Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 08-11 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 August 11 , 1977 CITY HALL Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Cecilia Scott. Roll Call : Chairman Scott, Commissioners Engdahl , Jacobson, Pierce, Horan and Book. Also present were Acting City Manager and Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Approve Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Horan seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to approve the minutes of the July 20, 1977 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Applications The first item of business was consideration of three No. 77033 separate applications submitted by Mr. Richard No. 77034 Rockstad related to the same development proposal at No. 77035 7000-7006 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated (Richard Rockstad) that Application No. 77033 consisted of a preliminary plat; that Application No. 77034 consisted of a variance; and that Application No. 77035 consisted of special use site and building plan approval . Chairman Scott explained that for the consideration of Appli- cation No. 77034 the Commission would be sitting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Secretary introduced Application No. 77033 ex- plaining that the applicant seeks a preliminary plat approval for the property consisting of approximately .70 acres located at the Northeast corner of70th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated the proposed plat presented a consolidation of two un- platted parcels and the dedication of the north thirty feet of 70th Avenue North as it abutted the property on the South. The Secretary then explained Application No. 77034, wherein the applicant sought a variance from Section 35-411 (4) which provides that, in the C-1 District. ' no parking shall be permitted within 35 feet of any major thoroughfare right-of-way and the 35 foot area shall be maintained as a greenstrip. He stated this greenstrip requirement was also reflected in Section 35-700 of the ordinance,and the applicant proposes to use a portion of the 35 foot greenstrip for "short- term visitor parking" to the proposed office building. The Secretary explained the request was related to Application No. 77035 requesting a special use permit for a Service/Office use on the property which is zoned R-5. He stated the City Council recently amended the ordinance to permit certain Service/Office uses in the R-5 zoning district, and the ordinance requires that such Service/office uses shall be subject to the C-1 District requirements. The Secretary then reviewed a letter the applicant had submitted to the file explaining his reasons for the variance request. -1- 8-11-77 He stated the specific variance would be for 15 feet since a 20 foot greenstrip is indicated on the site • and building plans. He stated the applicant proposed the six Parallel parking spaces in front of the building intended for short-term customer or visitor parking. He stated the plans indicated adequate parking was provided to the rear of the building, and therefore the variance-related parking was not es- sential to comply with the ordinance parking standards. A brief discussion ensued relative to other C-1 Service/ Office developments along Brooklyn Boulevard, and the Secretary explained that one such development at 5901 Brooklyn Boulevard with less than a 35 foot greenstrip was approved prior to the effective date of the present ordinance. He stated other developments including office buildings and clinics built since the ordinance was adopted had the required 35 foot minimum greenstrip. The Secretary then reviewed Application No. 77035 for special use site and building plan approval for the approximate 2,700 square foot office building. He re- viewed Section 35-314 for special Service/Office uses in the R-5 zone. He explained the applicant had presented two site plans, one of which. comprehended approval of the variance as requested under Application No. 77034 showing parking in front of the building which encroached into the 35 foot greenstrip. He also explained the applicant proposes a garage on the east side of the property which would provide screening from the adjacent R-1 land, and which would provide an enclosed stall for trash disposal facilities as well as real estate sign storage. The Secretary commented that the ordinance required a 6 foot opaque wall or fence or a Council approved substitute for screening open parking from adjacent residential land. Commissioner Horan inquired as to potential traffic problems with a curb cut onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He asked the Director of Public Works what the preferable entrance and exiting design would be and. the response was that it would be preferable not- to have any curb cut onto Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Public. Works commented that the proposed opening was for an exit only and that it was related to the proposed variance. He stated no formal response had been re- ceived from the Highway Department at this time. Chairman Scott recognized Mr. Rockstad and his architect, Mr. Richard Larson. Mr. Larson noted the building would be equipped with an automatic fire estinguishing system and the site would be provided with an underground irrigation system for all land- scaped areas. The applicant explained the primary use of the building would be his company's real estate office, and there would be room on the lower level for tenants such as lawyers or accountants. Mr. Rockstad elaborated upon his variance request (Application No. 77034) stating he felt provision for extra short-term visitor parking was vital to his business. He reiterated the statement in his letter that he was prepared to provide reasonable assurance to the City, including a covenant on the property, that the area would be converted to landscaped green- strip at such time the parking was not needed because of a change of use in the building. 