Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 06-22 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 SPECIAL MEETING June 22, 1978 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in special session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . Roll Call : Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson, Hawes and Theis. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Building Official Will Dahn, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Approve Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner June 15, 1978 Jacobson to approve the minutes of the June 15, 1978 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 78035 Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of (David Schak) consideration was Application No. 78035 submitted by David Schak for Southland Corporation. The Secretary explained that the application was for site and building plan approval for a convenience food store and a special use permit for a proposed self-service gasoline facility to be located at the northwest corner of 69th and Humboldt Avenues- North. The Secretary showed a transparency of the area and pointed out that the property was zoned C-2 which com- prehends both proposed uses. He stated that the property immediately north was zoned R-5 (Multiple- Family Residential ) and the property immediately to the west was zoned R-4. Commissioner Pierce Arrives: Commissioner Pierce arrived at 8:12 p.m. The Secretary next showed slides of the property, pointing out the existing trees on the site and several pedestrian "paths" which had been worn across the property from the neighboring residential area. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposed the gasoline pumps as an added convenience for the store customers and did not anticipate a "stacking" of ve- hicles waiting to use the pump on the site. The Commission reviewed the site and building plan and a discussion ensued. The Secretary stated it was recommended that additional landscaping be provided in the southeasterly part of the site and that the land- scaping proposed within the "site triangle" be modified, to prevent obstruction of view. In response to questions from Chairman Engdahl regarding the parking, the Secretary stated that 23 parking spaces are shown on the plan, while 24 spaces are required and are physically possible on the site. He also stated that one handicapped space was proposed and the plan showed a handicapped ramp in front of the building. In a discussion regarding the mansard roof treatment Commissioner Pierce questioned whether aluminum shingles as shown on the plan would be permitted. The Secretary responded that in the past, the Commission had required wood shingles on another commercial building. In response to another question by Commissioner Pierce, the Secretary stated that the building was in excess of 2,000 sq. ft. and that, therefore, an automatic fire extinguishing sytem was required. -1- 6-22-78 The Commission discussed the proposed site plan. Com- missioner Pierce questioned whether adequate screening was indicated on the plan. The Secretary explained that screening of the vacant R-4 propertyi' was indicated along the west property line. He further,' explained that the R-5 property to the north was developed with apartments and that garages for the ccmiplex directly abutted the C-2 site. He continued that the' proposed landscaping along the north property line, together with the apartment complex garages, were regarded as adequate screening of the C-2 use from the R-5 use. The City Engineer commented that a berming treatment was recommended along 69th and Humboldt Avenues. He also noted that four boulevard trees are required for the site: two on 69th Avenue, and two on Humboldt Avenue, and that the plan should be modified to show this. In response to comments from Chairman Engdahl and Commissioner Pierce, the City Engineer stated that the gasoline pump island should be relocated as far to the east as possible without interfering with the parking. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. David Schak, represent- ing Southland Corporation, the applicant. Mr. Schak stated that the rooftop mechanical equipment.would be screened and explained that, while an aluminum treatment of the mansard was shown on the plans, they could be re- vised to show cedar shakes. He stated there was no objection to moving the pump island farther to the east as long as it did not interfere with the parking. He explained that, while the ordinance requires 24 parking spaces, it had been the experience of the applicant that there were seldom more than 6 or 7 cars at any given time. He continued that a 7-Eleven was a con- venience store, and that the customers preferred to utilize the convenient parking in front oof the store. He added that generally there is only one employee on duty, and asked that installation of part of the re- quired parking be deferred. Chairman Engdahl inquired as to the hours of operation. Mr. Schak stated that the hours would be at least front 7:00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Chairman Engdahl questioned whether the applicant had any ojection to the recom- mended landscape changes. Mr. Schak responded that there was no objection to adding additional plantings and a low berm. The City Engineer recommended a two and one-half to three foot berm and explained that thi: corner would b-- free from berming to prevent obstruct- ion of view. The Secretary commented that installation of some of tha required parking could be deferred as long as the ap-.. plicant submitted a Proof of Parking Plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce regarding the screening of the trash disposal facility, Mr. Schak stated the screening was to be masonry with a brick veneer to match the building, which would eliminate the maintenance problem with a wood structure. A discussion followed regarding the trash disposal facility. Commissioner Pierce suggested that all four walls be brick. Mr. Schak stated there was no objection. In response to a question from Chairman Engdahl , Mr. Schak stated that essentially all deliveries were through the front door, and were usually made in. the'` morning. Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been Public Hearing scheduled. None of the notified property owners was Present. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. The notion passed unanimously. 6-22-78 -2- ~� In further discussion, Commissioner Pierce noted that the concrete delineators should be indicated for stall 15. In response to further questions from the Commis- sioners Mr. Schak stated that the applicant would pre- pare a Proof of Parking Plan and revised site plan showing the recommended modifications and building plans showing an automatic fire extinghishing system. It was the consensus of the Commission that it would not be necessary to review the revised plans prior to City Council review. Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Application No. 78035 Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78035 (David Schak) submitted by David Schak for Southland Corporation sub- ject 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, utility and berming plans are subject to 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 improvements. 4. The Special Use Permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontransferable. 5. 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. 6. The building shall be equipped with an autmatic fire extinguishing system as provided for in Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 7. Any rooftop mechanical equipment shall be - appropriately screened from view. 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 10. Revised site and building plans shall be submitted prior to City Council review show- ing additional plantings in the southeasterly portion of the site, berming along 69th Avenue and Humboldt Avenue, relocation of the gas pump island, a delineator in stall 15, wood shingles and a brick treatment on all four sides of the building. 11 . Delineation of a portion of the required parking may be deferred indefinitely provided a Proof of Parking Plan is submitted, showing that ordinance standards can be met; and all or a portion of the deferred parking shall be installed upon determination by the City Council that said parking is necessary. The motion passed unanimously. s -3- 6-22-78 The next item of consideration was Application No.; Application No. 1.136 78036 submitted by B.C.I .P. , Inc. The Secretary (B.C.I.P., Inc.) stated that the applicant sought site and building plan approval and special use permit for a 155, 314 sq. ft. speculative industrial and office building to be located at 69th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary showed a-transparency of the area and stated the property was zoned I-1 (Industrial Park) and that a special use permit was required for the commercial use in the I-1 District. He continued that the applicant proposed that approximately 48% of the total area would be devoted to office use, and approximately 52% of the total building area would be used for wholesale distribution or industrial uses. In response to questions from the Conmissioners, the City Engineer briefly reviewed the status of roadway construction in the area. He stated that half of Shingle Creek Parkway is now in place and that City Council had ordered the preparation of specifications for a bridge over Shingle Creek. He also explained that the Shingle Creek Parkway Bridge over the F.A.I. 94 was currently under design by the Department of Transportation. The Secretary noted that traffic from the proposed development would utilize the Shingle Creek Parkway Interchange. The Secretary noted that the property was bounded by the Palmer Lake Environmental Preserve across 69th Avenue to the north, vacant R-3 zoned property across Shingle Creek Parkway to the south, and the Shingle Creek Open Space to the east. He continued that the building was proposed to be compatible with the environment. He next showed slides of the property and of the general area. The Commission reviewed site and building plans and a conceptual rendering of the building and a d- cussion ensued. Commissioner Pierce questioned whether ., the site was lower than 69th Avenue. The Secretary responded that part of the site was. Commissioner Pierce also questioned whether the turning radius indicated on the plans was adequate. The City .Enginaer responded that the radius on the east side should be increased, and that the one on the west side was 'de signed to discourage trucks from turning out towards 69th Avenue. The Secretary commented that the applicant proposed to replat the property into two parcels and that this proposal was for the easterly portion of the property. He continued that the building had been designed to accommodate the site and to take advantage of the aesth--tics of the environmental areas. The City Engineer explained that provision for a "settling basin" would be required for the site. He stated that a similar settling basin had been required for the MTC property on the east side of Shingle Creek, and that it had proved workable, not only for the drainage, but also enhanced the natural area in that it supported wildlife. He explained that a study had been conducted in order to develop recommendations for cooperative efforts to enhance the Shingle Creek natural area with the development of the surrounding properties, and that provisison for settling basins had been one of the recommendations. The City Engineer stated that the proposed six foot berm would screen the building activity from the Shingle Creek greenstrip. He noted that there were no industrial openings proposed on the east side of the building. 