Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 04-27 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 April 27, 1978 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 Malecki , Jacobson, Pierce and Book. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning , and Inspection Blair Tremere, Planning Aide Laurie Thompson and Richard Theis. Administer Oath of Office: The Secretary administered the Oath of Office to Richard Theis, who was appointed by the Council to replace Mark Sazama who moved from the City. Application No. 78027 Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item (Michlitsch Builders) of consideration was Application 78027 submitted by Michlitsch Builders. The Secretary explained the application was for approval of a master plan for the property located at 6637 Humboldt Avenue, and approval of site and building plans for the first phase of the master plan. . The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and explained that the property was one of three vacant R-5 (Multiple Residential) parcels in the 6600 to 6800 block of Humboldt Avenue. He noted that the Berean Evangelical Church directly to the south of the site was the only R-1 (Single Family) zoned pro- perty in the immediate area. The Secretary stated the applicant intended to develop the property with an R-4, one and one-half to two story use rather than an R-5, two and one-half to three story use. He stated this was permissible provided the R-4 ordinance standards were met. He continued that the applicant proposed a master plan containing two four-plexes and one five-plex for the property. He explained that the applicant proposed to build one four-plex in the first phase of the development. The Commission reviewed the site plan. The Secretary explained that the ordinance requires that, whenever R-4 or R-5 land directly abuts R-1 land, there shall be provided a . 15 ft. greenstrip containing an opaque fence or wall of Council approved substitute, and that the R-1 property to the south is developed with an institutional R-1 use. The applicant indicates a berm with plantings rather than a fence or wall on the site plan. He continued that the ordinance also required that all open parking of six or more spaces be screen- ed from neighboring residential property, and pointed out that the church parsonage was the only single fam- ily house in the, area and was adjacent to the R-5 pro- perty. A discussion ensued relative to the site and building plans. Chairman Engdahl questioned whether the appli- cant sought deferral of the installation of concrete ;ar b nd gutter along the north edge of the Phase I ki g area. The Secretary responded that, since the master plan called for future parking north of the P ase I parking area, the applicant sought defer- ral ol the installation of concrete curb and gutter and p oposed a temporary curbing for that area. Chair- man E gdahl inquired whether there was handicapped parki g required for the project. The Secretary ex- plain(d that handicapped parking was not required for the size of the development the applicant proposed under Phase I . He continued that when the project was a panded a handicapped unit and handicapped parki g would be in order. , 1_ 4-27-78 :'Chairman Engdahl noted that the Phase I site plan showed a trash disposal receptacle located in the 15 ft. greenstrip. He inquired whether this was permissible. The Secretary responded that trash ' have been permitted in such greenstrips, but this one could be located closer to the rear of the building. He explained that the ordinance requir- ed that the trash receptacle be screened. In re- sponse to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the Secretary stated that the applicant indicated a two and one-half foot berm on the site plan and that it was recommended that the height be increased to 3 ft. The Commission briefly discussed the necessity of providing screening for the open parking. It was noted that the parking was designed 'so that head- lights did not shine directly at the neighboring residential property. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Marvin Michlitsch, representing the applicant. Commission Pierce ques- tioned Mr. Michlitsch as to how many existing trees were indicated on the site plan. Mr. Michlitsch answered that all plantings indicated on the site plan were existing trees except for the landscaping _ indicated for the top of the berm. Commissioner Pierce questioned the health of the elm trees in- dicated on the site plan. The applicant stated the trees appeared to be in good health. The Sec- retary commented that the existing non-elm trees on the site exceed the ordinace requirement. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, the Secretary briefly explained the ordinance re- quirement for provideing hardwood trees on multi- residential property. The Secretary stated that when the applicant seeks approval of the second phase, the condition of the landscaping, parti- cularly of the elm trees, would be reviewed. Commissioner Hawes arrived at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Hawes Arrives In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, Mr. Michlitsch stated that there was a time schedule for the development of the property and that he an- ticipated finishing the second four-piex within a per- iod of two years. Commissioner Book inquired whether there was adequate parking indicated on the site plan. The Secretary answered that eight parking spaces were required and that nine were shown on the plan. He further commented that it was recommended that the parking lot design be modified to include provision for backing out of the parking spaces. In resporsc to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the City Engineer stated that the parking lot delineator should be a minimum of 4 to 5 ft. and that B-612 concrete curb and gutter would be required. He ex- plained to the applicant that the ordinance standard design criteria for parking lot delineator were pri- marily to prevent traffic hazards and maintenance problems with snow removal . He stated the site plan should be corrected prior to City Council review. The Secretary commented that the property was now legally described by metes and bounds description. He recommended that the property be replatted prior to occupancy. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Com- Recommend Approval of missioner Malecki to recommend approval of Appli- Application No. 78027 cation No. 78027 submitted by Michlitsch Builders (Mi'chl i tsch Builders) subject to the following conditions: 1 . The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. x 4-27-78 -2- ?.. Site grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting finan- cial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improve- meets. 4. The property shall be replatted by formal plat or registered land survey prior to occupancy of the proposed building. 5. All outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. Site plan shall be modified to show a 3 ft. berm along the south property line. 7. Site plan shall be revised to provide an ad- equate backout space and to show a parking lot delineator- which meets ordinance -stand- ards. - 8. Installation of concrete curb and gutter along the north edge of the Phase I parking lot may be deferred for a period of not more than two 1•ezrs provided: a. Temporary curbing approved by the City is installed and maintained during the deferral period; b. Permanent curbing may be required dur- ing the period upon determination by the City that the temporary curbing is not adequate in design or maintenance; c. The permanent curbing requirement will be waived upon approval of subsequent wite plans wherein curbing is not neces- sary. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 78022 The next item of business was consideration of Appli- JKonstantin Topoluk) cation No. 78022 submitted by Konstantin Topoluk. The Secretary stated that the application was for approval of a preliminary plat of the area located at the south- east corner of 73rd and Dupont Avenues North, and in- cluded a request for variance on lot size. The Sec- retary reviewed a transparency of the general area. He explained that the area was zoned R-1 (single fam- ily residential) and that the minimum lot size in that zoning district was 75 ft. .for an interior lot and 90 ft. for a corner lot. He stated that the property was approximately 294 ft. wide and approximately 130 ft. deep. He stated the applicant had submitted two preliminary plats, one which would divide the property into three lots which exceeded ordinance standards as to width and area, and one which would divide the property into four lots, none of which met ordinance standards. He re- viewed transparencies of each of the two proposed subdivisions. The Secretary continued that the applicant had pro- posed a subdivision which would result in three 70 ft. interior lots and an 84 ft. corner lot. He ex- plained that Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances states that the Council may authorize a variance from the ordinance standards when, in its opinion, undue hard- ship may result from strict compliance. He. reviewed the standards for variance from subdivision regula- tions, which must be met. -3- 4-27-78 The Secretary continued that there was no "prece- dent for variance in lot width in the immediate area and that all lots in the vicinity meet or exceed- ordinance standards. Commissioner Theis inquired as to whether there was a minimum square footage required for single family lots. The Secretary responded that 9,500 sq ft. was the minimum for an interior lot and 10,500 sq, ft. the minimum for a corner lot. Com- missioner Hawes noted that the proposed subdivis- ion would create three interior lots with 9,100 sq ft. and one corner with 10,930 sq. ft. Chair- man Engdahl stated a variance would be required for width on all four lots, and for area on three lots. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant, who stated his belief that there were lots in the area which were less than 75 ft. in width. He explained that the City had taken approximately 33 ft. of the parcel for Dupont Avenue and that at the time of the roadway taking he recalled there had been verbal assurance that the pro- perty` could be divided into four lots. The Commission reviewed the subdivision map of the area and the City Engineer noted the widths of the neighboring lots. It was determined that all neighboring lots meet or exceed -- ordi nance standards. Mr. Topoluk questioned whether the ordinance min- imum widths were necessary standards. Chairman Engdahl responded than they were the ordinance ` standards against which the application must b measured. The Secretary commented that the ordi- nance standards for single family lots had been changed for the R-2 (Two-Family) district ba- cause of the general characteristics of that area- which included many older lots _which did not meet current subdivision standards. • He ex-` plained that this area was recently platted anJ that substandard lots were not characteristic of the area. He referred to a survey on mini- mum lot sizes conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities and noted that the Brooklyn Center ordinance standards were among the lowest in the suburban metropolitan area. The City Engineer commented that the- situation was not unique and that there were several other parcels in the City similar to the one under con- sideration. He explained that, if the Commission felt that the application to create lots not meet- ing the ordinance standards had merit, it would be in order to review the ordinance minimum lot size standards rather than grant a variance. Chairman Engdahl announced that public hearings Public Hearing had been scheduled on both the preliminary plat and the variance request. It was noted that none of the notified propertly owners was present. Motion by Commissioner Hawes, seconded by Com- missioner`Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. A lengthy," discussion ensued relative to the variance request. In response to a question from Commissioner Book, the City Engineer stat- ed that when utilities had been put in 73rd and Dupont Avenues there had been three water and sewer stubs installed for the parcel. He stated 4-27-78 -4- the assessments on the parcel were based upon the pos- siblity of three lots. The applicant stated that he had verbally applealed for assessment for four lots. He reiterated that he had been verbally assured that four lots would be allowed for the property when the City took 33 ft. for a City street. Chairman Engdahl stated it was his opinion that the only reason for the variance request was economic, which was not a legal basis for granting a variance. Commissioner Book commented that the Planning Com- mission had reviewed many sideyard setback variance requests on 75 ft. lots and that this reinforced his opinion that there was no reason to change the ordi- nance standards. Commissioner Hawes agreed and stated ' he felt the current 75 ft. standard was a good stan- dard. . He raised the point that when there was no uniqueness involved, it would be difficult to "draw the line" for variance requests and that a request for, say, a 68 ft. lot would be just as valid as a 're- quest for a 70 ft. lot. Commissioner Theis questioned whether the ordinance standards had been changed in the years that the applicant had held, the property. The Secretary re- sponded that since 1957, 75 ft. has been the minimum v-idth for an interior lot. He stated that at one time 75 ft. corner lots were permitted In response to another question from Commissioner Theis, he stated that- there was an overall approximate 21 ft. deficiency for the property to divide it into four lots and that 33 ft. had been taken from the property for Dupont Avenue. He continued that street taking is not unique and that other parcels in the City have been similarly affected by taking of land for public streets. Commissioner Pierce pointed out that even if the cur- rent corner lot standard were 75 ft. there would still E. a 6 ft. deficiency. He stated he saw no reason to reconsider the 75 ft. width standard. Commissioner Jacobson stated that she also felt there was no need to reconsider the ordinance standards. She stated the request did not meet ordinance requirements for variances and that there was no precedent in the area to allow smaller lots. Commissioner Malecki stated she too felt there was no need to reconsider the cur- .rent ordinance standards. Recommend Denial of Motion by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commis- Variance Under Application sioner Book to recommend denial of the variance re No. 78022 quested under Application No. 78022 submitted by (Konstantin Topoluk) Konstantin Topoluk for the following reasons: 1 . The variance request does not meet the ordinance standards for variance from the subdivision re- gulations. 2. There is no precedent for a variance on lot width in this vicinity. ' 3. Approval would establish an undesirable prece- dent for remaining unplatted land. The motion passed unanimously. Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Pierce, seconded by Commis- Preliminay Plat Meeting sioner Malecki to recommend approval of the plat sub- Ordinance Requirements mitted by Mr. Konstantin Topoluk which met the ordi- Application No. 78022 nance standards as to dimensions subject to the fol.- (Konstantin Topoluk) lowing conditions: 1 . Final plat is subject to approval by City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.. The motion passed unanimously. _�_ 4-27-7R The Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m. and Recess resumed at 9:40 p.m.' The next item of consideration was Application No. Application No, 78015 . 78015 submitted by Independence 10. The Secretary (Independence 10) explained the application was for approval of the preliminary plat for the property located at 7240 M. Brooklyn Boulevard, which had been required as a condition of approval of the rezoning under Appli- cation No. 77026. He continued that the item had been considered at the April 6, 1978 meeting and had been tabled to permit further research and discus- sion regarding the clarification of the necessary easements and the status of the southeast property line description. . The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area and contrasted the original meandering creek line with the.current creek line. He explained that in the 1960's the City of Brooklyn Park had dredged Shingle Creek and straightened it in a project in cooperation with Hennepin County. He continued that because of the realignment of the creek there was a discrepancy regarding the description of the northerly property line of the Wingard Addition. The City Engineer reported that a meeting had been held with the affected property owners. He stated there are four properties in the Wingard Addition which are affected by the realignment of the creek. He stated that three of the four property owners were interested in participating in a replatting of the area and that the fourth property owner is satisfied with the survey he already has. He ex- plained that the affected owners had agreed to share the extra costs of the replatting. He re- commended - that the application be tabled to allow the applicant time to prepare a new preliminary plat. A discussion ensued relative to the 100 ft. drain- age and access easement. Commissioner Pierce quc; tioned whether it would be possible to build a trail along the easement. The City Engineer responded that it was possible to revise the wording of the easement in order to allow for the building of a recreational trail In response- to another question from Commissioner Pierce the Secretary stated that ordinance require; a,35 ft. greenstrip and opaque fence'or wall or Coun- cil approved substitute when a C-1 property borders on a R-1 property. He explained that in this case the easement is the greenstrip and that the trees and other foilage in the easement would- be recom- mended as a substitute to a fence or wall . The City Engineer commented that the residents were concerned that the area remain in its natural state and are not in favor of having a fence or wall . In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, the City Engineer stated that the entire easement would be contained on the applicant's property. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Francis Girdler who represented the applicant. Mr. Girdler stated the applicant was concerned that the tabling of the application would cause a delay in the development of the property. The Secretary explained that tabl- in``�the preliminary g p y plat application would not affect tiie approval of the site and building plans. 4-27-78 -6- Table Application No. 78015 Motion by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commis- (Independence 10) sioner Pierce to table the Application No. 78015 sub- mitted by Independence 10 to allow time for the pre- paration of a new preliminary plat. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 78020 The next item of consideration was Application No. (Independence 10) 78020 submitted by Independence 10. The Secretary explained the applicant sought approval of site and building plans for the property located at 7240 Brooklyn Boulevard, which included a variance to allow the building to be built at the property line. The Secretary explained the variance request. He showed a transparency of the property which showed the 12 ft. wide parcel of land located in the City of Brooklyn Park which is owned by the applicant. He stated the applicant proposed to build the build- i,ng at the "zero lot line" setback on the north side rather than have the required 10 ft. minimum build- ing setback, and would encumber the parcel in Brooklyn Park as a permanent greenstrip. He stated the request was essentially a recognition of the uniqueness of the situation where the property is split by a municipal boundary, thereby requiring the 12 ft. in Brooklyn Park to be a separate parcel . He suggested that this was a "hardship" beyond the control of the applicant. Chairman Engdahl questioned whether this was the only such. situation where an individual owned property on both sides of the municipal boundary. The Secretary responded that there were several cases but that this was the only incident where the parcel on the other side of the boundary was unbuildable. The Commission reviewed the site and building plans. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. William Peterson, the architect, who showed conceptual renderings of the project. He explained that the applicant request- ed the variance in order to develop the site in such a manner that there would be no parking located on the easement. The Secretary commented that the parking indicated on the plan was adequate for the proposed use but that the building was not intended for medical uses and there would not be adequate parking to sup- port such a use. He pointed out that the parking lot curbing was located on the -edge -of-the -easement. Commissioner Hawes questioned whether water from High- way 152 drained into .Shingle. Cr.eek . Mr. Peterson responded that there were four catch basins located along the Highway which drained into the creek. Mr. Peterson briefly discussed the plans. He stated the berming along the Highway was intended to screen the parking from the Highway. He explained that the ease- ment would be left in its natural state, and that as much as possible the existing elevations would not be altered. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce regarding landscaping, Mr. Peterson stated that the landscaping consisted of existing trees and trees which would be relocated from the rest of the site. He stated the trees were from 10 ft. to 45 ft. in height. The Secretary recommended that some of the willow cuttings indicated on the plan be relocated to the berm. Mr. Peterson pointed out that plans showed -that.all greenstrips would be sodded and irrigated. I'n re- sponse to a question from Chairman Engdahl., -he- stated the building was proposed to be of brick with cedar 4 -7- 4-27-78 , a siding. In response to further questions he stated that there were two handicapped parking spaces in- dicated on the plan, one by the ramp from the park- ing lot, and one by the lower entrance to the build i ng. Chairman Engdahl announced that a public hearing had Public Hearing been scheduled and recognized Mr. Francis. Girdler representing the applicant and who stated he had nothing to add to the application. It was noted that none of the notified property owners were pre- sent. The Secretary stated the City of Brooklyn Park had been notified of the variance request and had submitted a letter to the file indicating no objection to the granting of the request. Motion by Commissioner Book, seconded by Commis= Close Public Hearing sioner Jacobson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. A brief discussion ensued relative to the provision for utilities to the site. The City Engineer stzt ed this could be done in several ways, including bringing utilities in from the Wingard Addition or by tying in with the Brooklyn Park system and bring- ing them in underneath Brooklyn Boulevard. He ex- plained that negotiations were still under way with the City of Brooklyn Park and other property owners for providing utilities. Following further discussion there was a motion by Recommend Approval Commissioner Book, seconded by Commissioner Pierce Application No. 78020 to recommend approval of Application No. 78020 sub- (Independence 10) mitted by Independence 10 subject to the following conditions: 1 Building plans are subject to review by tii Building Official with respect to applicabl_ codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, berming and utility plc;is are subject to approval by the Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting finia- cial guarantee (in an amount to be determin:d by the City Manager) shall be• submitted to assure completion of approved site improv:- ments. 4. An appropriate legal encumbrance approved by the City as to form and content shall be filed against the adjacent property in Brooklyn Park, which is owned by the applicant; establishing the use of said parcel as required open space to be maintained with landscaping as a side- yard of the proposed office building. Evidence that this covenant has been appropriately filed with Hennepin County shall be submitted with the application for permits. 5. All outside trash disposal and any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. The building shall be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing system to meet or exceed N.F.P.A. Standard No. 13. 7. Approval includes recognition of a variance to locate the building at the property line; this is based upon the finding that ordinance ,. , '..,variance standards are met, espec.ial.ly with respect to uniqueness and hardship. 