HomeMy WebLinkAbout1966 PCP PLANNING COMMISSICN AGEATt)A
JANUARY 13, 1966
Application No,
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
Regular Meeting of December 2, 1%5
Special Meetings of December 8, 9, 16, and 30.
3, Harley Preitz 65094
Tabled at the December 2nd meeting
Special Use Permit to rent trailers at the Spur Station
at 6830 Osseo Road.
4. Jerzy Harrington and K. L. Bergstrom Construction Co. 65096
Tabled at the request of the applicants at the
December 2nd meeting and revised since that time.
Approval of the preliminary plat of "HI CREST SQUARE
ADDITION' at the southeast corner of 69th and
Humboldt Avenues North.
Rezoning of property within the plat from R1 to BI and R5.
5. Eugene Hanson 55098
Tabled at the request of the applicant at the
December 2nd meeting.
Approval of plans for 2$ story apartments on two
• lots in "HI CREST SQUARE ADDITION"
6. Shell Oil Company 65099
Rezoning to B3 and R5n with a Special Use Permit for
a service station on the B3 property at 6545
Lyndale Avenue North
7. Lundstrom Construction Co„ and Thorpe Bros, Realty Co. 65101
Approval of the preliminary plat of "EDLING`S 9th
ADDITION' consisting of the present Outlot 1,
Edling°s 3rd Addition,
8, Brockdale Ford 65102
Approval of plans involving a revision of lighting
at 2500 County Road 410,
90 Martin F. Colon 65103
Rezoning of Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, Olson°s Island View
Terrace (except street) from RI to B3 to allow a
service station use,
Rezoning of Lots 1, 8, 9 and 10 (except street of the
same block from R1 to $5,
10. R. R. McChesney 65104
Approval of the preliminary plat of "R. R. MC. CHES'dE'Y
AND SONS SECOND ADDITION"
Rezoning of the properties therein from RI to RB to R5,
PLANNIUM COMMISSION INFORMATION SMELT
Application No. 650%
• Applicant: Jerry Barrington for Diversified Developers and
K. G. Bergstrom Construction Company
Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of "Hi Crest Square
Addition' (revised). Rezoning of the properties
within the plat as follows: Lots 1 and 2. Block 1
from R1 to B1; tots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Blook 1 from
R1 to R5; Blocks 2 and 3 from R1 to R5.
Property: Parcels 5910, 6010, 6020, 6100 and 6200. Aud. Sub.
9310 (approximately 28 acres in the S.E. quadrant of
64th and Humboldt Avenues No.)
Owner of Prop"ty: Diversified Developers and K. L. Bergstrom
Construction Company
BACKGROLM:
1) The original ' Hi Crest Square Addition" was submitted several years
ago, with the final plat ready to be recorded, This present plat
Is slightly changed from the original of that name. A plat of part
of this property was recently proposed by der. Harrington as "Hi Lynn
Center' but he and Mr. Bergstrom have combined to submit the "iii
Crest Square' plat instead.
POUITS TO BE CONSID ERM:
1) -later and sewer are in place in Humboldt Avenue North but will have
to be installed in 67th Avenue North.
2) The zoning requested follows planning proposals for the area,
3) In the former plat, a walkway was shown between the school's
property and the shopping center property; is this still desired?
STAFF COM S:
•
e �
7
t .
R- 5
lb
UTURE _
R-5
V -�`.`� .� rato K
--T - �w
(BLOCK jT8EE)
1 �
PLMNING CESSION Ifi FWWION SHEET
Application No. 65098
Applicant: Eugene Hanson
Description of Request: Approval of plot plans. building plans and parking
arrangements for two 15 unlit multiple dwellings on
Lot 3. Block l and Lot 1. Block 3, both in the
proposed "Hi Crest Square Addition".
Property. Stated above
Owner of property: Diversified Developers
BACKGROUM:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDGBID:
11 Two parking spaces are available for each unit,
2? Section 35-710 requires screening of parking lots from adjacent
residential lots. This has been required is some asses and not
In Others. It is questionable whether it is necessary here -
at any "tee it is not shown on the plot layouts.
33 The areas of the two properties at ,just over 42,000 square feet
each will allow 2 e 15 unit apartments at 2700 square feet per unit.
4) Is a bond for site improvements necessary?
STAFF COP`S;
PLANNING COKKSSION INFORMATION SHW-
Application No. 65099
Applicant: Shell Oil Company (by Norman E. Dyer)
Description of Request: Rezoning from RI to RS and 83, and a special use
permit to construct and operate a service station
on the 83 property.
Property: Lot 18, Auditors Subdivision #310, 6545 Lyndale
Avenue North (nest side of Highway 4169)
Owner of Property:
BACKGROUND:
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) A service station was approved and is being constructed across Lyndale
Avenue from this property on a similar site, and with similar
apartment development proposed to its near.
2) The suggestion of the Planning Consultant is that this property be
put to commercial use.
® 3) The Oil Company plans to leave the southerly portion of the station
property undeveloped,
44) Other points as laid out in site plans on file.
STAFF CWMS.
1) The alignment of future 65th Avenue North should be considered before
development takes place in this area. Consideration should be given
to the owner of the house at 66th Avenue which will probably be the
paint at which 65th » 66th enters onto Lyndale. The construction of
the roadway would benefit the adjacent properties, :vhieh the homeowner
would benefit not at all, even though he was paying heavily for it
by the loss of his property. Historically, Brooklyn Center has not
paid for its roadways, rather getting them through dedication by
developers.
2) The property should be divided into separate parcels for each use. The
apartment property would then be without frontage on a public street,
which is an argument for not approving rezoning until a street layout
is proposed.
•
**G5n 7
.5o
tab
F �
67th AVE.
h
._ ..............
�6
PROP
R5
Add
w
Pt,...'1,111l3.NG Cf;L4j.1iSSjON JpnjG Wj0N SHEET
• Application No. 65101
;1p}iixcurrf:: Thorpa Bros. Realty for Und stTom CQr:st.r'::otat��� co,
Oosoriptlon of Request: Approval of the proliminary plat of "Edlitug
.Add itc ion,
P3ropetty: Out3ot I, Edliag's 3rd Addition Upproxiixi eiy
57th and June Avenues Norn)
Owner of Property: Lundstrom Construction COMpany
BACIGROUM. :
1) The property in this plat is Presently "Cutlot l" of Exiling's 3rd
Addition. In the original preliminary plat of Ming 3rd, these
"i.ve lots and intervening street were shown as presently laid rant.
The reasons War not platting the rive lots at Lhat tir•:e tics, he
Look of Ptoper utilities; it was not possible to service View
€:eve lots With setter from the north, and the property s weer to
The sovlflz died _yOt .zant a seWeT easomen4, acaos 39is pa:operty at
011"S time, Sinee a,dliug's 3rd was platted, sewer has beeDre ava:dlabjl%
from the south.
P"OU-17S TO BE CONSIDE110):
±; SuMOieRoy of the plat - -.he lots an.dd street are all adequ;ate or
ruQre than adequate.
STAFF COMO%tirf S:
1) Tile Engineer .vfluld .like a 10, temp-{marry draiancgv evses ailL --lo g he
south litre of Lot 2, 810TOk 2,
}. }.
.., {.t
• •
.. .. t�'.
PLANNING COMISSIM I1V1h`ORMATION SHEEP
Application No. 65102
Applicant: Dayton Develow*nt Company for Woohdale Fora
Description of Request: Approval of plans regarding an alteration of
exterior lighting lormerly approved.
Property: Lot lr Block 1, Brookdale First Addition
Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
DACKC;ROLM:
1) The original site plans were approved in March of 1964,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED,
1) The type of alteration which is to take place.
STAFF COMMENTS:
• 1) Tile Village does not at present have regulations pertaining to
lighting, other than that It shall not shire directly lato
adjacent -residences,
FL�.l�dKM CtxdlISSIGN TNrUPWION SHEET
Application No. 65103
Applicant: Martin Ir, Colon
Description of Request: Rezoning of dots 2 and 3 of Block 1, Olsotts Island
View Terrace from R1 to 83 to permit a services station
uses and rezoning of tots 1, 8, 9 and 10 4o
Property: Stated VA)dv* -+ at 66th and Highway 4169 (east side
of higWap)
Owner of Property: 11111 nelmina 1t. Olson
BACWROM:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDER13):
1) A service station is being constructed across 66th Avenue directly
south of this site. Another station is being proposed for the
property directly across Hipbway 3;169 frmi the station being built.
2) Mould another service station at this point on the east side of
Highway #169 endanget the public health, safety, etc., to an extent
which could not be taken care of by the special use vehicle?
3) The proposals are not In accord with planning recommendations for
the area.
STAFF CS?MMMS:
1) The applicant is not at this time asking fos a special use permit for a
service station, but if the zoning were granted, we would perhaps
have a difficult time denying it.
2) Supposedly, the service station ,dust south of 66th was to be the
end of commercial zoning with transitional multiple dwelling zoning
to the east and north. Have oondltions changed since the Luebsinger
approvals?
•�•� ,-r.-' ...r ,��; '•;a-°
. . , .'
' �
..•
_ .. .,._-
PLANNING COWAISSIQN INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 65104
Applicant: R. 8. McChesney
Description of Request: Approval of the pfeliminary plat of "B. R. McChesney
2nd Addition". Rezoning of the property from Rl
and RB to &5. Approval of site and building plans
for a % story apartmeut development.
Property: Parcels 1320, 3580, and 3610, Section 10 (S. E.
