HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 10-05 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
OCTOBER 5, 1978
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m.
by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl .
ROLL CALL
Chairman Engdahl; Commissioners Theis, Pierce and Hawes. Also present were Director
of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and
Planning Aide Laurie Thompson.
APPLICATION NO. 78058 (Brooklyn Properties)
Following the Chairman's explanation the first item of consideration was Application
No. 78058 submitted by Brooklyn Properties. The Secretary stated the applicant
requested rezoning from R1 (Single Family Residential ) to Cl (Service/Office) of
the property located at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and explained that the application
included rezoning the "slaughterhouse property" and a strip of land approximately
28 ft. by 165 ft. located adjacent to and west of the slaughterhouse property,
which is contained in the Library Terrace Addition, and is part of the library
site. The Secretary explained that the property was bounded on the east by the
Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road, on the north by two single family residential
properties, and on the south by Cl properties, including the two sites being
temporarily occupied by CEAP (5607 and 5625 Brooklyn Boulevard) . The Secretary
0 so stated that the applicant proposed to combine the 28 ft. by 165 ft. strip
with the slaughterhouse property and develop the property with a law office should
a rezoning be granted. He stated the applicant had submitted a conceptual drawing
for a three-story, 14,850 sq. ft. office building.
The Secretary explained that the subject property had been considered for rezoning
to C1 under Application No. 76053 when the library site was rezoned. He stated
there had been discussion at that time as to whether or not the slaughterhouse
property should be included in the rezoning. He stated the record indicates the
Council 's feeling at that time, which was that the slaughterhouse property should
remain R1 , but that a rezoning of the property could be considered at a future
date if a specific proposal was put -forth. He continued that the records also
indicate that the City Council felt the Planning Commission should study the area
along Brooklyn Boulevard between 53rd Avenue North and County Road 10, particularly
any vacant property, for possible rezoning during the Comprehensive Planning review
process.
The Secretary emphasized that a review of the Comprehensive Plan relating to this
area was important for determining the merits of the rezoning request. He stated
that in reference to land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard, the plan acknowledges
permitting a limited amount of Service/Office establishments at appropriate
locations. The Plan also states as a goal "to preserve Existing single family
housing along Brooklyn Boulevard, at least for the near future, where it is an
integral part of a single family residential neighborhood, and not segmented
therefrom other land uses, and especially where a fronta a road exists or where
one can be installed." With respect to the Southwest Neighborhood, the Plan
recommends "maintain that part-of the Southwest Neighborh od lying north of 53rd
Avenue North in permanent single family residential use.
10-5-78 -1-
The recent construction of a frontage road along Brooklyn-Boulevard will permit
the existing adjacent homes to continue as an integral part of the neighborhood.
Commercial development should-definitely be prohibited along the east edge of the
deighorhood."
The Secretary pointed out that there was a basic conflict between the Compre-
hensive Plan and the rezoning request. He explained that if the rezoning was
found to be desirable, it should be accompanied by an amendment to the Compre-
hensive Plan. He also pointed out that direction had been given to study this
area for possible rezoning in conjunction with the Comprehensive Planning process,
and that the item had been referred to the City's Planning Consultant. He stated
that the Consultant had indicated that the study of Brooklyn Boulevard and various
recommendations would be completed by February, 1979. He stated the Commission
should consider whether the area was a desirable single family area.
A discussion ensued relative to the County-owned property. The Secretary explained
that the two parcels containing single family houses which were being utilized by
CEAP had been rezoned with the, library site in order to provide parking to support
a service/office use on the library site at such time that the building be con-
verted to private use. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , the
Secretary stated that the two Mouses$ as well as the library, were currently owned
by Hennepin County.
The Commission reviewed the 'preliminary conceptual drawings of the site. Chairman
Engdahl noted that it appeared that the property could be divided into four single
family residential lots under the current zoning. The Secretary explained that in
order to prevent commercial traffic from driving through the residential area north
of the site, it was proposed to, end Northport Drive in a cul-de-sac at the property.
In response to questions from Commissioner Hawes and Theis, the Secretary stated
that it was his understanding t: at the library site and the two parcels to the
north were to be included in the land transaction between Brooklyn Center Industrial
Park and Hennepin County. Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the parking in-
dicated on the conceptual plan was adequate. The Secretary responded that the
plans were conceptual only, and that they had not been reviewed with respect to
parking. He explained that the parking required would be a function of the size
of the building.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing was scheduled and recognized Mr.
