativelwas the most viable, and the application w: as formally reviewed by the Planning Commission at its August 10, 1978 meeting, and a number of concerns were raised, including parking for the site under the proposed use, as well as future parking needs if the property were to be converted to strictly retail uses . He conti 'ued that the applicant had proposed the possibility of providing a restrictive covenant, similar to that used in the S & H Green Stamp application involving property at 5810 Xerxes Avenue North, that would require additional parking t be provided inside one of the three buildings if parking became a problem at a f ture date. 9-14-78 -3- The Secretary also reviewed discussion relating to a 1973 proposal for "mini- warehouses" on this same site. He stated that that application had been denied on -the basis-that the proposal was more appropriately a use comprehended in the industrial district rathar than in the commercial district. He stated the Planning Commission had tabled the application -on Aug►agt 10, 1978 to enable the applicant to pursue the possibility of a restrictive covenant, and to prepare plans to show that adequate parking for C2 uses could be' provided;on the site. The Secretary reported that the City"Attorney had reviewed a proposed restrictive covenant and had responded to the matter through a `memorandum which was contained in the file. The Secretary discussed the City Attorney's recommendation, which would be to abandon the idea of a "restrictive covenant for four reasons: 1 . The City must go through a sham transaction of owning the property, and then deeding it back to the applicant in order to place itself in the chain of title for enforcement purposes. 2. Real estate law is imbued with the rule against Perpetuities, an ancient concept which looks unfavorably on owners of real estate who attempt to controi . future land uses.; Therefore, restrictive covenants are not favored' in litigation and courts can effectively remove them upon a -change of circumstances. 3. The remedy for violation of restrictive covenants involves a di-etrict court civil - action on the part of the City, the obtaining of" an injunction, and the problems in enforcing a judgment of injunction, once it is obtained. By contrast, 'control of land by Zoning Ordinance is effected through criminal court procedures which &re much faster and which carry more positive forms of inducement to abide by the regulation. 4. There are no enclosed parking ramps within the City of the suburban areas; certainly there are no one story enclosed parking ramps anywhere, leading to -the conclusion that such a use of land is not economically feasible. If the property eventually does become more suitable for a retail use, the use of a large portion of it for garage facilities ;would make less sense than it does under present conditions. : `Attempting to enforce by restrictive covenant, a land use which is economic nonsense would find deaf ears in the market place and 'the court room. The Secretary reported that the City Attorney recommended use of an ordinance amendment which the Commission would find .acceptable. The Secretary added that the City Attorney had indicated that the restrictive covenant could be used in conjunction with the Proof of Parking to show that parking could be provided on the site, should there be a future°need._ COMMISSIONER BOOK ARRIVES Commissioner Book arrived at 8:35 p.m. The Secretary stated that another aspect of the application which necessitated careful review by the Planning Commission involved making a determination whether the applicant's proposed use is similar in nature to other permitted uses in the C2 district. He pointed out that the applicant felt his proposal was similar to the American Bakeries use on 69th Avenue North, 'which was not specifically listed in the Zoning Ordinance as a permitted C2 use. 9-14-78 -4- He stated that it was his understanding that a determination had been made that it was similar' in nature to other C2 uses. He stated the determination the Commission must make was whether or not the applicant's proposal is similar to C2 permitted uses, or whether this type of proposal should be limited to such areas as the I=1 District where there already are a number of buildings which have office and warehouse uses. The Secretary reviewed the recommende conditions of approval and an extensiv discussion ensued. Chairman Engdahl �nquired whether a restrictive covenant should be required even if the City Attorney, did not rp--cmmend it. The Secretary reviewed the City Attorney's memorandum, and a' brief discussion ensued relative to the S & H Green Stamp covenant. Commissioner, Pierce pointed out that the S & H Green Stamp use had been a permitted use in the C12 district, and that the covenant had been on the use of the property. He suggested that perhaps under the present application, a restrictive covenant could be required. on the use of the property rather than on parking. In response to questions fr m Commissioner Pierce and Chairman Engd hl , the City Engineer read the formula for determining the required number of par ing spaces for C2 uses, and explained that_ the formula had been applied to the ag regate gross floor area of the three buildings. In response to a question from Commislsioner Pierce regarding the types of tenants, the Secretary stated that the applica,nt proposed tenants who would require office space and warehouse space, and that no retail activity was proposed. The Secretary pointed out that the American Bakeries use was partially a retail use. Commissioner Pierce commented that American Bakers was the only occupant of that buildin . He stated he felt that the multiple tenants proposed under the current applicati n might not be as easy to control . Chairman Engdahl inquired as to the parking required by the Schmitt Music use in the Industrial Park. The City Engineeer and the Secretary responded that the Schmitt Music use was primarily a C2 ',use in the Industrial District, and that adequate parking had been provided to support that use. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, who again explained his proposed hole- sale distribution use and his reasons for requesting it. He referred to a survey that had been conducted in which reprhesentatives of 60 types of uses had bee approached regarding the feasibility.lof the property for those uses and had found that none felt that the property was ,,suitable for commercial/retail use. He Continued that because of the surrounding land uses, and access to this site where a customer would have to cross threellanes of Brooklyn Boulevard traffic. H concluded that the site was not suitable for commercial/retail uses. Chairman' Engdahl inquired whether most deliveries would be made by truck. The applicant responded in the affirmative and pointed out that the adjacent NSP property and Post Office property also experienced a great deal of truck traffic. He also discussed the restrictive covenant he had proposed which would assurE that one of the three buildings on the property would be used for garage purposes in the evern that such a conversion to a ', permitted C2 retail use would take place. He added that he felt certain the property would not convert to a C2 retail Lse, and that he was willing to provide the City protection against that possibility with the restrictive covenant. COMMISSIONER THEIS ARRIVES Commissioner Theis arrived at 8:55 p'Fm. 9-14-78 -5- A discussion regarding the proposed use and the restrictive covenant ensued. Com- missioner Pierce commented that he would rather limit the use of the property than the parking. Commissioner Book inquired as to how the Northern States Power .seruice facility met the C2 zoning district requirements. The Secretary responded that fibrthern States Power was a public utility, and the use was permitted because it was necessary for the public welfare. Commissioner Book pointed out that the use seemed to be an industrial rather than a commercial use. The Secretary stated that in addition to the storage, of vehicles, there was also an office use on the site which was a permitted C2 use. The City Engineer commented that there were other uses required for the public welfare permitted throughout the City such as the Post Office, and the Northwestern Bell bui'dings. Chairman Engdahl stated he felt the applica�nt had made a major concession by providing the restrictive covenant, but he did not feel the Commission should act against the City Attorney's recommendation. The Secretary commented that the re- strictive covenant was a route which had been suggested by the applicant, and was not necessarily recommended by the staff. The applicant stated that the. S CO( H Green Stamp situation had been explained to him by the former Director of Planning` and Inspection as a possible means of addressing the parking problem. Chairman Engdahl recognized Building Official Will Dahn, who explained that the 5 & H Green Stamp operation had been a, permitted use in the C2 district, but, that the use could not meet the parking requirements on that site. He continued that , that applicant did not feel the use would need as much parking as required by the ordinance, and that a restrictive covenant had been placed on the property which provided that the property could only be used as a stamp redemption center. The Building +Official explained that when that operation' had ceased and-a new use was ;imposed 'for the building, the restrictive covenant had to be lifted and the new occupant had to provide the parking required for a retail use, and that.some of, that parking was provided inside of thfi building: 3 Chairman Engdahl suggested that instead of restricting the parking, that the use' could be restricted to a ratio of office use to warehouse use which would allow the applicant to meet the parking requirements. Commissioner Malecki inquired as to the City Attorney's recommendation for an ordinance amendment. The Secretary responded that the City Attorney recommended amending the ordinance to permit a wholesale distribution use in the C2 district. In'response to questions from Commissioner Pierce and Chairman Engdahl , he stated that' such`` an amendment would not solve the parking problem on the site. 1 Commissioner Hawes inquired whether the `applicant proposed a phased development. The applicant responded that all the buildings would be built at one time. He further explained the nature of the building, and that the amount of office space in each building could be reduced to meet the parking requirements. The Secretary noted that reducing the amount of office space in each building would make the use less commercial in nature and less similar to the permitted uses in the C2 zone. Commissioner Pierce pointed out that'the' American 'Bakeries was actually a service and retail use along with the warehousing use. The applicant again reviewed his reasons for feeling that the property was not suitable for retail use, and stated that he had considered many commercial uses for the property, and had eventually proposed an alternate which varied from the ordinance. He stated that in view of this, he had proposed a protective restrict- ive covenant. He added that he had not been aware of the 'City Attorney's recom- mendation, and that he would like a copy of the memorandum. 