Quadrant of the intersection of Highways 9100 and 152)
owner of Property:
BACKGROUW
1) This property, with the exception of one single family sized lot at
the south zoned R1 and the 30 foot strip on the east is zoned 0.
2) The construction of the Interchange and expansion of Highway #l52
required the acquisition of parts of these properties abutting
Highways 152 and 100, and the purchasing of access to the high1vay
from these properties by the State,
POINTS TO BE COMSIDERE D:
1) lister service may be available from the Village. but sewer service
and perhaps water will be with Minneapolis
2) Access to public streeis will be through a cowman system of driveways,
but parking for each building will be on Its own parcel
3) A variance from the required 50' front setback to 38 feet will be
necessary for the building on Lot 1.
A) Is a bond site improvements such as screening. tarring, etc. needed?
STAFF CMAENTS
_-O.ro5!0 q
r
i
>f
• ,��. ,+� ems• '"'i
6
y
1 �
1
GREENHOUSE �.
r�
,40 -1 F
- ve 5l sr AVE.
PARK
&DUM O 1
ARDWAIRD N 221, QU COW=
The staff recommends that the Connission table action of this application
to allow the Village Hnginear to lag out a street proposal for this area,
by adopting a Resolution regarding the application. This esolution
might take the following form:
WHEREAS, Shell Oil Coopany has applied for rezoning of Lot 18,
Auditor's Subdivision 9310, for eommarcial and multiple dwelling uses,
including a special use permit for a serviee station on the commercial
property; and
ISIERgAS, the application by Shell Oil Company tends to conform to
oomprehensive planning proposals for the area; and
WHEREAS, the acheivement of proposals developed in the comprehensive
planning study nearing campletion cannot be preached unless rnd until a
street plan has been devised for this area; and
WHEREAS, the oreation of 66th Avenue North according to planning
proposals involves properties adjacent to, but not part of, the
applicant's property.
N011. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that an engineering study be made
of the area including the applicant's property, and that a p.�3110
hearing be held of affected property owners an order to desigi: a
• street plan acceptable to all; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application #65099 be tabled %atil the
Planning Commission meeting of February 3, 1966, with the suggestion that
owners of affected properties might be able to aid in this process by
negotiating with one another.
Ag2LiS3&1gfl N 1 1 6 L s ar Co st tion Co an e s Re�a.ty
It is recommended that the preliminary plat, if approved, be apprc(ed
by a Resolution oontaining the following:
iVHEREAS, the proposed "Edli.ng 4th Addition` conforms to the
preliminary plat of the previous ladling 3rd Addition, and
11MEREAS, June Avenue is now, and is likely to remain for some
tame, a dead-end street without a turnaround; and
1VHEREAS, the dead-end feature of this street is likely to create
drainage and street maintenance problems {pvimatily snowplewing);
NOW. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVID that the preliminary plat of
"Ediing 4th Addition" is approved, subject to. the provisions of the
platting ordinance and the following requirements:
1) that a 10 foot wide drainage easement and drainage faoility
be pvovied along the south lime of Lot 2, ?Block 2; and
2) that homes constructed on Lot 2, Bloch 2, and Lot 3, Block 1,
he situated in such a way that their driveways will lie
alone the north side of said lots,
♦.
I
I
r
..2.
Aepliaat on 865143 by 1artiu F. Won
Regardless of what action is taken on this application, a Resolution
would be In order to ley out explicitly the Commission's findings
and recommendation.
AaeliCation -W1W by R B 1290M
Several points have come to light cwhiob are being submitted as
additional "points to be considered".
1) A variance is necessary from the required 32,400 square feet
to 31.570 square feet if a 12 unit building is to oe
accommodated on Lot 1. .
2) A variante will be necessary from the required 50 foot setback
along mi jor thoroughfare:; for the building on Lot 1. Allowing
a variance on the setbaCs would allow widening the driveway
now shown as 20 feet wide.
3) A variance would be necessary from the requirements 'df the
platting ordinance that each lo: abut on a dedicated street
(assuming "abut" implies access), as Lots 3 and 4 will gain
access through Lot 2;
• 4) Other points have been Noted on the site plan.
It would again be wise If the approval of the paeliminary play:, site
plans, and building plans was by Resolution. A part of such a resolution
might be that the approval of the final plat be .Contingent upon proof
that munieipal water and sewage facilities are available from either
Minneapolis or Brooklyn Center.
Axel t9.an•PWW3 bX 6iitliam Zieska
The Village Council directed the Administratoti to prepare a memo
requesting a re-evaluation of this application. The dentist who had
planned to mane use of the rezoned property is having problems witb his
lease, and must icaww what the future of the application is. The
application is on the Counoil Agenda of Monday, January 17th for
final action, and a Resolution explicitly stating your opirvrons in
the matter would be greatly appreo aced.
&29122 i'or _BroeWa ,
Mr. Martinson wishes to discuss the possibility of billboarc$ along
Highway IOD-.
A resolution directed -to the Minnesota Highway (Department requesting
signing for our business districts might be constructive.
+� Planning Commission Agenda
February 3, 1966
Rol 1 Gall Application No.
2. Approval of Minutes
Special Meeting of January 27, 1966
3e Lundst�rom Construction Com2auy 65101
Approval of the preliminary plat of "®LING
4TH ADDITION' consisting of the present
Outlot 1, Edling 3rd Audition, at approxi-
mately 57th and June Avenues North.
4. Hobert L. Baldwin, 66001
Rezoning to 133 or C2
Special Use Permit for a service station
Approval of site and building plans
All of the above for the property in the
southwest quadrant of the intersection of
Highway #100 and France Avenue North
5. Fireside Realty 66002
Rezoning from RI to R5 of the property along
ithe west side of Osseo Road from the north
Village limits to approximately 71st Ave. No.
6. Thomgg Gomilak 66003
Variance to permit construction of a 12 foot
wide garage three feet from the east line at
2901 - 63rd Avenue North,
7� William Haugh, Attorney for.,ft., F. Young 66004
Variance from Section 154104 to allow division
of laud by metes and bounds at 6540 Lyndale
Avenue North
8. Engler and Assoc, Architects for Brookdaie Covenza
Church _ 66006
Approval of plans of a proposed ad itiota to 1,
church at Highway 4100 and Osseo Road,
9. Martin F. C lon 65103
Taken under advisement at the January 13th meeting
Rezoning of portions of Bloch 1, Olson's Island
View Terrace Addition to R5 an6 B3 for service
station and multiple dwelling use.
10. 0. B. Thomason Electric Ga> 66007
Appeal from the ruling of the Building Inspector
regarding issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
at 6822 Osseo Road.
PLANNING CORMISSIU4 INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 65101
Applicant: Thorpe Bros, Realty for Lundstrom Construction Co.
Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of "Ediing 4th
Addition"
Property: Outlot 1, Edling's 3rd Addition (approximately
57th. and June Avenuee North)
Owner of Property: Lundstrom Construction Company
BAC2KGROUND:
1) The property in this plat is p:tesently "Outlot I" of Edling's 3rd
addition. In the original preliminary plat of Falling 3rd, these
five lots and intervening street were shown as presently laid out.
The reasons .fox not platting the five logs at that time was the
lack of proper utilities; it was not possible to service these
five lots with sewer from the north,, and the property owner to
the south did not want a sevier easement across his property at
that time, Since Edling's 3rd was planted, sewer has become
available from the south,
POINTS TO BE CONSiD►ERIII:
1) Saffieienoy of the plat •-, the lots and street are all adequate or
more than adequate,
STAFF COMMENTS-
1) The Engineer would like a 10' temporary drainage easement along
the south line of Lot 2, Block 2,
PLANNING COWIISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66001
Applicant: Robert Baldwin, Baldwin Realty
Description of Request: Rezoning from RB to 83 or C2, Special Use Permit for
a service station, Approval of site and building plans,
Property: Tract ` A , R. L. So 41082 and Parcel 2910, Section 10,
Owner of Property: Izolda Gilles and Norman Chazin
BACKGROUND:
1) This property was zoned RB on May 12, 1959 upon an application by
Homedale Builders. The original application asked for 83 zoning for
a combination construction office and warehouse -- the approval was for
RB with a variance to allow storage in the basement of the office building,
Obviously; the development never took place.;
POINT TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Access to the site is proposed from France Avenue North,
2) The intersection of France Avenue and Highway 9100 has been recognized
• as hazardous for some time, and will be signalized in the spring or
summer of 19660 It is planned that an interchange will be constructed
here in 5 to 10 years,
3) If the rezoning is to be granted, the single family dwellings on the west
side of France to the south of this property would be buffered from it by a
multiple dwelling, as they are from industrial properties to the northeast,
4) The property is proposed as R5 on the proposed zoning map,
STAFF COMMENTS:
1) A business which de0ends on attraction of autos from a traffic flow,
requiring them to make turning movements at an already troubled inter-
section, seems to be highly unwise., Better tha€ an RB use be built on
this RB zoned property.. for its users would have it as a destination
rather than a stopover point, Such uses are generally not dependent on
snatching its customers from passiig traffic.
2) Assuming that this property will be acquired by the State for the pro-
posed interchange, it would seem better for the taxpaying public if it
remained vacant land. It is doubtful that the property lends itself to
any use at present other than a service station,, Thus, it would seem that
if the present, rezoning is not granted;, the property will remain vacant
and be available for acquisition at a much lower cost to the public,
Whether or not the Village can or should concern itself with this aspect
of the application is questionable,
3) The plans are in accordance with what the Planning Commission considers
adequate for service stations (ive. , green strips, screening., parking, etc. )
4) The Engineering Department of the department of Highways,, State of
Minnesota, has been notified of this application,
jc�x �
5
• PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No, 66002
Applicant: Fireside Realty and the following:
Ward and Shirley Gronfield
Marvin Lo Olson
Robert and Delores Lang
William and Oda Rosenow
Tom Wilder
Description of Request: Rezoning of the property to R5 from its present RI
zoning classification.