Jim Speckman who represented the applicant, and presented a conceptual rendering
of the site and the building.- He stated it was the applicant's intention to
provide adequate landscaping on the site and to retain existing plantings and
the natural area as much as possible. He stated it was the applicant's feeling
that the office use would be a good buffer between the single family residential
to the north and the office use to the south. He stated the maximum hours would be
from apprximately 8:00 a.m, to 5:30 p.m., and that there would be no evening
traffic. He speculated that the future use of the library could be a service use
which would be more intense than the use the applicant proposed. He stated the
applicant had met with the neighbors to discuss the proposal and would be prepared
to meet with the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Dennis Ewer, 5637 Northport Drive. Mr. Ewer stated
that he represented the.views of two other neighbors who were unable to be present
at the meeting. He stated that while he and his neighbors would prefer to retain
the single family nature of the area, they anticipated that the property might go
to a more intense use. He stated that he and his neighbors had met with the
applicant over the summer and that, provided the cul-de-sac were installed at
Northport Drive, they would not be opposed to this use of the property. He con-
tinned that Northport Drive is currently being used as a "drag strip", and that
installation of the cul-de-sac would protect the single family residential area
from park traffic as well as from the commercial traffic.
10-5-78 -2-
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. George Olson, 5459 Brooklyn Boul-evar Mr. Olson
explained that commercial uses had been proposed for this area in thE past. le
stated that the traffic in the neighborhood was a proble , and that did no
regard a two story office building as a good buffer. He stated he w oppose 1. o
rezoning just the slaughterhouse property, and that if part of the st ip betty
53rd Avenue and County Road 10 were determined to be gooc for commer al uses
the entire strip should be zoned commercially.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mrs. Ziske, 5455 Brooklyn Bo levard. Mrs. Ziske'
stated she lived at the corner of 55th and Brooklyn Boulevard. She stated th
there was a serious traffic problem at the intersection and that she id not, eel
the area was a desirable residential area. She recommen ed that the ntire a
between 53rd Avenue and County Road 10 be reviewed for r zoning to a 1 commercial
use. She stated she was opposed to "spot" commercial zo ing. . She al o point:!d
out that the houbes along Brooklyn Boulevard had been built prior to he Broo d le
Shopping Center and the upgrading of Brooklyn Boulevard.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Modeen, 5545 Brooklyn Bo levard. Mr. Modeen ted
he also represented his mother, who lived at 5549 Brookl n Boulevard. Mr. Mb e n
stated he was against spot zoning of the property, particularly becau a of th
traffic which would be generated by the use the applicant proposed. a state
the entire area should be rezoned or the current zoning 0ould be retained.
Chairman Engdahl recognized a part owner of 5501 Brooklyr Boulevard w10 state he
had no objections to the rezoning application.
Chairman Engdahl again recognized Mr. Speckman. Mr. Speckman stated that thr h
his experience on the Planning Commission of another community, he hall obseru
that an office use such as the one proposed did not generate a great deal of
traffic. He stated that in addition to the staff automobiles, he wo d anticipate
only approximately 8 to 12 cars per day.
Chairman Engdahl again recognized Dennis Ewer, who stated he felt a litw offic
would generate more traffic than 12 cars per day. Mr. Speckman respchcled the he
business did not rely upon clients coming into the building, but that, much of the
business was conducted over the telephone and in court.
Commissioner Hawes inquired whether the law firm would occupy the ent re buililing.
Mr. Speckman responded that it was the applicant's goal to establish the bui1 ling
as a law center in approximately five years. He explained that in t meantine
part of the building would be rented to compatible tenants, such as ah insura
company.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
It was noted that no one else spoke relating to the application. Mot on by
Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the publi hearin"j.
The motion passed unanimously.
Chairman Engdahl explained to the audience and the applicant that it Was the'
policy of the Planning Commission to table all rezoning requests and refer th rr
to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment He stited
that the applicant and any interested neighbors were welcome to atterd the So -
west Neighborhood Group meeting.
10-5-78 -3-
A discussion ensued. The Secretary commented the Commission should take the dis-
cussion of the neighboring property owners into account when reviewing the Compre-
hensve` Plan recommendations for the area. . He stated the Comprehensive Plan
speaks to maintaining the area as a viable residential area, but that the discussion
with
speaks
neighbors indicated that people do not feel the area is a viable single
family residential area. He stated that from the discussion it also seemed im-
portant that a cul-de-sac installed on Northport Drive in order to break up the
flow of traffic from Brooklyn Boulevard towards the residential area. He continued
that the issue was not an easy one. He explained that the Commission would con-
tinue to look for input from those who would be most affected by the rezoning,
including the residents of the area.