8-11-77 -2- The applicant stated the extra parking was needed not only as a convenience to customers, but also as back-up customer parking for those times when staff meetings would result in the main parking lot being full . Public Hearing Chairman Scott announced that a public hearing had been scheduled for both Application No. 77034 and Application No. 77035. She recognized Mrs. Hagen, 7015 Kyle Avenue North and Mr. Skiff, 7014 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mrs . Hagen stated that she did not agree with the concept of permitting office buildings in the R-5 zoning district, that she felt the proposed building appeared to be too large for the site. She objected to the proposed parking in the front of the building. Mr. Skiff explained that he was not familar with the proposal , since he had purchased the property three weeks earlier, and that the seller had not informed him the zoning would include Service/Office uses. He also commented that he had not received the notice of the hearing as had Mrs. Hagen, but he agreed with the Secretary that perhaps the notice had been forwarded by the postal service to Mr. Baumeister, the former owner. The Secretary assured Mr. Skiff that the records would be changed and he would receive sub- sequent notices for the City Council hearing. Mr. Skiff stated that at this time he objected to the proposed use and to the variance request which would permit parking in front of the building. He stated his concern about potential effects the commercial development might have on the residential uses in the area. An extensive discussion ensued and the Secretary was asked to discuss the planning criteria for the 35 ft. greenstrip standard, particularly as constrasted with the ordinance standards in the C-2 and other zoning districts which only required a 15 ft. greenstrip. He stated that the apparent planning intent for the 35 foot greenstrip was to recognize the difference between the character of parking in an office building lot and the parking in a commercial retail or multi- residential lot. He said the standard recognized that office parking was relatively "static" in that cars are generally in the lot from morning until evening, whereas parking in commercial retail lots is relatively "active" with a regular turnover in the traffic. He said apparently the judgment was made that "static" parking was less aesthetic than "active parking. The Secretary explained virtually all of the C-1 zoned land abutted Brooklyn Boulevard, and that there was an apparent intent to assure that ultimate development of, office buildings along Brooklyn. Boulevard would have a standard 35 foot greenstrip similar to single family front yards. He stated that since much of the C-1 zoned land along Brooklyn Boulevard still contained nonconforming single family homes, it was difficult to visualize the ultimate planned development for Service/ Office type uses with the minimum greenstrips. He confirmed that the ordinance required the 35 foot greenstrip only in C-1 and C-IA zoning districts, but specifies only a minimum 15 foot greenstrip in the other zoning district. -3- 8-11-77 3 Mr. Larson stated that the practical result of the greenstrip requirement was of lithe advantage in this urea, since the property was zoned R-5 and since the adjacent R-5 properties could be developed with multiple dwellings with parking within 15 feet of the street right-of-way The Secretary responded that the special use provisions of the ordinance specified any Service/ Office use must conform with the C-1 district require- ments. He said the greenstrip requirement was clearly related to the type of use, thereby contrasting Service/ Office buildings with apartment buildings, even com- mercial retail buildings. Commissioner Horan asked the Secretary to review the ordinance standards for a variance, and a brief dis- cussion ensued. Chairman Scott stated that the ordi- nance standard and the requirement that such a special use should adhere to the requirements of the C-1 district should be upheld. She stated that, while the applicant's contention that a parking lot was essent- ially the same regardless of zoning might have some merit, a variance was not the proper way to resolve that question. She suggested that this matter could be reviewed in further detail during the Commission's review of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance standards. Commissioner Horan stated that the issue Was whether the standards for the variance were met and that he could not make such a finding. He stated he was also -concerned with establishing an