4-27-78 -8 8. Approval is exclusive of all stgnery which 'shall be subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 9. Willow cuttings shall be distributed across the berm to provide additional screening of the Parking area. he motion passed unanimously. Application No. 78019 1he next item of consideration was Application No. (B.C.I.P., Inc.) 78019 submitted by B.C.I .P. , Inca The Secretary tated the applicant sought approval of a prelimin- ry registered land survey for the property located t 6100 Summit Drive. he Secretary showed a transparency of the area. He xplained that the item was a condition of approval f Application No. 78002 for a special use permit for he Summit State Bank, which was approved by the City ouncil on February 27, 1 78. He continued that the roposed registered land urvey constituted a resub- ivision of an existing gistered land survey. He tated the resubdivision ould assure that all build- ngs and facilities vela d to the bank operation t•ould be contained within a single parcel . Public Hearing Chairman Engdahl stated a public hearing had been cheduled and recognized Mr. Al Beisner, represent ng the applicant, who stated that he had nothing o add. It was noted no one spoke regarding the pplication. Motion by Commissioner Malecki, second- d by Commissioner Hawes to close the public hearing. L, motion passed unanimcusly. Recommend Approval ollowing a. brief discussion there was a motion by Application No. 78019 mmissioner Hawes, seco ded by Commissioner Book (B.C.I.P., Inc.) o recommend approval of Application No. 78019 sub- itted by B.C.I .P., Inc. subject to the following onditions• 1 . The final R.L.S. is subject to approval by the City Engineer 2. The final R.L.S. is subject to requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . The motion passed unanimo sly. Application No. 78021 The next item of consideration was Application No. (B.C.I.P., Inc.) 78021 submitted by B.C.I .P. , Inc. The Secretary stated the applicant soucht preliminary registered land survey approval of a resubdivision of the area located in the 1600 - 19 block on Freeway Boule- vard. The Secretary reviewed a transparency of the area showing the layout of the proposed registered land survey. He stated the rEsubdivision was for the pro- perty south of Freeway Boulevard between Shingle Creek Parkway and the west bourdary of the Holiday Inn pro- perty. He continued that the land is zoned I-1 (In- dustrial Park) which comprehends both light industrial uses and special commercial uses. He continued the proposed registered land survey would result in a total of nine tracts, two of which would be dedicated for public street purposes. Commissioner Pierce questioned whether there would be any additional roadway taking with the development of the Shingle Creek Parkway Interchange. The Secretary responded that a small mnant" would be taken for roadway purposes. Chairman Engdahl questioned why -9- 4-27-78 th°re was an 80 ft. roadway indicated along the east !`of the property continuing to the rear of the pro- � perty. The Secretary explained that the property located to the south of this subdivision would even- . tually be turned back to private use with the clos- ing of the Humboldt Avenue Interchange. He stated the :roadway was provided so that the parcel would not be landlocked. A brief discussion ensued relative to the procedures for turning back highway property. The Secretary stated that installation of that roadway was not anticipated for the immediate future. He also ex- plained that while the Holiday. Inn property cur- rently had a 5 ft. greenstrip along the west bound- ary which was permitted by the ordinance, that when the street was installed a 15 ft. greenstrip was re- quired. He stated it would be recommended at that time, that the street be installed in such a man- ner that there be a 25 ft. boulevard along the east side of the roadway which would provide for a 15 ft.' greenstrip and a 15 ft. boulevard area on the east side of the road. Discussion ensued relative to access to the various proposed tracts. Commissioner Book questioned wheth- er there would be access from the Holiday Inn onto the proposed roadway. The City Engineer responded that it was conceivable that an access could be pro- vded onto the proposed roadway. In response to a question,by Commissioner Pierce regarding the asses- sments for street development, the City Engineer explained that roadway assessments are not made to individual affected properties in the Industrial Park, but rather that all Industrial Park property is assessed the cost of the roadway. He explained that, in this case, all the Industrial Park pro- perty located north of F.A.I. 94 would be assessed the cost of the roadway development. Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had Public Hearing been scheduled. He recognized Mr. Al Beisner who represented the applicant and who stated he had nothing to add. It was noted no one spoke relating to the application. Motion by Commissioner Jacob3on, seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commis Recommend Approval sioner Hawes to recommend approval -of Application Application No. 78021 No. 78021 subject to the following requiremanl:s: (B.C.I.P., Inc.) 1 . The final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final R.L.S. is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. The final R.L.S. shall be filed and recorded with Hennepin County prior to the occupancy of any development therein. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of consideration was Application No. Application No. 78023 78023 submitted by B.C.I .P., Inc. The Secretary (B.C.I.P, Inc.) stated the applicant sought approval of site and building plans and a special use permit for a com- mercial use in the I-1 (Industrial Park) zone, con- sisting of a bowling alley, restaurant, and cocktail lounge. He stated that using the different ordi- nance standards for determining parking for bowling alleys and for restaurants, there were 281 spaces re- quired. He stated that 287 spaces had been provided on. the ,plan. 447-78 _10- Chairman Engdahl recogni ed Mr. Janis Blumenthals, the architect, who state the building would be known as "Earle Brown l.a es". In response to a question from Chairman E gdahl , he stated the ex- terior of the building w uld be masonry. Commis- sioner Hawes questioned ftether the access would • be from the `cul-de-sac r adway. Mr. Blumenthals responded in the affirma ive. Chairman Engdahl noted there was no trash disposal containers loc- ated on the plan. Mr. Blumenthals stated that all trash receptacles would te located inside of the building. There was a brief discussion involving the land- scaping. °The Secretary ommented that the appli.- cant had proposed hackbe ry trees on the site. He stated this was a long-lived, fast-growing hard- wood tree. Chairman Engdahl questio ed whether the traffic cir- culat on plan was adequa e. The City Engineer re- sponded that it was. Public Hearing Chairman Engdahl announc d that a' public hearing had been scheduled and recog ized Mr.' Madden,the owner of the bowling alley and Mr. Beisner of B.C.I.P. hair n Engdahl questio ed whether there would be any a ectronic games in he bowling alley. The ap- lica t responded that t ey would provide electronic inba 1 games and foosba 1 tables. Chairman Engdahl inqui ed whether that wo ld require more parking and special management contr 1s. The Secretary stated that t was a City polic3 to review recreational fa- ilit es and proposed "h use rules Commissioner Jacobson questioned the ipplicant as to the hours of operation. The appli ant stated that the-games were hot contained in a specific room and were there- re, available during t e entire 24 hours the bowl- ing alley would be open, but that the management would enforce all curfew regulations. It wa noted that none ol the notified property own- ers w s present. The S cretary suggested hat approval be exclusive of th proposed recreati nal games portion of the pera ion, and that that part of the special use ;ermit be considered fur her at a subsequent meeting. He sad the applicant wo ld be informed of previous ounc 1 actions on simil r uses, and would be asked to su mit information ab 1he ut management policies. Close Public Hearing do by. Commissioner J cobson, seconded by Commis- done Malecki to close public hearing. The tion passed unaninxusly. Recommend Approval llowing further discussion regarding the recreational Application No. 78023 facilities in which it was recommended that bicycle (B.C.I.P., Inc.) racks be included in the parking area, there was a notiop by Commissioner M lecki , seconded by Commis- sionef Pierce to recomme d approval of Application No. 7 023 subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is iss ed to the owner as operator of the facility a d is not transferable. 2. The special use p rmit is subject to all ap- plicable codes, o dinances and regulations including special licensing provisions and violations thereol shall be grounds forre - vocation. 11- 4-27-78 3. Building plans are subject to review and ap- proval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. ' 4. Site grading, drainage, and utiltity plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of per- mits. 5. A Performance Agreement and supporting finan- cail guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of all ' site improvements. 6. All outside trash disposal facilities and any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. Bicycle parking racks .shall be provided. 8. Approval is exclusive of the proposed recrea- tional "game room" facilities which shall be subject to further review after the applicant has had the opprotunity to review earlier sim- ilar approvals and to submit proposed`manage- ment policies. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of consideration was Application No Application No. 78024 78024 submitted by B.C.I.P., Inc. The Secretary (B.C.I .P., Inc.) stated the application was for a special use permit for live entertainment in the bowling alley con- sidered under the previous application. Chairman Engdahl recognized the applicant and a brief discussion ensued realtive to the type of live entertainment. ` The applicant stated he in- tended to have a piano or organ player on the pr,-. mises. He continued it was not his intention to have a band on the premises. Commissioner Piero inquired as to the hours of operation. The appli- cant responded they wouid be coincident with the hours permitted by the liquor license. Chairman Engdahl `announced a public hearing had Public Hearing been scheduled on the special use permit. It was noted that none of the notified property owne,s was present. Motion by Commissioner Malecki, seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. There was a motion by Commissioner Book, seconded Recommend Approval of by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of - Application No. 78024 Application No. 78024 submitted by B.C.I .P., Inc. (B.C.I.P., Inc. ) subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to the owner as operator of the facility and is not transferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all, ap- plicable codes, ordinances and regulations, including special licensing requirements, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. The motion passed unanimously. 