Commissioner Pierce commented hat it was the Commission's responsibility to
determine highest and best land uses for the area. He stated he thought that
because of the proximity of the regional shopping center that this particular area
was pressured for commercial rezoning. He stated he preferred to look at the area
as a whole rather than at individual properties on a piecemeal basis.
The City Engineer responded to the concerns raised regarding traffic generation.
He stated that it was necessary, to look at the types of traffic generation that
would be allowed by the zoning, of the property, not just the specific proposal ,
because it was possible that the use would change over the years. Commissioner
Pierce pointed out that an example of a use changing would be the Library use.
The Secretary emphasized that all uses which are permitted in the Cl zone must
be considered for this property under the rezoning proposal .
Commissioner Theis inquired as toi' how many trips per day would be generated by an
office use. The City Engineer 'r. ponded that based upon a study completed by
BRW, Inc. three years ago regarding the Industrial Park office uses, fourteen
trips per 1 ,000 sq. ft. of building was generated, which would mean approximately
210 trips per day for the size building indicated by the applicant.
Commissioner Theis asked the City Engineer to compare the office trip generation
with a single family trip generation if the property were divided into four single
family lots. The City Engineer responded that a single family property generated
approximately 12 trips per day, which would mean 48 total trips per day as compared
to 200 trips per day for the office use.
TABLE APPLICATION NO. 78058 (Brooklyn Properties)
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by
Commissioner Pierce to table Application No. 78058 submitted by Brooklyn Properties
and to refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 78060 (Brookdale Ford)
The next item of consideration was Application No. 78060 submitted by Brookdale
Ford. The Secretary stated the applicant sought site and building plan approval
for various building additions to the property located at 2500 County Road 10.
The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and stated that the applicant
proposed an approximate 25 ft., by 47 ft. office addition, a 42 ft. by 175 ft.
addition to the service garage on the north side of the existing building, and_a
35 ft. by 72 ft. addition to the freestanding body shop located on the east edge
of the site. He explained that the Commission has reviewed a revised master plan
and landscape plan for Brookda'14 ford on July 13, 1978. He stated that at that
time the applicant had indicated they would seek approval at a later date for
the various additions to their site. He stated the plans were being incorporated
with the revised master plan and seemed to be in order. He reviewed the recom-
mended conditions of approval .
10-5-78 -4-
The Commissior reviewed the proposed site and building plans-. The Se ret ry
pointed out that the triangular piece of property on the west side of the site': hich
would "square off" the site had not yet been purchased by the applicant aid w s
not a part of the site. He stated the master plan had been reviewed Aith the
understanding that that piece of property might be acquired by the ap lic nt. I e
also pointed out on the site plan the areas for which the building ad iti ns ire e
proposed.
The Secretary stated that the submitted plans had been compared with he f lan which
were reviewed by the Commission last summer. He stated s me revision wo ld te
necessary in order to reflect the changes recommended on the master p an, but tl at
the plans were basically in order.
The Secretary continued that if the triangular piece of property were pur has d
and added to the site, the access to the site would proba ly be chang2d. He fti ted
that in view of this, the Commission had approved bitumin us curb and gutter foi
that area of the site.
A discussion ensued with regard to the site and building plans. Chai an Eng a 1
inquired whether the parking proposed was the same on the master plan The
Secretary responded that it was except that there was par ing indicat2d for the
area where an existing underground propane tank was located. He stat2d that
parking over that area was permissible.
In response to questions from the Commissioners, the Secretary stated tha t th
exteriors of the additions were proposed to match the existing building. He
stated it was recommended that the "pier" treatment shown on the plans of the
exterior of the buildings should be uniformly applied and so shown on the plans
Commissioner H wes inquired whether the buildings were fi -e sprinkler . The
Building Official responded that they were. The Secretar stated that th exis ing
fire extinguis ing -system would be extended into the addition.
Chairman Engda l recognized Mr. Scott Powell , who represe ted the app 'ca t, an
who stated he iad nothing further to add to the applicati n.
The Secretary inted out some discrepancies on the plan, including , B 612 cur
and gutter aro nd the concrete island. . He also pointed o t that the 6 di anc
requires that properties under common ownership in a comet n developme b
replatted into a single parcel . He stated that the Brook ale Ford s consist
of several par els, and that replatting would be a conditi n of approva , of th
application. rhe City Engineer explained that a Performa ce Bond had ee
submitted in support of the original application, and that this would ov r the
replatting requirement. He stated' that if the original ap roval did n ccmprEhind
the replatting of the site that the applicant must submit a letter ag ei g t
that condition which would be attached to the original pe formance agiteMEnt,
also stated there was merit in delaying the replatting until the situation with
the property t the north and west was clarified.