Property: Parcels 5400, 5600, 5800, 6010„ 6223, and 6224, Auditor's
Subdivision V57, The property lies approximately between
71st Avenue North and the North Village limits on the
west side of Osseo Road.
Owner of Property: Listed above
BACKGROUNDL
1) Mr. Wilder submitted an application (U65050) in July of 1965 requesting
zoning for multiples for a part of this property abutting Brooklyn Park,
• The application was denied because of a lack of sanitary service to the
property. In the present proposal, sanitary service,would be from
Brooklyn Park for the property north of Shingle Creek, and Brooklyn
Center for the property south of the Creek,.
POINTS TO BE CONSID ERD:
1) The majority of the property in question is propsed for R3 zoning by
the Commission,
2) As a letter submitted to the Commission by the property owners indicates,.
builders in this area do not feel that townhouse developments have
proven themselves as yet
3) A single family residential property not acquired by the applicants
would be surrounded by R5 zoning on three sides,
4) The property could have access to Quail Avenue in addition to Osseo Road ,
5) It appears that zoning to the north in Brooklyn Park on the West side of
Osseo Road will be multiple or commercial.
6) The development abuts for the most part on the rear lot lines of single
family properties.
7) Need to provide access to the property to the west" of this property,
8) Does the open space provided meet the necessary outdoor living environment
intended to be provided by the 2700 square feet per unit requirement?
Y
t
CREEK
CHURCH
ki- •
AC
�'����� ` ..,....... .��a .�+, .�.�,�5.�...-..e� �,.�...».,...,....`..tee:..w.,......
R
Vl
Z
PLANNING COMUSSION INFORMATI0N SHEET
Application No, 66003
Applicant: Thomas Gomilak
Description of Request: Variance from Section 35.401 and 35-402 to allow
construction of a 12' x 24' attached garage on the
east side of the house to be 3 feet from the east
property line.,
Property: Lot 10, Block 8, Garden City 1st Addition
Owner of Property: Thomas Gomilak
BACKGROUND:
1) The same variance was granted to David Yen for the property at 2906
Nash Road, directly southwest of the present applicant's property in
May of 1961,
POINT TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The variance requested is not due to some peculiarity 6T this
individual parcel, but is common to many in this subdivision. The
houses on the lots are parallel with the streets, and the "slanted
side lot lines rake for smaller side yards,
2) + tat reasons are there for needing an attached rather than unattached
garage?
- " -------� '
1 �t
54
2 9®1 °
G 0 03
9 :
R
Foe;
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
A ,plication No, 65004
Applicant: William Haugh, Attorney for the Owner, Wmo F. Young
Description of Request: Variance from Section 15»104 to permit division by
metes and bounds,
Property: Lot 15, Auditor's Subdivision 4310, lying between
Lyndaie Avenue North and Willow Lane.
Owner of Property: William F. Young
BACKGROUND:
1) The Phillips Petroleum Company, while constructing its service station
directly to the north of this property, found it necessary to fill
their property to raise it to the level of the adjacent roadway. It
was necessary either to build a retaining wall on the south line of the
station site or buy the property to the south. The latter route was
chosen. The Oil Company and Mr. Young cannot R. L.S. the property
and do not wish to plat it at this time. It is proposed that the north
72 feet of Lot 15 will be divided from Lot 15 and sold to the Oil
Company.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The portion of Lot 15 remaining would still be of adequate size
(77 feet wide).
STAFF COMMENTS:
None
a �
M
Pp
PR
NOUSE
�
,, PROS
tu
a M
0
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No, 66005
Applicant: Engler and Assoc. Architects for BrooIfdale Covenant Church.
Description of Request: Approval of plans for an addition to the existing church:
Property: Parcels 805 Section 10 •- South of the intersection of
Highways 4 IGO and 41520
Ouner o:" Property: Bxookdale Covenant Church
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED
13 The parcel to the south of the chu-,Mh property is proposed to be
R3 zoning. As I understand the Commission's thinking, R1, R2 and
R3 axe more or less equal and enti-led to equal protections. file
. veason for stating the above is that Section 35-710 requires
scree ning of parking lots of more -yhan six spaces from adjacent
residential properties,.
2) Tile parking layout indicates sligh:1y less than 1 space for 3
seats available.
3' There is no minimum distance i.equired between church driveways as there
is for commercial and industrial properties, 'fhe mi,ninium for corrliexce
and industry is 100 feet, while the plans being subriitted show
slightAy over 40 feet between driveways. The fact; that the Property
is served 5y a service road rather than the highway itself probably
makes tile distance irrelevant.,
• ` T ; Ac 1
' jt�( 11 en �tE t 4 C. 54 Ac.
,/z
Ct Ac
ws
Cie-s�+�+k.._ ° ?
A.
� OJT
Owe
0e
Ar '",'f4, "5` i IGOV! F
Jilk—t j 4� F,C 1,e5� ` �♦ d r...{ ��'t'c'�r."1" ', +,_ ♦`lll�.MN�e. � �j!' ........-.-.
a.
:lam' tCt��C
NO-
. .-«. ,ns^_.:�t�s .•-+,'�wnr:t ra ror .a»-ra...,-,rvM atc ers �,,'.,! -�.a..o,aktib4aw•::;a,.•. �..�.,�i.b.�,-.��k'y,�.w,++ iwwus.•�....4w.�a.,.�...•,,ar.�n...cs-� ������
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 65103
Applicant: Martin F. Colon
Description of Request: Rezoning of Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1. Olsons Islay!
View Terrace from R1 to 133 to permit a service station
use; and rezoning of Lots 1. 8 9 and 10 to i15,
Property: Stated above - at 66th and Highway 9169 (east side
of highway
Owner of Property: Wilhelmina A. Olson
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
11 A service station is being constructed across 66th Avenue directly
south of this site, Another station is being proposed fox the
• property directly across Highway 4169 irons the station being built,
2) Would another service station at this point on the east side of
Highway 4169 endanger the public health, safety, etc., to an extent
which could not be taken care of by the special use vehicle
3) The proposals are not in accord with planning recommendations for
the area,
STAFF COMMENTS:
1) The applicant is not at this tine asking for a special use permit for
a service station, but if the zoning were granted, we would perhaps
have a difficult time denying it�
2) Supposedly,, the service station ,just south of 66`ch was to be the
end of comatercial zoning with transitional multiple dwelling zoning
to the east and north. Have conditions changed since the Luchsirnge
approvals?
•
i
f
*GG0D4
t..
r, Ttit AVE.
a
s
UTIL.
PRpP9SED
`PROP R
HOUSE
PROP�SED� PROP
I W I 133 �9 PARUL To
R5 i w" i� BE DIVIDED
IIX ,
b
� 3
0
J
65M AVE.
M
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66007
Applicant: 0. B. Thompson Electric Company
Description of Request: An appeal from the adverse ruling of the Building
Inspector; it is requested that the Building
Inspector be directed to issue a Business Certificate
of Occupancy to 0. B. Thompson Electric Company
for the purpose of operating an electrical
contracting business and retail outlet for electrical
products.
Property: Tract B, R. L. S. #595 - 6822 Osseo Road
Owner of Property:
BACKGROUND:
1) The property involved is the former Brooklyn Building Supplies
building, The type of business operation proposed is stated above.
The refusal of the Building Inspector to issue a Certificate of
• Occupancy stems primarily from a question as to what classification
the business shall come under in order to calculate parking.
requirements. The property at present does not have an
established, surfaced parking area.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1) The present building is not connected to the municipal sewer
system and the well does not meet requirements of the Village of
Brooklyn Center's ordinances. It is recommended that this building
be connected to municipal sewer and water.
•
•
Planning Coamission Agenda
January 27, 1%6
l► 8211 GALL
2. Agn oval of Minutes,
Regular Meetings of December 2, 1965E and
January 13, 1966.
Special Meetings of December 6, 9, 16, and
30, and January 4, 6, 10 and 20.
3. Discus-Wion of the 67th and Grimes/Halifax Avenue
Area with residents of that area
4. Discussion of letters received regarding the
proposed comprehensive rezoning
(See attached listing)
• 5. Review of Cl requirements and signing
its C zones.
-i
plenuilIq (;omission agenda
Februavy 10, 1966
2, R R C;t�Bn G .� 0 65104
Tabled at thO Jasaaxy 13, 1966
meeting and revised since that time,
Approval Of the preliminAvy plat of
"g. R. moChesney and Sens 2nd AddltiO-W'
at the southeast quadrant of Hwys, X100
aW #152
Approval of site plans and buiiriing pleas
for multiple dwellings on the above
• propengo
3a Revietia3 of letters and petitions zegawdiaq the
;proposed map of zoning dtstritts
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application Nod 65104
Applicant: Ro R. McChesney
Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of ' R. R.
W-Chesney 2nd Addition' , Approval of site
and building plans for a 21/2 story apartment
development,
Property: Parcels 3580.; and 3610, Section 10 (S.,E„
quadrant of the intersection of Highways
4100 and 152)
Owner of Property:
BACKGEOU ND:
1) The construction of the interchange and expansion of Highway #152
required the acquisition of parts of these properties abutting
Highways 152 and 100, and the purchasing of access to the highway
from these properties by the State.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERS):
1) Water service may be available wyom the Village, but sewer service
and perhaps water will be with Minneapolis,
2) Access to public streets will be through a common system of driveways,
but }narking for each building will be on its own parcel
3) Is a frond site improvements sucl as screening, tarring,, etc,,, needed?