6-22-78 -4- I The Secretary stated that a total of 470 parking spaces were required for the building, 369 spaces for the office portion and 101 spaces for the industrial portion. He continued that this calculation did not include any medical or dental clinic uses. He stated that the applicant proposed to defer installation of part of the required parking. He continued that the plans indicated a total of 345 spaces to be installed with 142 spaces reserved for future installation. He stated that this indicated the applicant had made provision for 17 spaces in excess of the ordinance minimum for the complex. Commissioner Pierce questioned why the applicant request- ed deferring the parking. The Secretary responded that the applicant did not feel the total required parking was necessary for the proposed use. The City Engineer explained that the City encourages such deferment, and that the area designated for future parking must be landscaped. He recommended that additional shrubbery such as honeysuckle be required be required in the area next to the Shingle Creek greenstrip. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect, and Mr. Al Beisner, who represented the ap- plicant. Mr. Beisner explained that the concept of the proposed building was to integrate office uses with industrial and service uses. He continued that the ap- plicant was concerned with the aesthetics of the environ- mental area and the building was proposed to be brown tones which would blend in with the area. He showed conceptual renderings of the interior of the building and stated that loading would not be done in front of the building, but inside the building. Mr. Beisner stated it was the applicant's intent to sub- divide the parcel so that the three ~:actions of the building would be on separate parcels and would have --individual addresses. He stated the .primary reason for this was to meet the natural gas company's requirements for natural gas supply to eliminate the need for a standby propane tank. The Secretary commented that, if the building was to be contained on three parcels, joint parking agreements and driving easements would have to be filed with the plat. He stated this would come under platting ap- proval . He pointed out the plans do not show a standby propane tank. Mr. Beisner stated that the gas company would review the plans, and it may not be necessary to provide for separate legal parcels as long as the buildings had seaparate addresses. Chairman Engdahl recognized Building Official Will Dahn who explained that special code requirements would have to be met if the building were contained on three separate parcels, such as provision for fire-rated walls on the 0 lot line. The Building Official also commented that under City Council Resolution 77-67, the signery on the buildings on 69th Avenue across from the single family residential neighborhood, was intended only to identify tenant spaces or openings. He explained that many tenants were unaware of the sign requirements and that there had been some problem with this. A brief discussion ensued regarding the signery on 69th Avenue. The Secretary stated that, while there were no single family homes across from the proposed building, because the Palmer Lake basin was an environmentally sensitive area, it was recommended that the same sign policy be applied to this building. Mr. Beisner stated that the applicant owns vacant residentially zoned property in the immediate area and was equally concerned about the need for aesthetic standards for signery. -5- 6-22-78 Chairman Engdahl questioned whether two years was an adequate periof of deferment for the parking. Mr. Beisner stated that because of time framework for development, at least two and one=half years would be necessary to determine whether the deferred parking was needed. Chairman Engdahl announced a public hearing had been Public Hearing schedule6. It was noted that none of the notified property owners was present. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Recommend Approval of Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78036 Application No. 78036 subject to the following conditions: (B.C.I.P. , Inc.) I . 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, utility and berming 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. - 4. The special use permit comprehends Service/ Office Commercial uses exclusive of medical or dental uses and any other commercial activities on the I-1 property shall be subject to addtional review and approval as required by the City Ordinance. 5. The property shall be subdivided by plat or regis,vered land survey prior to occupancy. 6. No signery shall be permitted on the . northerly elevation of the building unless expressly approved by the City Council with the exception of certain tenant identification wall signery'compre- hended by, and described in, City Council Resolution No. 77-67 which established policy for submitted signery for the north side of comparable buildings to the east. 7. The approved site plans comprehend the deferral of installation of required parking for approximately 142 cars; said parking may, be deferred for a period of 30 months or until the development of the adjacent parcel to the ,rest, at, which time the need for additional parking should be reviewed, subject to the following: a. All or a portion of the deferred parking shall be installed upon determination by the City Council that said parking is ;necessary; b. The area of the deferred parking shall be sodded and maintained with a viable turf. 8. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 9. Any rooftop mechanical equipment 'shall- be appropriately screened from view. 622=78 -6- 1 The motion passed unanimously. Recess: The Planning Commission recessed at 10:05 p.m. and re- sumed at 10:10 p.m. Application No. 78037 he next item of consideration was Application No. (Shea Architects) 8037 submitted by Shea Architects. The Secretary ex- lained the application was for site and building plan pproval of a remote banking facility to be located at 9th and Brooklyn Boulevard. he Secretary showed a transparency and slides of the urrounding area. He stated the property was zoned -1 (Service/Office) and currently consisted of six eparate parcels. He stated that replatting to a . Ingle parcel would be required prior to occupancy. he Secretary explained that the development was pro- osed as a "financial institution" as provided for in he C-1 District. He continued that full banking ervices would not be available at the facility, and he use would be oriented to the drive-up customer and epresented a service use. he City Engineer explained that the major proposed ntrance to the site was on 59th Avenue and the major xit on Brooklyn Boulevard. He continued that the omprehensive Plan called for eventually vacating part f 59th Avenue which would end in a cul-de-sac. He ommented that alternative access to the site would ave to be developed if the proposed cul-de-sac were to e installed. Commissioner Pierce questioned whether ublic hearings would be held at the time of consider- tion of the street vacation. The City Engineer re- ponded that public hearings were not required, but eighborhood input would be solicited. I he Commission reviewed the site plan. Chairman ngdahl noted that according to the proposed plan, eadlights would be directed towards the office build- ng to the north, rather than towards the residential roperty on Beard Avenue. The Secretary stated that o directional traffic was proposed towards Beard venue. The Secretary stated that the ordinance-required 35 ft. reenstrip was indicated on the plan. Chairman Engdahl inquired whether the 4 ft. fence to screen the neighbor- ing single family property was shown on the plan. The ecretary responded that it was and that a two and one- alf ft. berm was also shown on the east side of the roperty. The City Engineer commented that two and ne-half to three and one-half ft. berm was recommended long the west side of the property on Brooklyn oulevard. hairman Engdahl recognized Mr. David Shea, the archi- ect, and Mr. Jack Bell , President of the First Brook- ale State Bank. Mr. Bell stated that because the Bank as experiencing difficulty in handling the volume of usiness at its present facility and is unable to en- arge that facility, and because State Law permits a bank to have one remote banking facility within a adius of 25 miles, the drive-in facility at 59th and rooklyn Boulevard was proposed in order to accommodate he Bank's existing customers. He stated that deposit nd withdrawal would be the major services provided at he facility. ir. Shea explained that the remote facility would carry he design of the First Brookdale State Bank and would e a cement block building with a brick exterior. He ontinued that four drive-up lanes would be installed t this time, with an additional two lanes for possible uture installation. -7- 6-22-78 In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce regarding the stacking of vehicles on the site, Mr. Shea stated that 48 cars could be stacked on the site. Mr. Bell stated that there would normally be three tellers at the facility with a maximum of five at peak times. Commissioner Hawes questioned whether the nine parking spaces indicated on the plan were adequate for the use. Secretary responded that they seemed to be adequate since the only services inside the building were deposit and withdrawal services. Co i`ssioner Theis questioned whether the nine spaces i eluded employee parking. Mr. Shea responded that the nine spaces indicated were for customer parking and the employees would park in the area of the future lanes or at the main bank. Mr. Bell stated that drive-up windows were primarily used. He commented that a survey had shown that 60% of the bank customers preferred to use a drive-up window if it were available. He continued that the hours of operation for the drive-up facility would be the same as for the main bank. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, he stated there would be no outside trash disposal . Following further discussion there was a motion by Recommend Approval of Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Application No. 78037 Hawes to recommend approval of Application No. 78037, (Shea Architects) submitted by Shea Architects, subject to the follow- ing 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, utility and berming plans are subject to approval by City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Prior to occupancy the property shall be replatted by formal plat or by registered land survey into a single tract or lot as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 5. Any outside trash disposal facilities and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. Pla,is shall be reviewed before the installation of the additional drive-up lanes. 