The City Engineer also recommended that as a condition of approval the ap lican
be required to enter into a maintenance and inspection agreement with he City,
He stated this was for the purpose of allowing the City access onto t1t p ope t
in order to inspect and repair water mains and lines. Commissioner P rc in
quired whether all site work was compreheneded by the pre ious applicilion. Thl
City Engineer responded that it was,and that the applicant was in the rocess
completing the work.
10-5-78 -5-
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78060 Brookdale Ford
Following further discussion, th re was a motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded
by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 78060 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. The buildings are to b�lequipped with automatic fire extinguishing
systems to meet NFPA St ndard No. 13.
3. All rooftop mechanical ' quipment shall be appropriately screened
from view.
4. The property shall be replatted in accordance with Section 35-540
of the City Ordinances'.,
5. The conceputal master, lan shall be subject to further review with
future development.
6. The applicant shall n er into an inspection and maintenance
agreement with the Ct
7. The exterior of the ddition shall match the existing exterior
and the "pier" effec shown on the plans shall be uniformly
applied to the building, and so indicated on the plans.
8. The applicant shall suimit written acknowledgement that the
performance bond shall be retained until the property is
replatted
The motion passed unanimously. .
APPLICATION NO. 78061 (Robert F ars/Andrew Gunn Development Company)
The next item of consideration I s Application No. 78051 submitted by Robert
Fars/Andrew Gunn Development C any. the Secretary stated the applicant sought
a special use permit and site e d building plan approval for a_day care facility/
Montessori School on the R5 (Multiple Family Residential ) property located at
6501 Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Secretary reviewed a transp rency of the area and stated the applicant pro-
posed t4 build a 6,000 sq. ft.' ilding on the subject property, for use as a
day care facility. He continue that the applicant felt that the proposed
building could, at a future dat, , be converted to a service/office type use if
the day facility did notlp ' ve successful . He stated that the special use
permit was required with the °ap lication because a Cl (Service/Office) was being
contemplated in the R5 (Multipl Family Residential ) Zoning District. He stated
it would also be necessary to m ke a determination that the proposed day care
use is similar in nature to oth r permitted Cl uses, and that it is compatible
with the four critieria used f0i determining the compatibility of a Cl use in
the R5 Zoning District. He rev' ewed the compatibility criteria.
The 'Secretary stated that the a plicant had submitted a site plan, and a Proof
of Parking Plan which indicat 30 parking spaces could be provided should the
building be converted to an office use. He stated the applicant sought deferral
of some of this parking becaus' 'there would not be a great parking need associated
with the day care facility.
10-5-78 -6-
-He added that the proposed day care use must be licensed by the State Depi rtm of
Public Welfare. The Secretary stated that additional pl ns such as adi g aric
drainage plans, as well as floor plans and elevations had not yet beei re eiv
He added that the applicant was aware that replatting of the property would be
required.
The Secretary explained that the application raised a number of planning concei ns
which should be addressed. He stated that the Comprehen ive Plan re mme ds t. at
areas which are vacant or subject to future change to a iigher land t e in the
West Central Neighborhood be established as planned deve opment distr cts, to
developed or redeveloped as a pac age development as opp sed to lot t I lot d op-
ment, and only if appropriate use are proposed. The Se retary also xpl inei
that the parcel is the only R5 zoned parcel north of 65t Avenue on a st e
of Brooklyn Boulevard which has access onto two streets 65th Avenue orth an
Brooklyn Boulevard). He explaine that the parcel could conceivably e a key
some type of package development o the north, and added that there s a so
question whether the development would have an adverse a fect on the ossibil '
_of developing the parcel immediat ly to the south which also contain a single
family dwelling of the approximat : same age as the dwell ng on the s jec
property.
The Secretary pointed out that many of the properties contained in t No thg
Addition were subject to a restrictive covenant. He stated that whi th pr arty
in question was not a part of the Northgate Addition and was not sub ct o t
covenant, many of the properties in the immediate vicinity were. He tat d t
applicant had supplied a copy of the restrictive covenan and an att ney's
opinion which points out that a package development is, n all likel ood,
impractical because the covenant estricts uses to singl family residential s
unless approval is given by neighboring property owners or commercial de elo ' ant.
The Secretary commented that the proposal raised a number of concern that ti
into the Comprehensive Planning process already under way. He statec the Plani, 'ng
Consultant had been informed about the proposal and the various issu raised, nd
intends to address the matter in the review of Brooklyn Boulevard. HE suggestec
that the Commission discuss the application and provide direction wit regard
determining whether the proposed use is, or is not, simi ar to other 1 uses,
and whether it would be compatible in this R5 Zoning District.