STAFF C(RUMTS:
1) See the memo prepared by kv,, 3ohnstton regarding this application,
i
•
*651011
i
J S:F.
f
s.F
� S.F
AVE.
CHURCH ` � S.F 52w� I
�
� S. F
J
VAC• S.F.
r � VAC. S.I�' z
GP,EENNOUSti
VAC. S. F
DUB DUP.
51 sr AVE.
N
Y
e ce •s s e•d rc 3• in �;t a Co;,;�3reh„e„ si�Te i?e�o�,.�3�t
12-29-65 Owners of property at 72nd and Osseo Roast
12-29-65 Memo regarding 6%h and Osseo Moats
1--3-66 Soo Mine Railroad
1-4.66 Dayton Development Company
1-4..66 Daytroii Development Compuy
I-At--66 Ilssemblies of Cod Chw-,eh
1-4-66 Futterman Corpor4tion, Northbrook Shopping Gente
1-6-6£ I. Sil jordr 4010 Laitiebveeze Avenue North
.i-6-66 Bill Hove, Area North Qf .Seto L,iiic Tracks ~
1-7w66 J. '.. Johnston, 53rd and Highway 100
1--7-66 J. P. Jones, Trustee xor owners 4L 6129 Osseo Road
• 1-8-66 Rosidents from area of approximately klighu«y 100 and
Osseo Road
10--66 Eleanor Johnson and Gail Bakkea, t yndale Avenue from
55th to 57th Avenve North
1-11-66 Elliot Xoplan,. Attorney for Shopper's City
1-13-66 Mr. and Mrs, F. M. Kagp meyer, 5313 Horst pai:t Drive
1-14-66 Roy and Hill; Dowe, 40421 X"'ozxes Avexaae wox•tti
1-14-66 MUszo and issone-�t (United Land, l Yo.) S.W. Corner of
Osseo Road and n94; N.W. Corner of 63rd and Osseo Road
I -1 wb6 Residents £wom 1501 tc, 652" Osseo Road
-1I-66 Russell and ilellwan for Kei b and Charlotte Nordby,
5964 Osseo Bud
i-17-616 Oi�,iaerz - covaea: oi 3rd .an-d Lyedua le lose€lue 'io5th
.1-113-66 Rolland Billiap, 5215 France Aven=ue North
1-19-66 I . a d Mrs. Will1w8m Ber feet 36424! No. 53rd Place
a� et�s a-e ltezgg 9
12-29-65 Owners of property at 72nd and Osseo Road
• 12-29=-65 Memo regarding 69th and Osseo Road
1.4-66 Soo Line Railroad
* 1-4-66 Dayton Development Company
1-4-66 Dayton Development Company
1-4-66 Assemblies of God Church
1-4-66 Futterman Corporation, Northbrook Shopping CAanter
1�,6-66 I, Si1fiord,, 4010 Lakebreeze Avenue forth
1=-6-66 Bill Howe;, Area North of Soo line Tracks
1-7.-.66 J, W. Johnston; 53rd and Highway 100
1-7.66 0. P. Jones, Trustee for owners at 6121 Osseo Road
1•x8-66 Residents from area of approximately Highway 100 and Osseo Road
* 1-8-66 Residents adjacent to the proposed R3/R7 zoning on the west boundary
of the Village (near County Road 910)
• 1-10-66 Eleanor Johnson and Gail Bakken; Lyndale Avenue from 55th to
57th Avenue North
1-11 .66 Elliot Kaplan, Attorney for Shopper's City
1-13-66 Mr1 and Mrs,, F. M. Kampmeyer, 5313 Northport Drive
1-13--66 Residents of the 59th and Xerxes/Upton area adjacent to Dayton's
property
1..14-66 Rosy and Bill Howe, 4821 Xerxes Avenue North
1-14-66 lYiiksza and Bissonett (United Land, Inc,) S.W,00r.ner of Osseo Road
and #94; N. W. corner of 63rd and Osseo Road.
1-17-66 Residents from 6501 to 6527 C>sseo Road
1-17-66 Russell and Wellman for Keitb and Charlotte Noxdby, 5964 Osseo Road
1-17-66 Owners - corner of 73rd and Lyndale avenue North
11 66 Rolland Billings, 5215 France Avenue North
'x 1-19-•66 Mr. and Hies, William Berree, 3624 No. France .Place
1 .24--66 Mrs,, Gerald ileruth, 6421 Bryant Avenue North
i-•27"-66 Residents of the area adajacent to proposed R7 zoning at the
intersection of highways V-100 and X152.
*Concerns R7 (High-Rise) zoning
RM TO Flannrieag Camisslos
.. James V. Joh"t+sam, Villa" A'ttoswflr
RE; Application tot appsaral of ptelW"ry pint of $. R. McChe"'
mused Son Beoomd ,1004.
DATE: rehraary 8, 1%6
yes kea►e a mbd that I =evism the ab000 application oritk a vie* to
advisia* shat the legal implications would be I& recomm dieg approval
or dewial in your capacity of advising the Village Council.
it is mkt vederstanding that the property is presently zoned 0.
it is also nay aenderstanding that the proposed use is Fermitt6d In
RR zone:.
Thesrefore, the aspect involved seems to be whether there is any bag!&
for a village initiated action to re-:come to a lesser 'R classification.
The guntions that an involved is this coasideration ores
1. that groveds can be used by a village to re-some to a
district of lesser use?
• 2. grit att"% doer a sume's asking of property end access have?
The court In owe Case, ffiia a2 1lS M.N. tad Tad
(1%2) mosg gather findings held:
yora Who bas acquired property coned for pwticalw purposes
under rosaprakeuslant aping erdisamea is entltlead to rely
thereon as against arbitrary ouwtaaeat of amendments thereto
which resulz is dUdneatioe in value 67 restriction of his
rights and interest in sash property."
The Courts have been reluctant to allow a villege to re-gone where the
owner has acquired a vested interest is the moning. Whiles interests usually
vast wb#n the property has been put to the perrsittad U06, the courts have
been reaopaiuing vested interests to some degree when th"s has teen
scram reliance in the Sontag.
In tiro ooutt sound that the
highest and Deem use of tie property Was or m itiple dwellings end not a
B-3 use. Is addition it fovad 00 ne-srrieg to a Lasser use did not decrease
the value. Also. the owner had amide no application for a building permit,
expended so money and is so other way relief on the B•3 zoning.
In the instant ease -
1. "m long Asp Omni +wend property?
2. What is highest VA bet Baer Of the property?
3. *aid the re-scaieg decrease the value of the :and?
C Has the owner applied for a building permit?
5. Is the present zoning compatible with surrounding uses?
6. Will the intended use deprive the neighboring residential
dwellers of a substantial portion of the user enjoyment,
peace and quiet of their residential property?
7� Has the ovaner relied on the present zoning and made any
farther investment or commitment?
The courts will upset a re-zoning if:
1, The action is arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious.
20 It results in a taking of private property without
.dust compensation.
3. That is is a denial of "equal protection" guaranty under
the Ha S. Constitution,
4. That it will cause the owner irreparable baarm, damage
• or injury.
5. That it deprives the owner of property without the due
process of low.
I have considered that the state's taking for the highway interchange
results in limited access to the property and will no doubt create more
traffic on 51st and Xerxes Avenues. Since any use of the property would
inorease the traffic to some degree, the fact that traffic will iacrease
to sow unknown greater degree may give the village the right to require
certain things in plan approval, but in my opinion it is not sufficient
in and of itself to substantiate a re-zoning to a 8 district
This memorandum by no means is an exhaustive study of the questions
raised by this application, However, I hope that it is of some guidance
to you,
Planning Commission Agenda
March 3 1966
Application Noo
1, Rgll Call:
2, Approval of Minutes
Regular meeting of February 3, 1966
Special meetinysof February 1.0, 17, and 24, 1966
3, Twin Realty Company 66005
Variance from the density requirement of
2700 sq, ft. of land per living unit for
multiple dwellings in an RB zone.
Approval of plans for a multiple dwelling
development
Both of the above for the property in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of
Highways 14100 and V-1520
. C. W, Lovely 6
Approval of the preliminary plat of
"Lovely's Addition" at approximately
72nd Avenue North and Willow Lane,
• 5- Iten Chevrolet 66009
Approval of plans for a used car sales
office at 6701 Osseo Road,
6., Shopper's City 66010
Variance to permit the operation of a
garden store from April 1, 1966 until
July 15, 1966 at 3600 - 63rd Avenue North.,
7� John W. Horbal 66011
Rezoning from R1 to R5 and B3 of the property
at the northwest corner of 69th and Humboldt
Avenues North.
Special use permit for a service station on the
B3 zoned property,
I. Wpae Harris and Thomas McKee 66013
Special use permit to allow construction of
two duplexes on the property at 5337 _,. 5347
Queen Avenue North.
NOTE: This information is repeated from the March 3, 1966, agenda.
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEEP
Application No„ 66005
Applicant: Twin Realty Company
Description of Request: Variance from density requirements of 2700 square feet per
dwelling unit in as RB zone to approximately 2400 square
feet per unit. Approval of site plans and building plans.
Property: The Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Highways
9100 and X152. Parcels 120, 130, 700 and 815, Section 10.
I Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Comprehensive Planning proposals for the area.
2) Standards for variances set out in Section 35-221.