9-14-78 -6- Chairman Engdahl pointed out that the City Attorney implied that such a rests ctive covenant would not, in effect, protect the City should the property be. converted to retail use. He stated the applicant would be provided with a copy of the memorandum. Further discussion followed regarding the parking situation. Commissio er Bo( k noted that if the use would change to a retail use, a new applicant would hav to prove that the parking requirements for that use could be met on the si e. H stated he did not understand why the Commission should be concerned wit provision fnr future parking under this application. Commissioner Pierce pointed out t at the Srookdale Office Tower on County Road 10 was a Cl use located in thE C2 district. and asked how the parking for the building had been computed. The Building Official responded that the parking had been calculated on the Cl use. In furth r discussion Chairman Engdahl pointed out that in several cases a use had been denied beca se parking could not be met on the site. The City Engineer explained that the matter was one of,'degree, as to how much lotal parking a building could support. He stated that the parking; requirements fol the industrial speculative buildings had been computed based on the total office space which could be allowed by the parking available. He commented that if the restrict ive covenant were challenged, it might not hold up in court, but that it woulcl show the City's intent to provide for parking needs should the buildings be converted to another use. ! winissioner Book stated that he felt the Commission had three options: one, I,to approve the application without a restrictive covenant; two, to approve the i application with the restrictive covenant;. three, to deny the application. H further commented that at this point. the Commission had the luxury of requiring the covenant which would show the City's intent and concerns regarding the parking. Chairman Engdahl stated he fol t if the Commission recommended approval of the ,- application, it should be with the restrictive covenant. The Secretary stated that the City Attorney had indicated in further discussion that if the Planning Commission was inclined to approve the application, ther should be some kind of protection provided by the applicant. Chairman Engdahl polled the Commissioners. Commissioner Theis stated h was still forming his own opinion, but that he did not like to recommend approval of the covenant against the City Attorney's .recommendation. Commissioner Male ki stated *he would recommend approval of the application with the restrictive covenant , She added that she felt there might be some merit in rezoning the property to I-1 because of the existing land uses in the area. Commissioner Jacobson stated she felt the applicant's proposal was comp tible with the existing land uses in that area. Commissioner Pierce stated he als felt ' ae proposal was compatible with the existing land uses. Commissioner ook aid wes agreed the proposal was compatible with the existing uses and tha they mould recommend approval of the application with the restrictive covena t. Ilse Commission next reviewed the site and building plans. Chairman Eng ahl i quired whether it would be possible to limit the amount of office space. The ecret ry responded that it would not be feasible since the application was not for a s ecial a se permit. Commissioner Pierce commented that the Proof of Parking Plan shoved p ssibility of 205 spaces outside of -the building, and stated that that amo 'nt 1 heoCity arking space could support more office space than the applicant had Indic ted. y Eng ineer stated that 40% of the b�ilding could be used for off-'ice spice frith that amount of parking provided. 0-14-78 -7- i The Commission discussed the site plan. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , the City Engineer stated that concrete curb was shown on the plan for the perimeter of the entire site and that the conceptual grading plans were in order although some minor revisions would be made. Commissioner Jacobson inquired as to the outside trash disposal and the required underground irrigation. The applicant stated that both would be provided in conformance with the ordinance re quirements. The Secretary pointed out that provision for underground irrigation and screening of trash disposal .containers would be conditions of approval guaran- teed by the site performance agreement° RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78043 (Jerry Harrington) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Book to recommend approval of Application No. 78043 submitted 'by Jerry Harrington finding that the proposed wholesale distribution. use is similar in nature to existing uses permitted in the surrounding C2 D.istrict, and subject to the fol- lowing conditions: 1 . Building plans ,.are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes Prior to a-hc issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and landscape 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. -r. The building is to be equipped with an auti,omatic Fire extinuuishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed ar approved by the City Engineer. 6. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City;Ordinances 7. Plan approval comprehends parking to support the proposed wholesale distribution use; a restrictive covenant, approved by the City Attorney, shall be filed with the title to the property to provide parking in one of. three buildings should the wholesale distribution use cease and be converted to another C2 use re- quiring more parking. 