4-27-78 -12 Other Business n of er business., the P tinning Commission reviewed Application No. 76042 a matter relating to App ication No. 76042 in which (Stanley Westrom) the a plicant received a variance to add on to a home hich was non-compl ing as to setback standards at 53 2 Irving Avenue North. He explained that one of th non-complying set tacks was on the north side- rd here the house was approximately 5 ft. from • he .p operty line. - He co tinued that, since the time of approval , the ordin nce language was c anged to allow a dwelling to co a within 5 ft. of side property line on one side f the house, provi ed there are no openings, inclu ing windows, air c nditioners, or doors, on that ide. H st ted the applicant tad built the addition accord - i g t the plans approvec under the variance and that t e a plicant was now in erested in another house ad- d'tio He stated this ddition would be on the north side nd the proposed si layout comprehended a 5 ft. s tba k in line with tha side of the house. He ex- Id ain d there would ben openings or doors in the p ops d addition but that there were windows in the e ist ng house. Tie S cretary explained that the matter was one of o din nce interpretation and `policy. He explained at he issue was whether the openings in the exist- i g h use should be closed so that the entire north �'de f the house complied with the ordinance stan- d .rds or whether the ordinance standards applied only ne construction. F, discussion ensued. Chairman Engdahl stated that nce the original varia a had been approved, he felt he situation was "Ils.andfathered" under the c ,rre t ordinance stands He stated he was con- c: me with the non-comping nature of the structure a d w th extending the la of the house. Commis- s oner Pierce commented t1at, with the approval of - t e previous application, the Commission had already d ter ined the life of th house was worth extending. C airman Engdahl polled t e Commissioners. Commis- s oner Hawes stated it wa not his belief that clos- i g t e windows of the existing house was within the i tent of the ordinance, nd he felt that since there i no further aggravation of the non-complying situa- t.on, he felt the additioi should be allowed without c osing the windows. Comnissioners Malecki stated s e felt the proposed addition was acceptable-and did n t feel it would be necessary to close the windows C mmissioner Pierce state the addition would not a gravate the non-complyi g situation. He stated he w uld rather view each nob- complying situation sep- p rately than adopt an overall policy. Commissioner Jacobson stated she felt rhat closing the existing openings should not be re uired. Commissioner Theis s ted he would abstain. Tie Secretary stated that all variance requests for a ditons to non-complying structures would be brought t the Commission for the r review, but that in this case there was the matter of ordinance interpretation i a previously reviewed Matter. Application No. 78005 The Commission briefly reviewed a 'site design change i the plan submitted for a building permit for Re s dential Alternatives fo the property located at 5 49 Lyndale. The Secret ry stated the applicant h d indicated there had b en difficulty in obtaining t e parcel along F.A.I . 9 and was therefore, now s owing access to the pro erty from Lyndale Avenue rather than from 55th Ave ue as had been shown at the time of the public hearinj. - 3- 4-27-78 A a Chairman Engdahl stated that approval of the special use permit to allow for eight residents had not cen- tered on site and building plan approval. He con- tined that he saw no difficulty with the change in access. Commissioner Hawes questioned whether there would be adequate parking provided on the new site plan. The Secretary responded that with tandem park- ing there would be adequate,parking available. Com- missioner Hawes also questioned whether the driveway in its e ro osed location would affect the drainage P P g ditch. The Secretary responded that drainage ease- ment is located along the south side of the property and would not be affected by the driveway. It was the consensus of the Commission that the site design change did not affect the special use ,permit and was acceptable. w Motion by Commissioner Book, seconded by Commissioner Adjournment `Malecki to adjourn the meeting. . The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:00 a.m. Chah t an 4-27-78 -14-