3) Adequacy of the plans W in addition to stating information about this
development, it and two others will have standards of the Edina Multiple
• Dwelling Ordinance applied to them to give a demonstration of that ordinance,
This type of development is "R4" in the Edina ordinance. Numbers such as
"2" refer to the type of allowance permitted in Edina's ordinance.
A) Twin Realty Property
-approximately 755,766 sq, ft. (17,35 acres) or +/- 2.437 sq. ft . per
unit for the proposed 310 units„
-280 units possible at the required 2700 sq, ft. per unit.
Edina base figure of 2500 sq, ft. (Brooklyn Center 2700 sq. ft, )
Subtract 500 sq, ft, for 2.
Subtract 250 sq, ft, for 4<
Add 500 sg. ft. for-7
-for a final figure of 2,250 sq, ft, per unit (2,,450 using Brooklyn
Center's base)
B) Lyn River Apartments Highways 4169 and 4100
-approximately 234,123 sq, ft., total, or 2.787 provided for each of
the 84 units existing.
Edina base figure of 2500 sq. ft. (Brooklyn Center 2700 sq. ft. )
Subtract 500 sq. ft, for 2.
Subtract 250 sq, ft, for 3.
Subtract 250 sq. ft, for 4.
Add 500 sq, ft. for 7.
-for a final figure of 2000 sq. fto per unit (2.200 using Brooklyn
Center's base)
0 Apariments North of Shopper's City - 65th and Beard .Avenue North
• - approximately 292,733 sq:7 ft„ total, or +/..- 2,710 sqo ft� for each
of the 100 units existing.
291,600 sq. ft, required at 2700 sq,, ft. per unit.
Edina base figure of 2500 sq. ft. (Brooklyn Center 2700 sqo ft, )
Subtract 250 sq. ft� for 2>
Subtract, 250 sq. £t, for 4.
Arid 500 sa—ft, for 7..
-•for a final figure of 2500 sq. ft. per unit (2,700 using Brooklyn
Center's base)
Thus, if applying Wina's standards to our abase .figure, V' would be
approximately whot is being requested; "B" has much more land than would
be required; and "C" has more land than would be required_ Regarding the
"useable lot area" provision of the Edina ordinance, when applied to the
Twin Realty site plan, it is much more then adequate:.
4) All of the proposed 310 units are to be single bedroom units,,
STAFF GOMMENTS:
1.) Although the applicant probably does not deserve a variance based on the
standards of Chapter 35, if the Commission and Council are planning to
adopt a zoning ordinance similar to Edina's, some adjustment should
probably be made in the land required,
2) Although construction of these units will all be single bedroom, and may
seem unwise as far as rentals go, this is beyond our purview in plan
approval
3; Is a performance agreement and bond necessary?
4) Although a single family dwelling on 53rd Avenue i,s being left out of
the plans, it is doubtful that the persons living there care to move and
sell their property,
5) Traffic counts on Osseo Road service drive south of 55th !venue were 1100
cars per day during the week of February 21, 1966.,
6! Suburban apartment units are estimated to generate 2S trips per day .
7) Under the proposed design there would be an increase of traffic on the
service road of 1530 cars per day ,
0) 'R'he teta.l traffic on the service road would be 2650 cars per day,,
9) The above traffic projection is less than the traffic on 03rd Avenue
west of Osseo Road or 57th Avenue east of Legan Avenue,
10) We suggest that the Planning Commission make a determination as to the
density requirement and indicate approval or disapproval cif the general
• plan concept. Site plan approval should not be given until detail plans
have been submitted shoving dimensioned building and parking lot locations,
drainage plans, planting plans including species; and specifications of
parking lot stirfacing,.
� < +� �� ��h1,�. � ffi..cam _�,,•+ _/'`,.."''�1 1 � � i� �tt 1��+ � { f� i � �.
A8"
\�lti; �,` � \` �` r ��t 4 � � t-..-. ..._.._�1...-,1r..+>.+-: •�"� .Via.....-....._ i L
PLANNING CCOMMISSION INFORMATION. SHEET
• Application No, 6640E
Applicant: C. W, Lovely
Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat: of Lovely's Addition.
Property: Parcels 860 and 865, Aud.. Sub. v-309
Owner of Property: Mrs. Cu W7 Lovely,
BACKGROUND:
1) Mr. Lovely has submitted two proposed land divisions before; one in
1961 (#11259) which was approved, and another in 1964 (464049) idenr.ir..ai
to the present proposal which was denied: Mr. Poss` attached memo.;
written at the time o; the 1964 application; and the three drawings
should be of aid in this matter.
MINTS TO BE CONSIDERFA:
See attached memo and comments below,.
STAFF COMNI MS:
• 1) Lack of frontage on a public roadway by Lot 1 - although not an
insurmountable problem, the provision of services to these properties
is made more difficult, and the Village has allowed this to occur
only when structures already existed which made another land division
unfeasible,
2) The substandard depth of Lot 2 - again., not an unsurmountable problem,
as corner lots in other areas from 50 to 75 feet in width have houses
built on them, in apparent disregard of required rear yard setbacks.
The character of the area is„ however, one of large lots, and setbacks
are at least the required 35 feet, with the exception of the pie-shaped
lot to the south which has had its setback varied to 28 feet.
•
4
EL`t
12 AVf.
25' PRIVATE ROAD EA5E14EtYT
,kot�
I �
L _
75'
i
i
s
•
•
MEMf__p TO: Village Planning Commission and Council
E:,04: of)ji:;ld G,. Poss, Vii lace E,ragineer
DATE: May 27, 1964
SUBJECT: Application W 64049 by Clinton W. Lovely
• During the early part of 1961, the Village Engineering Department, acting
upon a petition signed by property owners in the area bounded by Lyndale Avenue,
the Mississippi !fiver, 70th Avenue, and 73rd Avenue, and which petition was
signed by Mr. Lovely, proceeded to make a study of possible utility and street
layout for the area, A number of meetings were held with the property owners
who formed a Property Owner's Improvement !association for the purpose of
making vital decisions. Eventually, one of the Engineering Department's
street layouts was accepted by the Property Owner's Association and it was
agreed that all property owners would dedicate the necessary right -of-.vay for
streets rather than go through a comprehensive condemnation program. Subse-
quently, the Engineering Department proceeded to acquire the necessary quit
claim deeds for street right-of-ways, and events occurred such that Mr. Lovely
was the last property owner to be contacted for deed signature, During the late
Fall of 1961, Mr, Lovely suggested various end sundry reasons for his not
signing a deed for street dedication, He proposed that the Village fill in
the east portion of his property in return for his deed„ and the Council
accepted the proposal„
On December 7, 1961, Mr, Lovely applied for subdivision approval according
to the attached application No. 61259 and the application was approved by the
Planning Commission and Council
At-ter receiving permission to subdivide: his property, Mr. Lovely re-
qualified his terms of conveying a street deed and made additional demands which
the Council would not accept, whereupon the Council directed commencement of
• condemnation proceedings,
In the opinion of the Village, the monetary award trade by three court
appointed condemnation commissioners alas unreasonably excessive and an appeal
was made to District Court. After a one weer jury trial in the Fall of 1963
the award to Mr, Lovely was reduced to approximately 55% and the costs of
the award and legal costs were included with the utility improvement costs
and paid for by the property owners who had dedicated their street :right-of-ways.
One of the Village's basic contentions in District Court consisted of the
fact that Mr. Lovely's claim of three possible lots was in direct conflict with
Village Ordinances. His current application, similarly conflicts with the
Ordinances, concepts of proper planning and the nature of the area:
1., Proposed lot ? would be created with no frontage on a public street,
This is a very basic and "important requirement of property development
and it should be preserved,
2. Proposed lot airy does not provide the necessary minimum depth (110')0
3, With reference to proposed lot 42, a home could not be built, which
would meet bath the setback and rear yard requirements of the Ordinances:.
4„ Contrary to Mr, Lovely's contention in Distric`c Court, his existing
house fronts on Willow Lane, and would face the back yard of proposed
loll 92,
Sirce Mr. , Lovely's current application is not at all compatible with the
surrounding area nor with proper planning and development concepts, it is
strongly recommended -that Mr. Lovely be advised that his application No. 64049
is not feasible and that it would appear infeasible to in any way create three
lots from his present property.
"G 12 5
This subdivision approved
December 7, I S6l
1
S
4
•
This subdivision denied
June 15, 1964
1
_...._._. SAS ,ENt E NT
01 *2
60' 7S'
#3 �, 3
/5
• PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66009
Applicant: Iten Chevrolet
Description of Request: Approval of plans for a used car sales office at
6701 Osseo Road.
Property: 6701 Osseo Road., Lot 1, Block 1, Automotive Acres Addition
Owner of Property: Iten Chevrolet
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Although the building's location may interfere with the use of several
car spaces in front of it, these spaces are not for customer parking,
but for the display of cars to be sold.
•
STAFF COMMENTS:
None
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No� 66010
Applicant: Shopper's City
Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-410 to permit the operation
of a garden stare from April 1, 1966 until July 15, 1.966,
Property: 3600 63rd Avenue North, Tract ' A' , R,L.S� #607 and
Tract "B", R. L. S� #817.
Owner of Property: Shopper's City, Inca 1740 Van Dyke Ave. ,. St„ Paula Minn
BACKGROUND:
1) Shopper's City has operated a garden store operation for several years,
usually with a garage and some open display space, The amount of space
requested for such use this year is approximately 40 x 150 feet.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDEIRED:
l) Shopper's City has space for roughly 1100 cars; their floor space ranges
from 120,000 square feet (requiring 902 parking spaces) to 140,000 square
• feet (requiring 1042 spaces), The proposed use would use space for
approximately 30 cars
2) The garage building used as a garden store last year remained on the
parking lot some time after the date agreed upon before finally being
removed by Shopper's City,
STAFF CCMMONTS:
1) Shopper's City should be made aware of the fact that the present variance
is being chanted with the understanding that the garden store will be
removed by July 15, 1966, without fail.
i
•
•
PLANNING CAMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66011
Applicant: John 11. Horbal
Description of Request: Service station and multiple unit apartments. Rezoning
to R5 and B3> Special Use Permit for a service station
on B3 property.