A discussion ensued relative to the application. Commissioner Hawes nqu'red '
whether there was any access to the large R5 parcel south of the Fre ay from ,
Indiana Avenue North. The Secretary responded that it appeared acce wo ld bi
available to that parcel from Indiana, but that it was ari undesirabl access
since it would funnel traffic thro gh the single family residential ea. The
City Engineer discussed the road c nfiguration in the area.
In a brief discussion regarding the restrictive covenant on the neig on g
property, the Secretary pointed out the properties which were subject to the
covenant, and noted that the property under consideration and the prc ert im
mediately to the south were not effected. He also noted that it was 'important
to recognize that it was possible to lift covenants. -
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Robert Fors, who represented the appl can
Fors., provided the Commission with :opies of the covenant and of the a for ey'
opinion. He discussed the proposal and stated a single story brick t ilO ng VA
proposed to be located in the front part of the property, He stated her we
approximately 250 trees on the lot which would screen th activity f m tie
properties to the rear. He stated a fenced play area was proposed ir the froll
of the building along Brooklyn Boulevard.
10-5-78 -7
The Commission reviewed the site plan. The Secretary stated that many access
alternatives had been discussed for the property, but that it was thought that
the access from 65th Avenue North was the best alternative. He also stated
that the applicant did not propose any screening in addition to the trees located
on the property. Commission Theis inquired as to the type of tree. Mr. Fors
responded that the majority of the trees on the lot were Norway Pines. The
Secretary commented that the ordinance provides for screening as approved by the
City Council , and that fencing was not specifically required. In response to a
question from Chairman Engdahl', Mr. Fors stated that the children would be strictly
supervised at all times, and that they would not be playing outside of the fenced
area in the front yard.
PUBLIC NEARING
Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing was scheduled and recognized
Mr. Friedl , 4012 - 65th Avenue North, who stated his concern was with the con-
figuration of the property. He showed the Commission a photocopy of the County
Section Map which showed both his property and the applicant's property. He
stated he proposed a property exchange which would "square off" both his lot
and the applicant's property. - Chairman Engdahl inquired whether he had discussed
the proposal with the applicant. He responded that he had and that the applicant
was agreeable. The Secretary stated that replatting of the property would be
required as a condition of approval and that the lot line alteration could be taken
care of at that time. The Commission briefly discussed the replat and the City
Engineer stated that it would appear that the proposed modifications would be
acceptable.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr.I Richard Sturgis, 4013 - 65th Avenue North. Mr.
Sturgis stated he was opposed to the application because of the traffic generation.
He stated that the traffic on 65th Avenue was very heavy and that even though a
15 mile per hour limit was posted on the S curve where 65th Avenue comes out to
Brooklyn Boulevard, it was not observed. He stated that he thought that access
onto the curve was undesirable.: and dangerous. He pointed out that traffic from
an apartment complex and a dentist's office already had access onto 65th Avenue.
He stated his opinion that nothing could destroy a neighborhood more quickly than
traffic problems and reckless driving. He continued that the corner of ,his
property was deteriorated becaus .of the traffic, and that s,ev&al neighbors had
experienced property damage. He suggested that stop signs be installed at 65th
Avenue which would have the effe ;t of sending traffic to 63rd Avenue. He stated
he felt a traffic light at thehinntersection would be undesirable, and that it
mould cause an even greater ingrpase in traffic.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mrl Bill Williams, 4018 - 65th Avenue North. Mr.
Williams stated that while he had no objection to the school use, he did not like
the idea of its converting to an office use 'a t a later date. He also stated that
he> was not in favor of deferring the required parking because he felt that during
special activities on the school property, it would be inevitable that there would
be parking on the single family properties. He stated that he too felt that
access onto 65th Avenue was dangerous because-of the curve, and that he was not
in favor of a traffic light at the intersection.
Chairman Engdahl stated that if the parking would prove to be inadequate as
installed, the applicant would be required to install the remainder of the re-
quired parking.
10-5-78 -8-
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mrs. Schwartz, 4006 - 65th Avenue North. Mrs. Sichm rtz
stated she agreed with the comments of the other neighbors regarding traffic all
the dangerous access onto 65th Ave hue. She asked how many children uld atteni
the school . Mr. Fors responded that the number of children would be Jetermined
by the State, and that he thought it would approximately 11 to 60 children, M
Schwartz commented that that would mean there could be 40 to 60 cars Jer cay
dropping children off in the morning and picking children up at night
a r d
Mr. Williams inquired. as to the ho rs of the school . M Fors res o that e p
children would start arriving at 6: 30 a.m. and that all the children Dulc be
picked up by 6:00 p.m. He added tat there would be no t affic in ti evenings
or on weekends. Mr. Sturgis point(d out that this would nean that al th tra{f ,ic
coming to and from the -school would be during the peak tr ffic hours
Chairman Engdahl inquired as to how many trips per day would be generated by ai
multiple family use. The City Eng neer responded it appeared that a 4 u it
apartment could be built on the site, and that at 6 to 8 trips per clay per unit
that would mean approximately 120 rips per day for the site. Chairman E gdah
pointed out that the school use ha a less intense traffic generatioi thar an
apartment use.