undesirable precedent in varying from this standard with respect to other developable C-1 and R-5 land along Brooklyn Boulevard. He agreed that if the Commission determined the standard should be revised, the proper method was through ordinance amendment and not through variance. Commissioner Engdahl agreed that the ordinance standards for granting a variance were not clearly met, particularly with respect to uniqueness or hardship since the proposed parking was extra parking and could be achieved within ordinance standards by moving the building back or by reducing the size of .the building: Motion by Commissioner Jacobson and seconded by Com Close Public Hearing missioner Book to close the public hearing relative on Variance Request to Application No. 77034. The .motion passed unanimously. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Recommend Denial of Commissioner Engdahl and seconded by Commissioner Application No. 77034 Jacobson to recommend denial of Application. No. 77034 (Richard Rockstad) submitted by Richard Rockstad, on the basis that the application does not meet the ordinance standards for granting of variance, particularly with respect to uniqueness and hardship; and on the basis that granting such a variance would establish an undesirable pre- cedent with respect to remaining developable C-1 and R-5 land similarily situated. The motion passed unanimously. A brief discussion ensued regarding Application No. Recommend Approval of 77033 relative to the Preliminary Plat. Motion by Application No. 77033 Commissioner Horan seconded by Commissioner Pierce to (Richard Rockstad) recommend approval of Application No. 77033 submitted by Richard Rockstad subject to the following conditions 1 . Final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Close Public Hearing on Pierce to close the public hearing relative to Appli- Special Use Permit cation No. 77035. The motion passed unanimously. Request R_i1_77 _d_ Commissioner Pierce inquired whether existing trees ' could be preserved. Mr. Larson responded that the applicant would make every effort to retain the maximum number of trees, but due to certain grade changes and due to the eventual installation of the north half of 70th Avenue North , it was likely a number of trees would be lost. The Secretary reiterated the ordinance requirement for opaque screening of the open parking area at the rear of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Discussion also ensued relative to the proposed .landscaping in front of the building since the submitted plans showing a detailed landscaping treatment there comprehended the greenstrip variance which had been recommended for denial . It was the consensus of the Commission that the landscaping de- tail on that plan should be followed with respect to the alternate site plan which did not comprehend a variance allowing parking in the west yard. Chairman Scott invited Mrs Hagen and Mr. Skiff to review the proposed site and building plans and a brief discussion ensued as to the desirability of screen fencing between the proposed building and the adjacent property to the north. Commissioner Pierce stated that the proposed handicapped ramp on the north side should provide adequate screening of the building and the bui ding entrance. Recommend Approval of Following further discussion there was a motion by Application No. 77035 Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Horan (Richard Rockstad) to recommend approval of Application No. 77035 sub- mitted by Richard Rockstadsubject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review by the 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. The property shall be replatted according to the requirements of the City Subdivision Ordinance, and said plat shall be filed prior to occupancy. 5. All rooftop mechanical equipment and out- side trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. 6. Approved parking areas shall be screened from the abutting residential properties on the north as required by City Ordinances and said screening shall consist of a 6 ft. high opaque vertical board fence. 7.. The approved site plan comprehends the landscape and planting detail reflected on page 1 of the submitted plans including the treatment specified in the west yard area. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery and sculpture. The motion passed unanimously. 1 -5- 8-11-77 Mr, Larson then asked to be recognized and stated that the applicant was not proposing the "alternate" site plan which conformed with the ordinance greenstrip requirements He stated the proposed plan presumed a variance allowing parking in front of the building. Mr. Rockstad confirmed that it was his intent to only build according to a plan which permitted the temporary parking. The Secretary and Chairman Scott explained to the ap-_ plicant that the Commission's recommendation was for the site plan which conformed with the City Ordinances, without any variance relative to the greenstrip along Brooklyn Boulevard. It was also explained that permits could only be issued for the plans approved by the City Council , and that any major alterations to the plans would require additional review and approval by the the Planning Commission and City Council . Mr. Rockstad acknowledged his understanding of this