Property: Parcel 400, Sec, 26,, Twp, 119, Range 21, (Northwest
corner of 69th and Humboldt Avenue North)
Owner of Property: John W. Horbal
BACKGROUND:
1) The south half of this property is proposed for R5 zoning under the
comprehensive plan.
2) Zoning for service stations has been approved for the Northeast and
Southwest quadrants of the intersection of 69th and Humboldt,
3) The property in the southeast quadrant has been zoned for commercial
• and a service station is proposed for the corner,
STAFF COMMENTS:
1) The plans for this application were returned to the applicant for changes
to meet the ordinance. As of this writing, they have not been returned.
Therefore, we cannot comment further on the plans.
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
•
Application No� 66013
Applicant: Wayde Harris and Thomas McKee
Description of Request: Special Use Permit to allow construction of two duplexes
in an R1 zone°
Property: 5337 - 5347 Queen Avenue North
(Parcels 3710 and 3800, Oakdale Addition)
Owner. of Property: Same as above
BACKGROUND:
1) On May 18, 19644 the Village Council approved a Special Use Permit
for two duplexes on this same property,, including a variance from 0,000
square feet per unit requirement in effect at that time, as requested by
Leroy Pearson. No use has been made of the special use permission
granted at that time.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDER EJ:
• 1) The Planning Commission's intention to recommend zoning this property
to R2, which has duplexes as a permitted use.
2) The character of this area south of 54th Avenue; predominantly duplex,
3) The area of each duplex .lot is +/.- 13;300 feet. The required square
footage in the proposed ordinance for a duplex is 12,400 square feet..
STAFF COMMEWS:
1) A 25 Foot setback along 54th Avenue north is proposed by the applicant;
this is in line with the 25 foot setback of the duplex on the east side
of Queen Avenue artd the 24 foot setback of the duplex on the west side
of Penn Avenue North.
•
.3AV NN3d
CL
CL
#L
IL
Ck
aAV
Yl;i7
s s ny
• MEASO TO: Planning conmiisslon
FROM: R. Ciho;ski
DATE: February 16. 1966
RE: Pvoposed Residential Zoning District Requiremeitts
Recently, I have come to wonder what our purposes are in setting up various
residential zoning districts and whether our proposed zoning ordinance will
accomplish these aims, whatever they may be. The zones which I am particularly
concerned with a.re(as proposed) R3, R4, and B5,
As I understand the aims of the Commission, the new Zoning Ordi,nancs is to
be primarily "exclusive" rather than "iselusive", to that only a certain type
of residential use would be allowed in each zone. Purthear, the various
requirements of the different zones are for the purpose of producing what is
considered to be an adequate living environment. Thaw the enva.aawpent
considered adequate might differ as to the requirements of the various zones
is based on the premise that the persons residing in the various types of
dwellings have differing enrivonmeeutal steeds, dune to the attraction of
different types of family and Ron-family tenants
A basic, problem in designing and applying new zones is that we tend to
have images of what will develop in these .areas which are sterotypes of what
•
we have seen elsewhere, that is actually peymitted in zones designed to
accomodate these sterotypes may be differen":-: then we imagine, For example:
the titles of our zoning classification$ may hove blinded us to reality.
Whilo stating
R2 One and two family detached residences
Eta Multiple family residence (townhouse/garden apartment)
R4 Multiple •family residence (walkups l#g stony)
E5 Multiple family residence (walkups - % story)
we should, in our thinking about these zones, delete the parenthetical reaeresces,
and think of the titles as
R2 One and Two family detached residences
R3 Multiple family residence
R4 Multiple family! residence
85 Multiple family residence
to get the proper perspective. As set up is the paroErosed zoning ordinance,
the zones are ltb e e l'n districts without restrictions as to architectural
design as implied in the ' IYz' , "W and %owrdiouse" designations of Their
titles: rather than being "exclusive", each ^tigheDr" mane includes the uses
from the preceding zones. Whatever pressures are exerted on a developer to
build buildings of a certain terchi.teatuaral type in a zone are caused by
minimum requirements of: square footage of triad per unit; height of structures;
(arid floor areas of the structures themselves,
• i
��
•
�:
�;
;�1+
•
i
S Page 2
What is allowed in the R5 zone, for example? A person could build any
type of structure 211 stories h1gh or less (probably to be changed to three
stories) If he could provide 2700 square feet of land for each unit. This
would include what we consider to be Zt story apartments (i.e., generally
36 units or less), lY2 story apartments (i,e,, 4 plea, 3 plea, 7 pie%, 8 plea,
etc,), rqr, what we consider to be a townhouse (2 stogy with or without basement,
attached horizontally), Townhouse and lY2 story developments would be attracted
to these zones where standards were less strict.
What is allowed in the R4 zones? Any structure of 3 or more dwelling
units which provides 3600 square feet of land per unit and whose height is
less than l2 stories (probably to be changed to two stories). This includes
the 3-4-7. 0 plexes and would also cover what we call townhouses, As in the
R5 zone,, townhouses attracted to these less restrictive zones would probably
be of the cheaper vaxi.ety.
What: is allowed in an R3 zone's Any structure containing two or more
dwelling units (attached horizontally? - the definition of townhouse in the
Ordinance states this, but is the R3 zone a multiple dwelling,,aone, or a
townhouse zone?) whicb provides 5450 square feet of .land per unit, and are
two stories or less in height. This would allow tmaahouses as vie Normally
conceive thew to be, or standard duplexes of either rambler; 1%, or 2 story
type, with no limitation on the floor area of the buildings,, Duplexes would
• be able to "save"750 square feet of land on earth unit,
In addition to attracting the "move restrictive" developwnt to less
restrictive zones (townhouse to 85 for example), it is RUI.Qlt, although
unlikely because rare land per unit would be required, that a 4 pier- might
locate in a townhouse zone, or a townhouse in a duplex zone, and so ono
Returning to the basis of reasoning behind our imposition of varying
requirements (height., land area., etc.), we find two assumptions: l) that
certain types of dwellings (townhouses, 2% story, duplexes;; single family, etc,)
attract different types of tenants having differing needs for such things
as open space: and 2) that certain types of dwellings, as vie have s•terotyped
them, will accomplish purposes of transition between more and less dense uses
w1bich will not be accomplished if these certain types of development are :sot
cased. Duplexes in an R3 zone, for example, would be likely to have larger
foam areas ghat townhouse units, which would make for larger structures,
which would mate for less open transitional zone, My own thinking has
been that:, for example, townhouses attract: families of the same size and
toraposition as single Nastily dwelling families, whereas l:j story apartments
attract couples or couples with 1 or perhaps 2 children, and % story apartment
dwe£le"Ps are every less likely to have children. To provide for the screeds of
such family groups, more or less land per unit was allotted. If duplexes are
allowed in the R3 zone, or townhouses are allowed in the S4 or R5 zones, this
aim is subverted,
• Page 3
The situations described are not imagioary - at least one example exists
now is Brooklyn Center of such a development.. On the property behind the
"Burger King", what we consider to be townhouse ayrehiteetuire (two-story units
joined horizontally) is being built, but it is being developed as a 3 plea
at 2700 square feet per unit rather then the 5450 considered to be kiftessary
by the Commission for developments of that ,architectural type
To summarize then, if we accept the premise that certain general architectural
types of dwellings attract certain types of tenants with environmental weeds
distinct from those persons residing in unlike types of residences; and,
if certain types of architecture will provide a desired type of transitional
use* then we should be certain that the appropriate land areas, floor areas,
and so on are provided in these zones. Since requirements must be uniform
throughout a zone, it would seem that zoning to make these zones exelusive
gather than inclusive is the route to take.
edZts be Considered
1) Assuming that the conditions of living are better in horizontally
attached multiples where no one resides above or below anotber as in horizontally
Aig vertically €zttached multiples, should we allow a developer to determine
which type he will build on R4 zoned property? the problems of possible
• "substa,ndardness` derive from the following requirements;
Horizontally attached Horizontally attached
ian-R4 ce114
Required floor area 1020 sq. fte (prop,) T2D sq,fte (prop.)
Required land per unit 5450 #1 it 3&00 it "
Now assuming that the developer built at the minimums, he would probably
attract the some type of ""ants he would have attracted for a four plea
an the same property. The actual ground coverage of the "townhouse" building
would be equal to or less then the flour plez, The same areas outside would
be available under "townhouse" or .fourplex.
The dangers in allowing townhouses on R4 and R5 property assww-, contrary
to the assumption above, that the developer will build his townhouse larger
than the minimum require, probably at 900 to WOO square feet per unit
'these units w mld attract larger family groups with greater needs fax outdoor
space, aizd the land ovailable would be less then with a four Alex unless
the four pleres }being built were of larger than minimum square fmotageo The
problem would be even snore acute in R50 where only 2700 square feet of land
per unit is required, and ra 2 stony building is being built is place of the
three story one envisions-4 for the land.