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop- mechanical. equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. Voting in favor: Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson, Book and Hawes Voting against: Commissioner Theis. Not voting: none. The motion passed. . RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:50 p.m. and resumed at 10:10 p.m. 9-14-78 -8- APPLICATION NO. 78057 (Blumentals Architecture, Inc.) The next item of consideration was App ica ion No. 78057 submitted by Blumentalls Architecture, Inc. The Secretary stated t e application was for site and building plan approval of a 12,010 sq. ft. addition to an existing industrial and office building located at 1601 - 67th Avenue Nor h, which was approved under Application No. 77053 on August 3, 1977. The Secretary showed a transparency of the site showing the building anc the proposed addition. He stated the reason for the addition to the building was ',to provide additional space for a new tenant for automotive parts distribution. He added that no additional office space was omprehended for the addition. The'', Secretary continued that 67 additional parking spaces would be required with the new addition, based on the ordinance formu as. Ile stated the applicant had pro- posed that 62 parking spaces would be provided, and had submitted a Proof of Parking Plan which showed that the required 67 spaces could be provided on the site. The Secretary explained that with the buil ing addition, the 'applicant also pro- posed that the loading dock area be expanded to accommodate the addition. He stated that the applicant had further inquired about the possibility of moving the required 8 ft. high opaque wood fence which was to extend northerly from the existing building and provide screening for the parking area on the nor h portion of the site. The applicant felt that the fence would be better located close' to the property line, would adequately screen the parking lot from the adjacent kl institutional use, and would provide easier access to the 50 ft. green area between the property line and the existing building for maintenance and irrigation purposes. The Secretary stated that the City held a performance bond for various site improvements comprehended under Application No. 77053, and it was felt that the bond amount could adequately cover any additional improvements. The Secretary also reviewed the recommended conditions ol= approval . The Secretary explained that while the ordinance required a 100 ft. gre nstrip where an I-1 property abuts an R1 property, a variance had been approve under Application No. 77052 to permit a 50 ft. g eenstrip in view of the fact that the abutting R1 property was developed with a church, an institutional 11 use'. He pointed out the fence location which was approved under the previous appli} cation, and the location preferred by the applicant on the transparency A discussion ensued relative to the screening of the site. Ccmmissioner Pierce inquired whether there had been any screening required on the Speculative Building Flo. VII property immediately north of the 3ite under consideration, where it also abutted R1 property. The Building Officia responded that since there as a perm in that area, as well as a dense growth of trees, no additional screenizig had'' been required. Commissioner Book stated t at in his opinion, locating the fence would be unaesthetic. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Janis Blum ntals, who represented the applicant. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , Mr. Blumentals stated that the exterior of the addition would match that 3f the existing building. Chairman Engdahl commented that there were no changes .in access* to the site proposed. The City Engineer responded that the parking plan was adequate. Hje also explained that in view of the institutional use of the abutting R1 property, the 8 ft. high opaque fence required as screening by ordinance was not equir�d for this property. He stated that the purpose of the fencing under dis ussioh Was to screen the open parking on the site from the R1 property. 0-14-78 -9- Further discussion regarding, the fence followed. Chairman Engdahl stated he preferred the fence in its original location. Commissioner Theis agreed. The Building Official commented that he had reviewed the site with Mr. Biumentals° and had noted that because of the landscaping on the site, the moving of the fence could incorporate some lilacs to serve as screening. He. pointed out that re- location of the fence would not only be an improvement aesthetically, but would_. help in maintaining the landscaped area. He added that the applicant proposed to add an additional 15 to 20 ft. of fence in order to completely screen the parking from the R1 property. In further discussion 'it was the consensus of the Commission that relocating the fence to the property line would be acceptable. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION TIO. 78057 (Biumentals Architecture, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by` Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78057 '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 and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City- Engineer prior. to the issuance of permits. 3. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13. 4. All outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical equipment '`shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The current Performance Agreement being held for Application No. 77053 shall be retained, to assure completion of any additional ',e improvements. 