situation, but stated his intent at this time was to only develop the site with a plan which included parking on the west side. The next item of business- was consideration of Appli- Application No. 77036 cation No. 77036 submitted by Burger King, Inc. The (Burger King Corp.) item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks approval of building plans and certain site plan revisions related to a small ad- dition on the north side of the building -including a canopy which would allow automobile service. The Secretary and Director of Public Works reviewed the .site plan and the proposed operation which is similar to the auto banking facilities using remote tellers. The Secretary explained there would be substantial revision of existing curbing to the rear of the building and the provision for landscaping and new curb and gutter, including delineation of the drive- through pick-up lane. Chairman Scott recognized Mr. Jim Hayes who repre- sented the applicant,and a brief discussion ensued. Mr. Hayes stated there were comparable facilities in operation in Anoka and in Bloomington. The Secretary commented that the submitted plans in- dicate a freestanding menu board and order station which would be located to the rear of the building, and that the dimensions of the board should be subject to the directional sign-provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the lighting on the site and Mr. Hayes responded that there would be no additional lighting. Commissioner Pierce stated he had received a complaint from a neighboring property owner that the existing freestanding light near the entrance to the property was apparently misdirected, producing glare onto the residential properties to the east. Mr. Hayes stated that the light fixtures would be adjusted immediately. Commissioner Pierce also inquired as to the sound volume of the remote order station and Mr. Hayes stated that it would be a subdued volume similar to the standard drive-in restaurant call in stations. He stated that in consideration of existing traffic noise from Brooklyn Boulevard and the existence of the solid screen wall at the rear of the Burger King property, he did not foresee any negative effects upon residential property. Commissioner Horan inquired as to whether problems had been experienced at other sites with "stacking" of cars waiting to make orders and pick up their food.. Mr. Hayes stated that there had been no stacking problems because of the proper delineation of the traffic lanes as well as the rapid food preparation procedures, 8-11-716- Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Horan seconded by Commissioner Application No. 77036 Jacobson to recommend approval of application No. (Burger King Corporation) 77036 submitted by Burger King Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes. 2. Grading, drainage, and curbing plans are subject to review by the City Engineer. 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. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which shall be subject to the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. Recess The Planning Commission meeting recessed at 9:35 p.m. and resumed at 9:50 p.m. Application No. 77039 The next item of business was consideration of Appli- (Nancy Shanahan) cation No. 77039 submitted by Nancy Shanahan. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was seeking permission to conduct a .special home occupation at 5219 - 62nd Avenue North consisting of a one-operator beauty shop. He stated the premises had'been inspected by the Building Of- ficial as to compliance with pertinent codes. Chairman Scott recognized the applicant and a dis- cussion ensued relative to the hours of operation. Mrs. Shanahan stated that while she had not estab- lished specific hours, she estimated the maximum number of hours would be twenty-five hours per week, and that she did not plan to have any evening hours. Public Hearing Chairman Scott announced that a public hearing had been scheduled, and she recognized Mr. Cy Webster, 5301 - 62nd Avenue North. He inquired whether the operation would involve more than one station and whether any additional persons would be employed. Mrs: Shanahan responded in the negative. Mr. Webster stated concerns as to the provision for parking and the possibl.e generation of traffic in the area which could be a danger to neighborhood children. He stated there was already periodic traffic problems along the street, and he was concerned that the pro- posed operation might intensify that situation. The applicant's husband responded that there was adequate off-street parking, and that customers would be in- formed of the need to park off the street. Mrs. Shanahan continued that most of the customers would probably be from the neighborhood since her in- centive for seeking the permit was based on inquiries from women in the neighborhood. Mr. Webster also in- quired as to permitted signery on the site and the Secretary responded that the ordinance restricted it to a maximum 2 1/2 square foot wall sign or free- standing sign. Close Hearing Motion by Commissioner Jacobson 'seconded by Commis- sioner Engdahl to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Further discussion ensued as to the maximum hours of operation and the provision for off-street parking. -7- 8-11-77 Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Comissioner Recommend Approval of Pierce to recommend approval of Application No. 77039 Application No. 77039 submitted by Nancv Shanahan. 