2) One of the rximary objections to living to a wilti.ple dwelling is
lack of privacy through easy transmission of sound, and this Is dirett.ly related
• to the fact that tenants live above and below o�w another, The idea of living
'"i
s
. ,
� �`
,�,
� •
II
AW
•
Page 4
in a multiple dwelling joined only at the walls is extremely intriguing, as
muffling of non-impact sound through walls is very easy to do, and very few
people walk on walls to produce impact sounds. Should we be willing to
sacrifice space out of doors for a better living environment indoors and allow
this "better" type of multiple to be built at the lesser land requirement?
3) If one of our primary concerns is to provide out of doors recreation
space while providing the best indoor environment, should we adopt an ordinance
such as Edina's requiring certain square afootages of outdoor area per unit for
recreational purposes only?
4) Should vertically attached multiple dwellings be prohibited unless
of 1'yper i and Il construction, thereby promoting Lo izoutally attached
dwellings and L gh quality buildings of three stories and above?
5) Should both horizontally and verrtioally attached multiples be allowed
in the some zone as ir. the Edina ordinance, and the choi.se of architectural
desigEa be left up to the developer?
•
•
FLEW TO: Planning commission
RIOM: .r°ecre ,ary
DAT E: February 16, 1966
The ei?closed memo tot lie Villarie Council was prepared primarily
because BorSs vom Corzstrrczion Company requested that 4he requirernenL
or t-!,,o CXits faar, eath ds,eI I ing unit is :puI i p 1 c d aII--',n g sae waivled
for him or abolished altogether.
Iiis request p ovided ton opportune time o exat.Iine the subject.
fir. NZtirphey is preparing another memo dLaling i•;Wi 0e Niibjeot of
tt,,* exi`ts ."rom a multiple chjelling buildigg, also as a result of a
3,,egaes by oi:gstrom Cos si:.+ructiou Company, '. his it?L'mo :is submitted
to you -:o 1:00p you abreast of the developments which might t :fect
yoar planning.
•
'r
.dl
` o
{ t
f
f
iPlanning Commission Agenda
April 14. 1966
App ical on No
1, R__21IS911
2, Approval of Minutes:
Regular Meeting of March 3rd
Special Meetings of February 24th;
and March 10, 17„ and 31st..
3, Thomas Wilder for Fireside Realtv 66023
Rezoning from R1 to R3 and R5 of the
property at approximately Osseo Road and
72nd Avenue North:,
4� John Horbai 66011
Referred back to the Planning Commission by
Council action of March 14, at the request
of the applicant..
Rezoning from R1 to R5 and B3 of the property
• at the N AV, corner of 69th and Humboldt Avenues
North and a special use permit for a service
station on the B3 property is requested„
5. Martin Colon 66020 and 66021
In reference to the rezoning approval. of
February 14„ 19663 through Application 465103.,
Special Use Permit for the operation of a service
station onthe property at the N.E. corner of
66th Avenue and Highway 4169.,
Approval of the preliminary replatting of Block 1,
of Olson's Island View Terrace Addition as required
by the action on Application W35103,:
6, Twin Realty 60005
Referred back to t he Planning Commission by
Council action of March 14;, at the request of the
applicant,
A variance from the density requirement of 2700 square
feet of land per dwelling unit,, and approval of
plans for a multiple dwelling development is
requested for the property in the N ,11J. quadrant of
the intersection of Highways 4100 and 4152,
Planning Commission Agenda
(Continued)
April 14, 1%6
7. Lutheran Church of the Master 66018
Approval of plans for an addition to the
existing church facility at 1200 69th
Awn ue North-
8,, Homedale Builders 66027
Approval of preliminary plat of
"Northland Estates 3rd Addition"
north of 71st Avenue and West of
Humboldt Avenue North
•
i
• PLMKING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66023
Applicant: Thomas Wilder
Description of Request: Rezoning from R1 to R3 and R5.
Property: The south 150 Meet of Parcel 5600, Auditor's
Subdivision Noe 57 (to R3), and the remainder of
Parcel 5600 and all of Parcels 5400, 5000, and
6223 (to R5).
Owner of Property: Ward Gronfield, William Rosenow, Marvin L. Olsen
BACKGROUND:
1) Mr. Wilder has applied on two occasions for rezoning in this area;
both were denied,, one because he lacked access to sanitary facilities,
and the other, more recent application, for the following reasons as
stated by the Council at its February 14, 1966 session:
" e Member Howard Heck moved and John Leary seconded that Application
No� 66002 submitted by Fireside Realty, et al. , for the rezoning of the
aforementioned properties, be denied for the following reasons:
L The R5 uses requested are not appropriate for the entire area.
• 2„ A transitional use should be employed between the existing
R1 uses and more intense development.
3� A master development plan for the entire subject area be
developed,
C The requested zoning is inconsistent with the proposed zoning
set forth in the Planning Commission's .recommendations for
the area,.
Motion carried unanimously."
POINTS TO BE CONSID GRID:
1) Suggested use of the land shown on the Comprehensive Plan as recommended
by the Planning Commission,
2) Possible future development of the property to the west and south, and
problems relating to access,
3) The property to the north of this in Brooklyn Park has been zoned for
corm ercial and multiple dwelling uses.
,ST.UT COMMENTS:
l) ks of the writing of the Agenda, no plans had been forthcoming - any
rezoning will be based, then, on the "Correctness" of the proposed
zoning (by the applicant) for the area ,
® �I
•
li
4GG022
CREEK yaN
CHURCH
'ter. l e
f
VAC.
VAC. 71 sr A\/ VAC,
C. •
VA VAC.
_ 4
i fsr AVE. - ECHOGL
e
m
I
.' I
PLA101ING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66411
Applicant: John Horbal
Description of Request: Rezoning to Rte R4, R5 and B3. Special Use Permit
to operate a service station on the B3 property.
Property: Parcel 400, Section 26, Township 119, Range 21
(Northwest corner of 69th and Humboldt Avenues
North, extending to 71st Avenue North. )
Owner of Property: John Horbal
BACKGROUM:
1) A recommendation of denial was made by the Planning Commission on
March 3, 1966, as follows:
"Motion by Bogucki and seconded by Ditter to recommend to the
Village Council that Application #66011 submitted by John Horbal
be denied, The reason for denial is as follows:
1. Sufficient retail shopping facilities are being provided
in adjacent areas.
2. The traffic generated by the proposed use would be undesirable,.
3. The layouts, as submitted, are not Consistent with the
Comprehensive Guide Plan as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Vote being taken upon the motion: all members voted in favor thereof;
voting against- none, motion carried,"
2) The Village Council, at the request of the applicant, remanded the
application to the planning Commission for consideration of a
revised plan,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
1) The south half of this property is proposed for R5 zoning in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
2) Zoning for service stations has been approved for the N,E. and
SA. quadrants of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North and another station
site has been proposed for the S.E. corner,
3) R5 zoning exists on the east side of Humboldt south of 70th Avenue
and R2 (duplex) zoning is proposed north of 70th,
i
i
2,.,
STAFF COMMENTS:
1) The reasoning which prompted the proposal for R2 zoning on the east
side of Humboldt holds true for the west side between 70th and 71st
as well., Both properties have been forced, by .former platting, to
face directly onto Humboldt Avenue if developed as ordinary lots.
Since this is the case, R2 zoning was felt suited to the purpose
of transition on the east, and should also be workable on the west
side of Humboldt. The present platting, in an east-west fashion,
of "Northland Estates 3rd Addition" to the north of the Horbal
property should eliminate any further pressure for multiple dwelling
zoning along Humboldt, The zoning of the Horbal property north of
70th Avenue to R2 rather than R4 should provide us with a firmer
"line" between multiple dwelling and single family areas, while
still allowing a transitional use (duplexes) to be constructed.
2) We would suggest that the lot to the west of the service station site
be included in the "Ra" area as open space or a play area as was
done immediately south of this property across 69th Avenue North for
Miles Lumber Company, The alternatives to this would be inclusion
in the station site (which is extremely unlikely), further pressure
for rezoning to commercial use, or its use as a duplex site (which
is probably as bad as placing a single family dwelling next to a service
station).
3) A sewer easement runs across this property at approximately 70th Avenue:.
It has not been used so far, but should be taken into account in
development of any definite plans for the area„
•
; G
. Y .to=_ • s�uw .., ...r �.• �....... .. ,,. F l���tl '!i
11 � �
4.1
NO
14- E TES _
a No
Li
� I N
tf`� fr1 c{
0 04
FE
i- cc _ E
0 T _ ..- - -
-r 1 ¢
{
f
t
(Oil
DI
N
s..
PLANNING COLIMISSION INFORM.WION SHEET
Application No. 66020
Applicant-: Martin Colon
Description of Request: Special Use Permit to allow construction and
operation of a service station, including approval
of its plans and signing
Property: Lots 2 and 3, except streets,. Block is Olson'$
Island View Terrace Addition
Owner of Property: Wilhelmina A, Olson
BACKGROUND:
1) The proper zoning for this property, including the proper
buffer zoning has been agreed to by the Village Council, and
is contingent only one a re-platting of the property which is
presehtly being accomplished.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
• 1) The persons laying out t,ie site plans have revised their original
plans to conform to our ordinance requirements and provide the green.-
strips we ordinarily require,
2) The 13 parking speees provided will satisfy the requirements of
the new zoning ordinance as well as the present one
3) The State: Highway Department is allowing access from Highway 4169
as shown on the plans This approval will be shade in writing, with
the condition that the access be used only by northbound traffic.