7. Final plans small be submitted prior to City Council review, which indicate the size and species of the plantings, in- cluding 22 to 3 inch diameter hardwood trees, and which indicate additional berming in the northwesterly portion of the site. The motion passed unanimously. 6-22-78 -8- Application No. 78038 he next item of consideration was Application No. (Perkins Cake & Steak, Inc.) 8038 submitted by Perkins Cake & Steak, Inc. The Secretary explained the application was for site and I uilding plan approval for major remodeling of the ormer Uncle John's Restaurant located at 5915 John artin Drive. The Secretary showed a transparency and lides of the area. He pointed out that there was an ccess to the site from the private roadway on the ract to the south of the property. He noted that B-612 oncrete curb and gutter was not required at the time f approval of the Uncle John's Restaurant, and that ome of the "straight" curbing on the site was damaged. e recommended that damaged curbing be repaired as a ondition of approval . he Secretary continued that it was the applicant's ntention to convert the building to a standard Perkins of and to upgrade the parking lot facilities as well s the landscaping, but no site amendments were roposed. he Commission reviewed the site and building plans. he Secretary stated that the applicant proposed to nstall two handicapped parking spaces anci ramping. He ontinued that because of this there would be a de- iciency of one parking space. He stated this was not onsidered a problem because the parking was based n an estimated maximum number of employees and because rovision for handicapped parking spaces was desirable. ihairman Engdahl questioned whether there had been a hange in the seating capacity. The Secretary re ponded that no changes were proposed for the size of he building and that the seating capacity would not ,e- any greater than that of Uncle John's Restaurant. hairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Jeff McElmury, who epresented the applicant. ter. McElmury stated that he purpose of the remodeling ,'as to tie the building ogether as a Perkins Cake and Steak Restaurant. He ltated that all trash disposal would be inside the uilding and the trash enclosure would be removed. He tated that the seating capacity would be less than he Uncle John's Restaurant and explained that, while unday noon was the busiest time for the restaurant hen the most employees would be on duty, it was also he time with the most number of customers per car. e also stated that one of the major improvements ould be adding windows to the building. n response to questions from Chairman Engdahl , the Secretary stated that an underground irrigation system as already in place, -and that the landscaping was n order. Recommend Approval of 4otion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commis- Application No. 78038 ioner Pierce to recommend approval of Application No. (Perkins Steak and Cake, Inc. ) r8038 submitted by Perkins Steak and Cake, Inc. ubject 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 plans are subject to review by the City Engineer with respect to repair and upgrading curbing, paving and drainage systems. 3. Approval is exclusive of all signery which shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened. -9- 6-22-78' The motion passed unanimously. The next item of consideration was Application No. Application No. 78039 78039 submitted by Midwest Area Insurance Company. (Midwest Area Insurance The Secretary stated the application was for site and Company) building plan approval and upgrading of the former Standard 0il Station located at 6900 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary showed transparencies and slides of the property. He stated the Service Station had been closed for approximately 1 year, and that the applicant proposed a C-1 office use for the site. 'The Commission reviewed the site and building plans. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposed to close the two existing curb cuts closest to the inter- section resulting in a total of two curb cuts for the site. He continued that the applicant also proposed to remove much of the paved area in front of the building and landscape that area. He commented that the parking on the site was more than adequate for the use. A discussion ensued relative to the plans. Commissioner Pierce inquired whether a fire sprinkler system was required. The Secretary that the building was under 2,000 sq. ft. in area and that an automatic fire exting- uishing system was not required. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the underground gasoline storage;tank would be removed. The Secretary responded that removal of the tanks was required by the State Building Code. in response to a question from Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated the existing fence would be left in its present location. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Iverson who represented the applicant. In response to a question from Chairman Engdah' . Mr. Iverson stated that his insurance business would occupy the entire building, and that there would be no additional tenant spaces. Commissioner Pierce questioned whether any parking lot modifications were proposed. Mr. Iverson responded that there were more than enough parking spaces for his business. Chairman Engdahl commented he thought the application represented a major upgrading of the site. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Recommend Approval of Hawes to recommend approval of Application No. 78039 Application No. 78039 submitted by Midwest Area Insurance Company subject to (Midwest Area Insurance the following conditions: Company) 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grad ng, drainage and berming plans are subj_act to review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial cuarantee (in an amount to be determined oy the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. All landscaped areas shall be equipped with an underground sprinkling system as required by City Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was a reconsideration of the Other Business: draft language amending the Zoning Ordinance with re- Canopies and Carports spect to canopies and carports. The Secretary briefly 6-22-:78 _10_ reviewed the matter. He stated that the Commission Thad considered draft ordinance language at the May 25, 1978 meeting which consisted of three sections: 1) which included carports in the total amount of accessory structure permitted, 2) which described the use of carports and permitted its encroachment into front yards, and 3) which included definitions of carports and canopies. He continued that the Commission had recommended an ordinance to the City Council which consisted of Sections 1 and 3 of the draft, and did not permit the encroachment of carports into front yards. He stated that the matter was related to Appli- cation No. 77064 submitted by Mr. Gene Hamilton, but that Mr. Hamilton did not receive a notice of the May 25, 1978 meeting, since his application was not on the agenda, and, therefore, did not participate in the discussion of the recommended amendment. He stated that Mr. Hamilton had re- ceived a notice of tonight's meeting and was present and wished to make a presentation to the . Commission concerning the matter. Chairman Engdahl stated that the Commission would receive additional information which had not been heard before or which Mr. Hamilton feit had not been considered by the present Commissioners. It was the consensus of the Commission to limit Mr. Hamilton's presentation to 10 minutecs. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Gene Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton stated that in reading the minutes of the May 25, 1978 meeting, it had appeared to him that two of the Commission's concerns with permitting carports in the front yard had been with aesthetics and with the precedence for al- lowing additional structures in the front yard. Mr. Hamilton showed slides of his carport from veveral directions. He then proceeded to show slides of other carports in the area which ap- parently met ordinance setback requirements and which he stated were less aesthetic than his carport. He asked the Commission what the harm would be of allowing restricted carports in the front yard, and commented the restrictions in Section 2 of the draft amendment were very clear and specific. Chairman Engdahl stated that en- croachment of the 35 ft. front setback was a major zoning matter. Mr. Hamilton responded that each individual situation could be reviewed by the Planning Commission, as -in the case of special uses. The Secretary commented that the Commission had not reviewed the matter as special use, and that if the ordinance were amended to permit carports in the front yard, as the rejected draft Section 2 had comprehended, every single-family and two- family homeowner would be permitted a carport in the front yard without review by the Planning Commission. Chairman Engdahl polled the Commissioners. Com- missioner Theis stated that he was not necessarily opposed to modifying the 35 ft. setback standard, and that he could see aloowing carports in the front yard under a special use permit which would require review of the aesthetics of the carport. Mr. Hamilton proceeded to show slides of other un- aesthetic front yard situations, such as large re- creational vehicles. He stated he did not feel his carport was as unasesthetic as some of the re- creational vehicles he had seen parked in front yards for long periods of time. -11- 6-22-78 Chairman Engdahl agreed that there were many unsightly conditions in front yards, but stated that the issue . gat hand was whether or not to permit carport struc- ture to encroach into the front yard setback. Mr. Hamilton pointed out that his carport has little or no effect on the aesthetics of his neighborhood. He added that the second section under the proposed ordinance amendment clearly spelled out what would be permitted in the front yard and would allow a functional structure such as his own. Chairman Engdahl continued his poll of the Commissioners. Commissioner Hawes stated that his feeling had not changed on the subject. He agreed that Mr. Hamilton's carport was not displeasing, but that other .structures meeting the criteria in Section 2 of the proposed amendment could be eye-sores. He stated there was a need to draw the line on front yard encroachments and that 35 ft. was the established standard. Commissioner Pierce stated he sympathized with the applicant and his situation. He stated that he did not vote for or against the ordinance amendment because he felt the issue was a city-wide issue and warranted further consideration. He stated the special use permit route was not workable because it would amount to the Planning Commission making determinations of what was and what was not aesthetically pleasing. Commission Jacobson stated that with the landscaping and Mr. Hamilton's particular situation, .she felt that his carport did look nice, but that there are other situations in the City where carports meeting the proposed standards would be unaesthetic. She stated she