5219 62nd Avenue North (Nancy Shanahan) subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is not transferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and violation thereof should be grounds for revocation. 3. A copy of the current state operator's license shall be kept on file with the city. 4. The maximum hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 5. All parking related to the Special-'.use shall be off-street on appropriate space provided by the applicant. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Appli- Application No. 77041 cation No. 77041 submitted by Mr. Charles Boese. (Charles Boese) The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking site and building plan ap- .proval for a proposed 4-unit garage at 4210 Lakebreeze Avenue North. He stated the proposed work included an upgrading of a deteriorated parking area behind 4210 Lakebreeze Avenue North which was shared by the residents of four-plexes at 4216 Lakebreeze and Twin Lake Avenue North. He stated the common parking area was apparently approved when the three dwellings were built by the same developer in 1960 and that a private joint parking easement was drawn between the three original owners setting forth the access rights and responsibilities for maintenance. The Secretary commented that the owner,of each of the other dwellings as well as the applicant had been in- formed by the Housing Inspector that the parking lot must be upgraded according to the provisions of the Housing Maintenance Code. The Secretary stated that the proposed work related to this application would substantially upgrade the paving surface as well as the drainage and delineation of the parking lot. The Secretary also explained that the ordinance in effect at the time the buildings were built required one parking space per unit for a total of 12 spaces; whereas the present ordinance requires two spaces per unit. He stated that the applicant's plan did not propose any additional spaces. Regarding the status of the alley off of Lakebreeze Avenue leading to the parking area, the Director of Public Works stated that interest had been expressed by the applicant and an adjacent owner to the east about upgrading and paving the alley, He stated they were being sent the appropriate materials for carrying a petition. Chairman Scott recognized the applicant and further discussion ensued as to the parking layout. Commis- sioner Book inquired as to the provision for trash disposal facilities. The applicant stated the three apartment buildings shared a common trash disposal facility located in a corner of the parking lot and Mr. Boese. also stated that on occasion there had been up to eighteen cars parked in the lot depending on the frequency of visitors to the residents. 8-11-77 -8- He stated:.that generally the present parking faci- lities were adequate at least for the residents of his building. Commissioner Engdahl inquired whether the Planning Commission should address the issue of the private agreement and the Secretary responded that that was necessary only to the extent of acknowledging the pro-' visions of the agreement that assured proper parking was provided. He stated the other terms of the agree- ment relative to parking lot maintenance, provision for utility access, and cross easements were sub- ordinated by the applicable City Ordinances. Chairman Scott inquired whether the City could ap- prove the proposed plan which provided parking ac- cardJ_ g. to former ordinance standards. The Secretary responded that the Commission could approve such a plan or could require that additional spaces be provided as a matter of site and building plan ap- proval.. He stated,however, that there was no ex- pansion of the use.. The Director of Public Works stated that the Commis- sion could view the situation in the context of de- ferred parking in that additional parking could be provided on the site if experience shows it is necessary. He stated this was similar to the City Council 's deferral policy for parking in certain commercial and industrial developments. Recommend Approval Following further discussion there was a motion by of Application No. 77041 Commissioner Engdahl , seconded by Commissioner (Charles Boese) Jacobson to recommend approval of Application No. 77041 submitted by Charles Boese subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes. 2. Drainage and grading plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 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. All outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 77042 The next item of business was consideration of Appli (Ronald Blake) cation No. 77042, submitted by Mr. Ronald Blake, 3812 Janet Lane. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant has filed an appeal according to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where a ruling has been made by the Building Official resulting in denial of a building permit for a proposed second accessory building in the applicant's rear yard. He stated the proposed accessory building is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance side yard and rear yard setbacks, and the applicant is permitted a second accessory building of the proposed size. He stated, however, that the structure is located less than six *feet from the existing accessory structure, and the Building Official has applied a long-standing City Policy that the minimum separation between all buildings in the R-1 and R-2 districts should be at least six feet. 8-11-77 -9- He explained the applicant's contention is that the City Ordinance does not specify this .minimum six foot separ- ation between buildings, and furthermore the Uniform • Building Code comprehends structures which are less than six. feet apart by specifying special . fire resistive materials whenever structures are located less than three feet from one another. He stated the Building Official 's position is that the six foot minimum requirement, while not formally written into the ordinance, has.been established City Policy within the intent of the ordinance. He stated the Zoning Ordinance does require that accessory buildings must be at least three feet from the property line, thereby resulting in a minimum separation between the two buildings, each on a separate lot, of at least six feet from wall to wall . He stated the Zoning Ordinance also specifies that accessory buildings must be a minimum of eight feet from the dwelling building. He stated the intent of these ordinance provisions is one of fire safety and emergency access. He stated the Uniform Building Code requires that such structures must have extra fire protection provided through the use of special fire resistive materials whenever build- ings are closer than three feet at any point which includes overhangs. He concluded that the City Policy for requiring a minimum six foot separation between all buildings is being based upon the above considerations and a common . sense interpretation of the Building Code requirements, since a typical feature of residential structures is a 1 1/2 ft. overhang from the exterior wall thus re- sulting in a six foot separation between the walls of two such buildings. He stated that the extra fire re- sistive materials required when buildings are closer than three feet represents an excessive cost with re- spect to residential accessory buildings. He stated that the applicant had revised his site plan, and indicated the buildings would be further than three feet apart at the closest point, but would still be closer than six feet from wall to wall . The Secretary stated the existing ordinance standards were developed at a time when new houses were being erected on vacant lots, and when a single accessory detached building was being erected at the same time or after the dwelling had been built. He stated that now the community has developed, there are numerous requests for remodeling and for additions such as the applicant's. He stated the staff concern goes beyond the immediate application particularly since the applicant has made a good faith effort to revise the building design so that it technically conforms with the Uniform Building _ Code minimum separation (and therefore does not re- quire special costly fire resisting materials), and so that it conforms with the written Zoning Ordinance setback standards. He stated that elsewhere on the agenda was a Draft" Ordinance Amendment which would specifically provide for the minimum six foot separation between accessory buildings and he recommended its adoption. -l0- 8-11-77 Chairman Scott recognized Mr. Blake, and a brief discussion ensued as to the applicant's desire to have the new accessory structure in the specific location adjacent to the existing garage for design and access purposes, even though there is adequate room for locating the second accessory building in such a manner that it would comply with both the ordi- nance requirements and the unwritten policy. The ap- plicant stated that he would prefer not to relocate the building, however, in consideration of an existing tree in his yard as well as for access reasons. Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the applicant had considered consolidating the proposed accessory building with the existing one, so that only one build- ing would be involved. The Secretary responded that the Zoning Ordinance formula for accessory buildings would not permit a single accessory building of the size desired by the applicant. Commissioner Horan inquired whether any precedent had been established for variances allowing encroachment into the five foot rear yard setback since an encroachment of approxi- mately one and one-half feet into the rear yard set- back would resolve the immediate situation. The Secretary stated there was no such precedent, and that the five foot setback from the rear line was based on the recognition of utility easements along the rear property lines of residential properties. He stated that in the applicant's case there was a five foot easement, and easements cannot be built upon. Chairman Scott stated that she appreciated the applicant's position, and that it appeared he had made reasonable attempts to comply with the written ordinance and code standards. She also stated that she supported the recommended ordinance amendment. and that if such an amendment were approved no pre- cedent would