Mr. Fors suggested that perhaps some -type of barrier such as a chain ulc be
installed across the driveway in or-der to prevent drive-through traffic w en t
school was not in use.
Commissioner Theis inquired as to whether the owner of the property to thE sou{t '
had been contacted. Mr. Fors responded that that owner had been con to and
was not favorable to selling the property at this time. In response 1D a questlon
from Commissioner Pierce regarding the building size, Mr. Fors stated thal the
6,000 sq. ft. size was designed to meet the needs of the school and i n t
specifically designed for the site
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
It was noted that no one else spok relating to the application. Motion ty Coin '
missioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public il ri g. r e
motion passed unanimously.
Further discussion ensued. Commis ioner Hawes stated his concern wa that the
parcel could be a key to a package development for the entire area. lie stated
that development of this parcel in ependently of the other R5 zoned pe ties
would cause a need for additional curb cuts onto Brooklyn Boulevard ILI a later
date. He stated he felt that perh ps it would be desirable to requi an R5
type development for -the area.
Commissioner Theis stated that he lelt the R5 property to the .north th
subject parcel could be developed in the future independently of the ubjECt'
parcel . He stated his concern was with the parcel to the south of ti su ject'I
property, which could possibly be ut off from future development. ii stated
he would like to see the parcel to the south developed with the appl ' nt's
property.
Commissioner Pierce stated- he had no objection to the sch of use in tie Cl zonll
and felt it was a compatible use. He added that he was concerned wi I thE traffic
generation of the proposed use and with the possible. haza d of cars tkirg ou
onto Brooklyn Boulevard from the property. He also stated he was co rn d wftlJ
the development of the parcel to the south. He felt it would perhap a cptim
to combine the two parcels in order to allow for more fle ible traffi f1 w.
10-5-78 -9-
Chairman Engdahl stated that traffic and safety considerations were his major
concerns, both for Brooklyn Boulevard and 65th Avenue.
The Secretary commented that the Commission should determine whether or not the
use is similar in nature to the permitted Cl uses so that the applicant could be
directed to prepare complete plans. He reviewed some of the Commission's concerns,
including the possibility of req airing the inclusion of the property to the south
in the proposal and the possibility of "holding out" for a common development. of
the areas as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Engdahl stated he felt he use was compatible with the permitted Cl uses
and with the uses permitted in t 'e R5 zone. He polled the Commissioners.
Commissioner Theis stated he f l�qi the proposal was compatible with the zone and
the area, but that he preferred see a package development with the parcel to
the south. Commissioner Hawes agreed that the use was compatible, but that he
was concerned with the necessityfor additional curb cuts onto Brooklyn Boulevard.
Commissioner Pierce stated he felt the proposed use was compatible with permitted
C1 uses, but that he was concerned with the conversion of the school use to a
Service/Office use.
Chairman Engdahl explained to he applicant and to the audience that it was the
consensus of the Commission thatl' he proposed school use was compatible in nature
to the permitted Cl uses, and th traffic consideration was a major concern. He
continued that tabling of the ap lication would be recommended in order to allow
the applicant time to prepare co 1plete plans and to meet with the neighborhood.
TABLE APPLICATION NO. 78061 Rlbert Fors/Andrew Gunn Develo ment Company)
Ftotion by Commissioner_ Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to table Application
No. 78061 submitted by Robert ors/Andrew Gunn Development Company in order to
allow the applicant time to prepare complete plans and to meet with the neighbor-
hood regarding neighborhood concerns. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Pierce suggested .that the Commission review the restrictive covenants
with the affected property owners to determine whether or not those owners feel
the property should retain th it R1 nature. The Secretary pointed out that if
it was the Commission's decisi n to act against the Comprehensive Plan recommend-
ations for the area, the Comprehensive Plan should be revised. He stated this
should be done within the framework of the current Comprehensive Planning process.