did not agree with changing the sideyard setback standards several years ago and did not favor changing the 35 ft. front yard setback now. Commissioner Malecki stated that she could see permit= ting carports in the front yards as a special use where that was shown to be the only practical alternative for the homeowner. She continued that the amendment was not for a special use permit and she did not support the draft amendment permitting carports in the front. yard. Mr. Hamilton inquired why the ordinance could not be amended to permit carports in the front yard as a special use. Chairman Engdahl responded that the Planning Commission was not qualified to make the aesthetic judgments which would be involved. He con- tinued that he did not favor permitting carports to encroach into the front yard and he did not favor violating the 35 ft. standard. Mr. Hamilton commented that the Commission was looking at the issue from a city-wide viewpoint and' inquired what routes were open to him as an individual in order to retain his carport. The Secretary responded that Mr. Hamilton could seek a variance in order to retain his carport. 'rye ex- _ plained that it would be incumbent upon the applicant to prove that a hardship exists per ordinance standards, and that the uniqueness standard was important, t:, establish, avoiding an undesirable precedence He explained that the special use permit route had not been considered by the Planning Commission because special uses are permitted uses which must meet certain conditions and standards due to their "special " character. He continued that, in the case of permitting carports as special uses, the standards would amount' to aesthetic criteria and would be very difficult to apply. ; ..;=12- 5-22-7$ * � , p T46tecretary 66 continued which made an a e P aW,ng tbmmiss!.,cjn had recommended denial , and the C mmission felt that the issues raised during the d peal warranted further research and consideration, d d that as a result of these considerations, the Cc mmission was now recommending an ordinance amendment tc the City Council . He emphasized that the Planning Cc mmission is an advisory body to the City Council and Vat the City Council had yet to hear both the appeal and the ordinance amendment, and would make final decisions in both matters. Chairman Engdahl asked for a motion to either confirm on to alter the previous action of recommending 'ordi n nce amendments relative to canopies and carport to tie City Council . Motion to Confirm Previous tion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Action Recommending an Jacobson to confirm previous action recommending an Ordinance Amendment to o dinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Chapter 35 Relative to relative to canopies and carports. Voting in favor: Canopies and Carports C airman Engdahl , Commissioners Jacobson, Malecki , and H wes. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. Not V ting: Commissioner Pierce who stated the matter rited further review. The motion passes. M -. Hamilton stated that the Commission had adhered s rictly to the Zoning Ordinance standards of a 35 ft. font yard setback, but had not adhered so strictly t Section 35-251 which sets the time frame in which a peals should be acted on. He quoted the ordinance s ction. M% Hamilton charged that he had not been afforded die process since his application had been taken in N vember and not acted upon until May under a dffer- e t Commission from that which had originally heard his application. Tie Secretary responded that the application had been continued with Mr. Hamilton's concurrence in order to a.low for further research on the matter of allowing s ructures in the front yard. He stated that a letter h d been sent to Mr. Hamilton in October explaining t at his structure, which is in violation of the o dinance and building codes would be permitted to main until the appeal matter had been acted upon. H stated Mr. Hamilton had been permitted to retain tie carport over the winter, and that he had been a forded ample due process. H noted that the applicant had been present whenever h s petition was discussed, and that he had encouraged t e Commission to consider ordinance amendments. He r called no prior objection to the duration of the C mmission's deliberations on the matter. 1i further discussion the Secretary recounted that tie applicant had inferred in a telephone conversation t at, whereas, he had the votes of the previous' Com- m scion in his pocket, he was disturbed that the 1978 C mmission was not as favorable to his situation. Mr. H milton stated he had not said that he had the former C mmission "in his pocket" and wished to go on record a objecting to being misquoted. C airman Engdahl stated that the appeal matter and tie ordinance amendment would be considered by the City Council at the same meeting and that Mr. Hamilton would receive notice of that meeting. -13- 6-22-78 In other business, there was a motion by ;Commissioner Motion to Adopt Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adopt a Resolution resolution expressing appreciation for th dedicated service of Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. The motion passed unanimously. The Se:r3cary stated that the City Manage eraldL Introduce Ron Warren as PP S linter had appointed Ron Warren as- Int'' i Director Interim Director of P of Planning and Inspection, and he introd d Mr. Planning and Inspection Warren. Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by issioner Adjournment Pierce to adjourn the meeting. The motibr sled unanimously. The Planning Commission ad' reed at 12:45 a.m. Chair mn 6-22-78 i