be established in approving this partic- ular appeal . Recommend Approval of Following further discussion there was a motion by Application No. 77042 Commissioner Engdahl , seconded by Commissioner Pierce (Ronald Blake) to recommend approval of Application No. 77042 sub- mitted by Mr. Ronald Blake, citing the applicant's plans which conformed with written code and ordinance requirements; citing the Commission's support of a proposed ordinance amendment which would incorporate the minimum building separation into the zoning standards; and provided the applicant's proposed building is a minimum three feet at the closest point from the other building. The motion passed unanimously. Amendment to Application The next item of business was consideration of amend- No. 76062 and Application ments to Application No. 76062 and Application No. No. 76066 76066 submitted by Federal Lumber Company. The item (Federal Lumber Co.) was introduced by the Secretary who explained that the City Council on December 20, 1976 approved the two applications which comprehended a structural addition to an existing building and special use permit for off-site accessory parking. He stated that one of the conditions of those approvals was that the applicant would enter into an agreement with the City acknowledging the responsibility of the owner to provide for adequate off-street parking as stipulated by the Zoning Ordinance. He stated the approved off-site accessory parking was for property owned by Cook Paint Company adjacent to the Federal Lumber Company property. -11- 8-11-77 He further explained the applicant did provide an agreement and the building addition has been com- pieted; however, as an alternative to the installation of parking spaces on the private property, the ap- plicant reached an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation for use of State-owned land across Lilac Drive. The Secretary stated the request then was for ap- proval of a parking plan which comprehends the in- stallation of approximately 40 parking stalls, in- cluding paving, curb and gutter, and landscaping on the Department of Transportation property. The Secretary stated that the amended approval should also require revision of the agreement between the City and Federal Lumber Company to clarify the present situation and acknowledge the use of public owned land for off-site parking purposes rather than the use of the private land. Chairman Scott recognized the applicant, and a brief discussion ensued. The Director of Public Works stated that the proposal represented a major up- grading of the area which was improperly being used for parking at the present time. He stated that final details as to the drainage and grading of the parking would be resolved with the applicant prior to the City Council meeting. Chairman Scott noted that provision was made for the fifteen foot boule- vard greenstrip and she inquired what measures would be taken to inhibit vehicular parking on the boulevard. The Director of Public Works responded that this would be reviewed during the construction, and that when the paving was installed on the parking lot, a rolled bituminous curbing could be provided along Lilac Drive. Following further discussion there was a motion by Recommend Approval of Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Pierce Amendment to to recommend approval of the amendment to Application Application No. 76062 No. 76062 and Application No. 76066 submitted by and Application No. Federal Lumber Company subject to the following 76066 conditions: (Federal Lumber Co.) 1 . Grading and drainage plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The approved site improvements shall be comprehended under the Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee executed by the applicant on December 28; 1976 under Application No. 76062. 3. The parking provisions agreement entered into by the applicant on December 27, 1976 and by the City on January 24, 1977 shall be appropriately amended to reflect the authorized use of public owned land as an alternative to the previously ap- proved use of private property owned by Cook Paint Company. 4. A rolled bituminous curb as approved by the City Engineer shall be provided along Lilac Drive to inhibit parking on the fifteen foot boulevard greenstrip adjacent to the approved parking lot. The motion passed unanimously. 8-11-77 -12- Application No. 77023 The next item of business was consideration of Ap- and No. 77030 plication No. 77023 and Application No. 77030 sub (Cepco, Inc.) mitted by Cepco, Incorporated. The Secretary intro- duced the items explaining both applications had been tabled at the July 20, 1977 meeting, subject to further revisions of the site and building plans for a proposed subdivision and development of the property south of 63rd Avenue North between France Avenue North and Ewing Lane. He stated that Application No. 77023 consisted of a preliminary plat. He reviewed the site and building plans submitted under Application No. 77030 which proposed a 19 unit townhouse development. He stated the applicant was seeking approval of two site plans, one of which re- flects possible construction of garages. He also stated one of the Commission's concerns had been that the landscape plan should specifically indicate the