The City Engineer stated that, 'in response to comments from the neighbors regarding
65th Avenue, it should be pointed out that 65th Avenue is designated as a collector
street, and functions to collect traffic to Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that
it was intended for heavier traffic than a normal single family residential street.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 10:20 and resumed at 10:50 p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 78062 (Oasis Development Corporation)
The next item of consideration, wa$ Application No. 78062 submitted by Oasis De-
velopment Corporation. The Se re4 ry explained that the applicant sought a special _ .
use permit and site and building olan approval to remodel and operate the existing
Dayton Service Station located at 2605 County Road 10.
10-5-78 -10-
The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and explained that the applic nt
proposed to 'remove the existing structures and replace th 2m with a more conve ' nt
self-service operation containing firee pump islands which could serAce up t 12
automotiles at one time. He state the concept comprehends a one pe on operit on
with an attendant on duty to overs a the site and accept payment for asoline
purchased. He stated the applican did not propose to use the site r anyth
other than dispensing gasoline and the sale of oil and other service tation re
lated products and also cigarettes He added that the applicant had ubmitte
letter to the file explaining the operation.
The Secretary explained that the applicant had entered into a lease akeement ith
Dayton's for remodeling the -gasoli a service stations at Southdale, ookdale
Ridgedale, Rosedale and Burnsville Shopping Centers. He stated that ne set
revised plans had been received, but had not yet been certified by a innesot
registered architect and a certified engineer. He also reviewed the ecommen �e
conditions of approval , adding that the drawings should be certified nd that
additional plans should be provided prior to the City Council review 3f the
application.
The Commission reviewed the site and building plans. The Secretary' l scribed It e
flow of automobile traffic through the gasoline dispensing area to ti cashier, .
and then to the service area. He lso pointed out that the gasoline tation
was part of the Dayton's site and hat there was no property line bet een it an
the garden store. He explained th t the only parking on the site wou d be em
ployee parking, and that only one pace was required since only one pErson woul
operate and oversee the site.
A discussion ensued relative to the configuration of the site plan. lhe Secr t ry
stated that it appeared it would be possible to stack approximately 2 to 24 Is
on the site without spilling onto the perimeter road. In response tD questio s '
from Commissioner Pierce and Chair an Engdahl regarding the drainage, the Cit
€ngineer stated that the property Would drain into the existing storn sewer 1 �C ted
in the Brookdale parking lot. The Secretary also explained that the landscap n
treatment included 24 inch unipers and 5 ft. scotch pines.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Peter Fischer, who represented the ap licant. n
response to questions from Chairmai Engdahl , Mr. Fischer stated that 11 the i e
lighting would be focused down so is not to extend beyonc the proper . He e
plained that the applicant would r place all asphalt on the property ith con r te.
In response to questions from the ommissi_oners, he stat d that the sis Dev 1 p
t Corporation porposed to open ervice stations in 30 locations in nex 8
months. He stated the corporation stressed landscaping, cleaniness, onvenie t'
fours of operation, and low price. He also stated that only oil , gas line, aid
cigarettes would be sold on the site.
In further discussion, Commissione Theis stated he was concerned wit the turn
off area on the east side for sery cing vehicles. The City Engineer xplaine
that the width of the stalls was n different from regular parking st lls. X0,
,
in further discussion regarding th site, it was the consensus of the Commiss o '
that a sidewalk should be provided between the service area and the o1fice areal
In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the Building Official state
that it was his understanding the building was a prefabricated buildi g which
had received UBC approval , and that no .fire sprinkler system was required. M '::
Fischer pointed out that there wou d be fire extinguishers located on each is 'a d
and that breakers would be located on the rear wall of t e office so hat gas l ne
could be cut off to any pump from the office in case of an emergency.
10-5-78 -11-
PUBLIC HEARING fI .
Chairman ng a 1 announced a p is hearing had been scheduled. It was noted
that no one spoke relating to the application.
Motion by Commissioner Pierce s onded by Commissioner Theis to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78062 _(Oasis Development Corporation)
Following further discussion t re was a motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded
by Commissioner Theis to recomm16nd approval of Application No. 78062 submitted
by Oasis Development Corporation 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. Plans shall be certified by a
Minnesota registered architect and certified engineer and
additional plans-shall be provided for City' Council review.
2. Drainage, grading, utility and landscaping plans are
subject to approval- by the City Engineer prior to the
issuance of permits.
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee
(in amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements
prior to the issuance of permits.
4. All outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical
equipment shall be appropriately screened from view.
5. The special use permit is issued to the operator of the
facility and is nontransferable.
6. The special use permit is subject to all applicable. codes,
ordinances and regulations, including special licensing
requirements, and violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
7 Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject
to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
8. A sidewalk shall be provided between the office area and
the service area.