6. The fence approved for screening purposes under Application No. 77053 may be located near the property line. The motion passed unanimously, APPLICATION NO. 78059 (Robert Fosdick) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78059 submitted by Robert Fosdick. The Secretar t:lgplained the applicant sought site and building plan approval to convert the r::; °.,, La ng abandoned service station at 5001 Drew Avenue North to an eat-in/carry-cu : barbeque restaurant. The Secretary ;cv,"ewed a transparency of the area and stated that the site had been the subje a previous proposal by Assurance Glass under Application No. 78018 to upgrade .e-P,,e existing service station to a new service. He continued that the proposal had sv-t materialized, and that the owner of the property had submitted a letter stati"Ig -�::Foat that proposal was no longer active. The Secretary e ,. ained that the applicant's proposal comprehended remodeling the service station1'ur- the restaurant and utilizing the existing storage building on the westerly portion of the site to provide some employee parking. He con- tinued that 28 restaurant seats and a maximum number of four employees were proposed, which would require 16 parking spaces. The Secretary stated that the plans indicated fourteen parking stalls around the proposed restaurant and two employee stalls in the adjacent storage building. 9-14-78 -10- The Secretary continued that the plans comprehended rejuvenation of the site with sod, plantings and trees. He added that two curb cuts were proposed: an entrInce on 50th Avenue North, and an exit onto Drew Avenue North. He 'stated the exter or finish of the restaurant would consist of diagonal board siding and painted concrete block, and the accessory b iiding would have a similar treatment exceQt for the side facing 50th Avenue North where it was proposed to leave the existing brick finish. The Secretary stated the ordinance required a 35 ft. greenstrip and opaque screning where C2 (Commerce) abuts Rl (Single Family) property and that the homeowner d.rect- ly to the north of the site at 5013 Drew A nue North presently has a 6 ft high m opaque fence which provides screeni g from he C2 site.. He also stated that there is an existing 6 ft. stockade fence apparei ly erected to screen the service station from the ,residential proper y. He ontinued that the applicant proposed to relocate the stockade fence to p ovide reening for the trash receptacle and so-ne of the parking spaces. the Secretary stated that when Application No. 78018 was considered, the property owner to the north had agreed that lis existing fence could serve as screening''. He continued that the property owner had been contacted recently and had agreed t;iat the required 8 ft. fence could be deferred. The Secretary continued that the homeowner was aware that screening was the responsibility of the C2 property, and he felt his own fence probably had a maximum life expectancy of five years,. The Secretary stated that the owner of the C2 property was aware of the require- ments, and that it is recommended, if the screening is to be deferred, that the owner execute an agreement to be filed witi the property title acknowledging that screening would be installed should tie screening on the z:djacent propertiy prove inadequate or be removed. The Secretary reviewed the recommended conditions of approval r nd sta-..:.d that Ide- ferral of the 8 ft. opaque fence was recommended for a, maximum of five years. ) A discussion ensued relative to the screen fencing. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether a performance bond could bE held long enough to insure that the .fence be installed. The Secretary responded it could be held until all site improvements were completed. He also commented that, if the covenant were filed with the title to the property, it would indicate this requirement to any prospective owner aft -Lhe time of title transfer. Commissioner Hawes questioned whether the fence could last longer than five years. The Secretary explained the homeow er's position which was that he had just finished repair and maintenance to the fence in the last season, and did not -feel the fence would last much longer than fivE years. The Secretary continued that the definite period of deferral was recommended to ensure that the fence would be installed. A brief discussion ensued relative to the landscaping plan. In a response to ,a question from Chairman Engdahl , the Secretary stated that the primary existing plantings along the north property line were Lombardi poplars and lilac bushes. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant,, Mr. Fosdick, and Mr. Phil Johnson, ' his architect. In response to a question reg ding the hours of operation, Mr. Fosdick stated that he was not certain of the hours because to his knowledge, , this restaurant would be one of the first arbeque restaurants located in a suburban neighborhood. He stated the hout would possibly be from 11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. depending upon the marke . Cha man Engdahl explained that while t ere was no limit on the hours of opera ion, h was concerned that the lights of tie cars and on the site might disturb the ne hborhood during late hours, and th t perhaps the 8 ft. high fence shoull be re ired at the outset. 9-14-78 -11- Mr Johnson stated that the headlight glare should not reflect below the level of eaves of the neighboring house. In response from questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Fosdick explained the operation, which included the use of a specially designed hardwood-burning oven. He stated the restaurant was not currently a franchise and that there would be no liquor served on the premises. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, he stated that there was not really a comparable type restaurant,-i in the area. The Commission reviewed the site plan and a discussion ensued. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated the site would be provided with an underg,�ound irrigation system. He also explained several revisions which would be required prior to the City Council meeting including provision for 21i inch diameter ash trees, rather than l 2 inch diameter trees, and reconfiguration. of the diagonal parking spaces to meet the ordinance standards. In response to' a question regarding the site lighting, Mr. Johnson stated the lighting would remain in the present location, but would be of a different type. In a brief discussion regarding the storage building, Chairman Engdahi commented that the changes to the building were only cosmetic, and that there would be no changes in the size. The Secretary noted that the building was an accessory building only and that only accessory uses, such as parking, could be permitted. Further discussion ensued relative to the screen fencing. Commissioner Theis stated he was concerned with the condition of the existing fence and thought perhaps it should be replaced immediately rather than deferred. He stated that the hours of operation of the restaurant and the intensity of the use were greater than those of the use proposed under the previous application, and that h(. felt it made a difference in the need for screen fencing. Commissioner .Jacobson inquired -whether the fence could be deferred until it de- teriorated. The Secretary commented it was his feeling that the longer the fence 1., s deferred, the less chance there would be that it would actually be installed. Cummissioner Book stated that he felt'the property should be brought up to the current ordinance standards at this time, and that he felt the five year con- tingency would be a headache for both the owner and the City in the long run. He stated that he would not recommend approval of the application if installation of the fence would be deferred. In further`discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the ordinance required 8 ft. opaque fence should be required with the approval . RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78059 (Robert Fosdick) Motionby Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 78059 submitted by Robert Fosdick 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. Site grading, drainage, landscaping and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. Existing underground fuel storage tanks shall be removed as directed by the Building Official . 4. A 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. 9-14-78 -12- 5. An underground irrigation system shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer. 6. Outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. Screening is required in accordance with Chapter 35 of the 1 City Ordinances. 8. Plans showing required revisions shall be submitted prior to City Council review of the application. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS In other business, the Commission discussed the release of the performance bond submitted in support of Application No. 71031 , the Bermel-Smaby office building 'located at 6500 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that the landscaping which had been installed on the site did not accur tely reflect that which had Fee, approved by the Planning Commission a d City ouncil . In response to t�: :.,tions from the Commissioners, Planning Aide Laurie Thompson explained that w;ii1e landscaping of the site had' not been done in complete accordance with the approved landscape plan, including four hardwood tees which were missing, generally the quality and quantity of the planting was compatible with the approved site plan. The Commission discussed the ite landscaping and it was the consensus that the landscaping was ade uate ani the performance bond could be released. OTHER BUSINESS other business, the Secretary briefly reviewed several upcoming appli- Lations. The Commission briefly discussed the neeJ for careful consideration of rezoning on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, south of 57th Avenue North. Chairman Engdahl suggested that the Planning Consultant retained by the City be asked for input into the desirability of rezoning that area. BROOK PARK BAPTIST CHURCH PARKING LOT UPGR DING The City Engineer presented a .plan for the parking lot 'of the Brook Park Baptist Church, located at 4801 —63rd Avenue North. The Commission briefly reviewed and discussed the plan, and it was the consensus that the parking lot revisions shown on the plan would represent an upgrading of the property. APPLICATION NO. 78007 (Dr. Richard Check) The City Engineer also briefly reviewed so a minor revisions in the landscaping treatment proposed for the area approved as joint parking between the Cross of Glory Church and the office building at 59101 Brooklyn Boulevard under Application No. 78007. He stated the Commission and C until 1lad approved a treatment of wood chip and spreading junipers for the parking lot d lineators. He stated the landscapers had advised the applicant that the junipers would have trouble growing in the delineators due to overlap by autom biles. He stated the City staff and the landscaper had recommended replacing tie juni ers with ash trees. The Com- mission discussed the proposed amendment W the site plan and it was consensus that the replacement of the junipers with ash was acceptable. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissio6er Hawes to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Comm lion adjourned at 12:00 a.m. Chaiq 9-14-78 -13- n 1 1 1