location of- the proposed hardwood trees, and that the plan should call for a minimum diameter two and one- half to three inch Red Maple tree wherever they might be used. Chairman Scott recognized Mr. Warren Carlson who represented the applicant, and a brief discussion ensued. She also recognized Mr. Ronald Blake,. who stated. he was a member of the West Central Neighbor- hood Advisory Group and who was invited to review the site and building plans. Commissioner Pierce commented on the location of pro- posed handicapped parking spaces in relation to the handicapped units, and suggested that certain minor modifications might be made to enhance that access. He also noted that if the garages were not to be built, appropriate screening should be provided for any outside trash disposal facilities. Mr. Carlson responded that the suggestions would be reflected on. the development plans. He also stated that the pro- posed landscaping plan indicated the possible use of one of several types of hardwood trees, and he ack- nowledged that if Red Maple variety was to be used, it would be of the two and one-half to three inch diameter. Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Application No. 77023 Jacobson to recommend approval of Application No. (Cepco, Inc.) 77023 submitted by Cepco, Inc. subject to the fol- lowing conditions 1 . Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Pierce, seconded by Commissioner Application No. 77030 Book to recommend approval of Application No. 77030, (Cepco, Inc.) submitted by Cepco, Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes. 2. Grading, drainage, utility, and berming plans are subject to review 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 to assure completion of site improvements. -13- 8-1 -17 4. Adequate measures as approved by the Planning and Inspection Department shall • be taken during the construction period to provide security screening for the purpose of inhibiting unauthorized access to the construction site. 5. All outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Draft Review Draft Ordinance Ordinance Amendment to Section 35-530 of the City - Amendment Regarding Ordinances regarding minimum building separations in Building Separation the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. The secretary stated the proposed amendment was related to Appli- cation No. 77042, and specified that the minimum separation between accessory buildings shall be six feet as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall . He stated this was consistent with the uniform policy enforced by the City throughout the years, but that at this stage of the City's growth, it was appropriate to have it established as a formal ordinance requirement. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Recommend Ordinance Commissioner Book, seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to Amendment recommend approval and adoption of the following ordinance amendment relative to the minimum separation between accessory buildings AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 RELATIVE TO MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATIONS IN THE R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS Section 1 . Section 35-530 (1) is hereby amended to read as follows: 1 . No accessory building, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered, or raved, within eight feet of the principal building, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall . No accessory building shall be erected, altered, or moved within six feet. of another accessory building, as measured from exterior wall to exterior wall . The next item of business was consideration of the fourth Review Rezoning draft of a proposed Rezoning Evaluation Criteria and Policy. Evaluation Criteria The Secretary explained the item had been reviewed for and Policy several months by the Planning Commission and was based upon planning research and guidelines contained in memo- randa developed for the City Council' by the City Attorney over the years. An extensive discussion ensued, and there was a motion by Recommend Approval Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to of Rezoning Evaluation approve the Rezoning Evaluation Criteria and Policy re- Criteria and Policy flected in the fourth draft, and to direct the Secretary to prepare a resolution recommending that the policy be formally adopted as official City Policy relative to rezoning requests. Voting in favor were Chairman Scott, Commissioners Engdahl , Jacobson, Pierce and Horan. Not voting: Commissioner Book who explained that, while he generally endorsed the concept of criteria he had not been on the Commission during their development. The motion passed. 8-11-77 -14- Other Business In other business the Secretary stated that a joint meeting had been scheduled between the City Council and all of the Advisory Commissions and Charter Com- mission on Monday, August 15. He also stated the next Planning Commission meeting was scheduled for Thursday, August 25, and that several public hearings were scheduled for that meeting. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Engdahl ; -skonded by Commissioner Horan to adjourn the meeting: The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:55 a.m. Chairman -15- 8-11-77 1 1