The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 78063 (Poppin Fresh Pie, Inc.)
The next item of consideration was Application No. 78063 submitted by Poppin Fresh
Pies, Inc. The Secretary stated the applicant sought site and building plan ap-
proval "for an addition to the restaurant located at 5601 Xerxes Avenue North.
The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and stated that the applicant
proposed to build a vestibule addition -on the north side of the building, and
a dining room and lavatory addition on the south side of the building. He stated
the plans comprehended total parking for 73 cars. He explained the parking
would be adequate, since there would be 129 seats and a maximum of 16 employees.
10-5-78 -12-
He explained that the proposal included a reconfiguration of some of-the exis " 'g
parking spaces on the site in order to provide for more s aces, and moving th
trash disposal facility to a screeried area close to the b ilding. He continued
that a landscaping plan had been provided and that there was some di repancy
. between what was indicated on the plan as existing plantings, and what act c ll y
in place. He also reviewed the recommended conditions of approval .
The Planning Commission reviewed the site plans and a discussion ens d. The
Secretary pointed out the new location of the trash disposal facility, and the
area which the applicant proposed o modify to provide more parking.
Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Victor Webber, who represented the apflicant. n
response to questions from Chairman Engdahl , Mr. Webber stated that tte dumps 'e
mould be wheeled into the parking t when the garbage trucks came to pick up tie
trash. He stated it was his understanding that the pick up was in h morn:n
before the restaurant opened.
There was a brief discussion regar "ng the floor plans. The Secreta explai e
that the applicant proposed to add a total of 25 seats over the original 104
seats approved in 1972. In respon to questions from Commissioner Pierce, t1le'.
Building Official stated that then was a fire extinguishing system ir the bu l ing
and that the underground irrigatioi system was in place.
A discussion followed regarding tha landscaping. The Secretary expl ned tha
the City held a $1 ,000.00 bond to ver the improvements approved u d r the
original application. He reviewed the originally approv d site plar and poin
out there were still 7 trees which iad not been planted. He stated tte Commi son
should review the proposed site plii in light of what was originall pproved and
that with approval of the new site 31an the $1 ,000.00 co ld be reco nded fo
release, and a new bond submitted cover the site improvements prop sed and
this application.
Chairman Engdahl noted that the pr osed site plan did not include any planti ''
for the north greenstrip as had be2i required on the on inal site pl n. He
stated it was his opinion that the should be plantings in that arEal Follo i ' g
further discussion there was a con3ansus to require a mi imum of 4 es in t
north greenstrip of a compatible type to the existing lo dusts.
There was' a brief discussion relative to the concrete curb delineate separa i, g
the drive-through pick up window lane from the parking area. Commis! oner Pi r e
stated that the six inch concrete urb indicated on the tans would t an in-
adequate separation, and could be iazardous. The City Engineer com ted that it
would be possible to provide some type of delineation other than cur ng. Mr.
Webber pointed out that there was lo delineation there at present.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION 0. 78063 (Po in Fresh Pies, Inc
Following further discussion -t-ere was a motion by Commissioner Hawes secondecl by
Commissioner Pierce to recommend approval of Application No. 78063 subject to the
following conditions:
1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Buf1ding
Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issua ce
of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and landscaping plan are subject to
review and approval by thE City Engineer prior to the issu e
of permits.
10-5-78 -1-3- :.
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in
an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be sub-
mitted to assure the completion of approved site improvements.
4. The building shall be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing
system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13.
5. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include a minimum of
4 trees of a compatibl°e type along the north greenstrip and to
accurately reflect the existing plantings on the site, and shall
be submitted. prior to City Council review. Upon approval , it
shall override the previously approved plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS: Ordinance Amendment Relative to Outlots
The next item of consideratior was a Draft Ordinance Amendment regarding the
definition of Outlots. The Secretary explained the definition was essentially
the same as that reviewed by the Commission earlier, with the addition of the
clause "or a parcel of land designated as a private roadway in a townhouse
development plat." In a discussion regarding the draft definition, Commissioner
Theis inquired whether there were any other roadways designated as outlots which
were not contained in townhouse developments. The City Engineer responded that
there were, but that there was' no problem with those roadways since they were
dedicated as public streets and could not be built upon. He explained that the
roadways in a townhouse development were privately owned and that the comprehension
of those roadways in the definition of outlots would prevent any future problems.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO OUTLOTS
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by
Commissioner Hawes to recommend approval of a draft Ordinance Amending Chapters
15 and 35 of the City Ordinances Relative to Outlots. The motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Hawes -to adjourn the meeting.
The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
C air an
10-5-78 -14-