The Highway Department will install the appropriate signing to
accomplish this, and requests that the Village aid them in this
policing operation,
4) The minimum rear yard in a comercial zone is Qg feet, but the plans
submitted allow about 12 feet; this was doge to allow more open space
anid green area to the front of the station, and approval of the station
as a special use in its present fashion would not be out of order.
i
"• PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEETS
Application Noe 66021
Applicant: Martin Colon
Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary replotting of Block
One of 0lson's Island View Terrace Addition as re-
quired by Council action of February 14, 1966, in
reference to rezoning application #65103,
Property: Lots 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, Block One, Olson's
Island View Terrace Addition (except streets)
Owner of Property: Wilhelmina Olson
BACKGROLM:
1) The rezoning of this property was made contingent upon the
present replotting by the above-stated Council action.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
• 1) The plat appears adequate and sufficient to the zoning and uses
proposed,
•
Ii
PLANNII; C051MISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No, 66005
Applicant: Twin Realty Company
Description of Request: Variance from density requirements of 2700 square feet
per dwelling unit in an RB zone to approximately 2400
square feet per unit. Approval of site plans and
building plans,
Property: The Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Highways
#100 and #152. Parcels 120, 130, 700 and 815, Section 100
Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACKGROUND:
l) This application has been referred back to the Planning Commission
by the Village Council at the request of the applicant at the larch
14th meeting, The remanding of this application in no way implies
any attitude of the Council, as it did not examine the application.
The rea5va for remanding it was the indication of the Planning
Commission that it was examining such density requirements in pre-
paring a Zoning Ordinance,
• POINTS TO BE CONSID ERIM:
1) The attached memorandum,
2) if the variance is granted, no plan approval should be given as
the plats will have to be revised in that case;,
3) Dayton Development Company will be applying for a billboard type
sign on a portion of this property abutting Highway #100; this has
not been shown on these: plans,
4) Fait*are development of the property to the south and a possible
future roadway where should be examined,
STAFF COM&ENTS:
1) If the variance is not granted, and the plans muse be revised, a
suggestion to include the property to he south might be in order
to provide an outlet from the large tract.
i
I
I
I
i
I
�I
i
® �'�
i
I
�,
I
*A0 T.: p};rt:nisigl t;ertmiysi+.� 1
!
FROM. A. J. Lee
Prepared by
DATE- March 31, 1%6
R.l ; Relating this sq+aate footage req>airement per dwelling unit in
ir.uItiple dwellings tt, the b1ze of the tract being developed.
A question which shFaiaid hp sa:,ked is. "Why allow a variance t:t,
developments of a larger size?" Wiuld such an action benefit the arunicipalit,'`;
it is ijften stated that this wf ; }. encourage better developimilts which ran be wf,11
mainuaine(t -• is this trux, ar n;;uld individuals owning .small parcels who ot,ly
runt nqe building as income property remain individual rather than get.
Sulk f�� llnn
tnvolv-d i0t aters ; and wou iar,,, ; p l
with or -without an "allowance"?
Assuming that it is trv4= tip;:,t a .large devel�)prrerit. can provide a
laet.ter living environment v;ith the same amount of Land due to combivation
of open spaces, parking farcas„ r,t' sr,- on, should this "bet.tef" living
enviroamentr be brought down tc, t t= lent l of sma.11rr developments, Of retaenel at
t lit 1vvPJ? The specific develo mo�-rnt. wni:-i has caused ttlis que,stiWi tr; bF
rai';tyd wiil Undoubtedly be df=lc;I ,+l;eti in any evert, and Brooklyn :
Possible gays to control design sn as to allow "allowances" from
sgtrar e foc.:age requirements :
1) by "useable lot. area" minimum M probtibly greater than thosN
previously suggested,
2) by refusing plan approval •- .'sow far does our power go in
this direction?
3) by requiring a common "green" for developnw.nts cver a
certain size -- hoso is it defined, and how would it affect.
design possibilities?
I supposct in all of my remarks, I an taking for granted that an
ordinancte is desired which will pry:�:� ae guidelines for both developers
worklIncg with its restrictions, and for administrators who are to enforce
them. Perhaps 1 am in error in .Waking this assumption, and the Cow.isston
; Id tvunci l would prefer that tj F• :ordinance be written so as to rogii ire
r varianct� in most,
if not ali, caves, ac the old sign op<finan:e prearntiy
does.
1 believe the sites appropriate for truttiple dwelling use in Brooklyn
Center can and will he developed without need to resort. to "allnwanc:rs
• Two exceptions to this which 1. wovtfl agree with, however, are less land
required wiiF:r► some parking is with-in a building or .underground, and more
Land required when there arty more than two bedrooms in a dwelling unit.
Also, scmf! minimum of "useable lot; area theujfj be required; this would
bt are especially desirable improvement at the four-plea.' level which has in
the past (at 27W square feet) nun. provided much open space.
Summary of Basic Premises..
1) Our minimum squa ire footage are feast that-imiriwaumsr
a; Development will t.ak:r- place without such s.11owaracrs being
grar?telu
jj Tori much restriction lindits design possibilities; too little
(.with power of -.� pproval retained by the municipality) laid
out explicitly for the guidance of developers creates a
situation where arbitrary de+cisiors may result.
t ,
• � t �r
x
t 4r
ac ROP
_— i lit
APP #660
ft
Id
f'
o ti!
NOTE: This information is repeated from the March 3. 1960, agenda.
pr.,AMIM COWSSION INFOWrION SWLT
Application No. 6
Applicant: Twin Realty Company
Description of Bequeat: Vsrioace from density requirements of 27W square feet per
dwelling halt in sa le none to approximately 2400 square
feet per meant. Approval of site plans mad building planes.
Property: The Northwest quadrant of tht intersection of Highways
aIOO and X152. Parcels I20o 130, 700 and 815, Section 10.
Owner of Property, Dayton Development Company
SAROL :
None
POWs 70 8$ C"NS10 FD:
1) Cmprehensive T'lanaiog proposal$ for the area.
2) standards for variances set out is Section 35.221.
• 3) 4lvquWj of the plans - its addition to stating infouoation about this
4evelopment. it and two others will have standards of the Edina Uultiple
ll ir,9 (lydiunnee applied to them to give a dawastration of that ordinance
This type of derelopmeat is "14" in the Edina ordinance. Number$ such as
2" refer to the type of alloa9anee permitted in Edina's ordinance.
A) Twin Realty ftapffty
:,eppros:imatel,y 755,766 sq. It. (17.35 acres) or +/- 2,437 sq. ft per
unit For the proposed 310 units.
..290 units possible at the required 2700 sq. ft. per unit.
Wins base figure of 2500 sq. ft. (Brooklyn Center 2700 sq, ft.. )
Subtract 500 sq. ft. for 2.
Subtract 250 sq. ft. for 4.
Add _ _ tom7
--for a final figuro-a M sq. ft. per unit (2,450 rasing Srooklya
Center's baai;e)
B) Lyn River Agartmets Highways s169 and 81W
-.approximately 234.123 sq, fl. , total , or 2,707 provided for each of
the 84 inits existing.
Edina bete figure of 2501 sq. ft. (Brooklyn Center 2700 sq. ft. )
Subtract 500 sq. ft. for 2.
Slabt rant. 250 sq, ft. for ".
Subtract 250 sq. ft. for A.
for a final figure of 2DDO sq. ft. per unit (2.2W using Brcoklvn
Center's base)
C) Apgrtsents North of Shopper's City - 65th sad Beard Avenst North
-.approxieaatelq 292,733 sq. ft. total. or +/- 2,710 sq. ft. for each
of the 1015 units eeXistirg. r unit.
-291,600 sq. ft, required at 2T00 s4• �' (Brooklyn Center 2700 sq. ft.)
Edina base figure of !MD sq.
Subtract 250 seq.
Subtract 250 sq. Ott. for d.
-for a final figure at sq. ft. per unit (2Center's bbase)o9�lya
Taus, if applying Edina's standards to our base figure, *A!, would be
approximately what is being requested; "B" has much more land than would
be required; and "C" Mrs
of�thethen
lEdia�ordinaac�whaedn.spplied togthethe
"usesb1a lot area" Provision
Twin Realty $ite plan, it is much mote than adequate.
4) All of the proposed 310 units are to be single bedroom emits.
STAFF (OMENTS:
1) Although the applicant probably does bet deserve a variance based on the
standards of Chapter 35, if the Combissioa and +Cauucil are plansiares to
adopt a souiag ordinance similar to Edina's, $oema adJustwat should
• probably be MWe is the laud required.
g) se
em un ise'uasrforias Will all be
beyond ourgpuxvieerrooi+nn,pl� �V
sesm� sage
approval.
3) 1t a performance agreeseest add bond nee:essary?
4) Although a inglefa ly d1wei g on 53rdA"a a IS M- 129 n
the plans, doubtful at e eareto an
sell their property.
S) Traffic courts on Osseo Road service drive south of 55th oAveave were 1100
curs per day during the w6sk of February 21, 1966.
6) Suburbs* apayrtmot units are est stead to generate 2% tripe per day.
7) Uader the proposed design there would be an increase of traffic on the
service road of 1550 cars Per day.
@) The too-Al traffic an the service road would be 2650 cars per day.
9) The above traffic projection is less than the traffic un 63rd Avenue
west of Osseo Road or 57th Avenue east of Logan Avenue.
10) no suggest that On planni►og Comission sage a determination as to the
dessity requirement and indicate approval or disapproval of the general
plan concept. Site plan approval should not be given until detail places
have bsen saaittsdnti�ialsos�inciudi�ng�sip�i�. dpsPeCificationsaof ns
drainage plans. planting P
perking lot surfaciag.
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66018
Applicant: Lutheran Church of the Master
Description of Request: Approval of building and site plans for an addition
to the existing church at 1200 - 69th Avenue North,
Property: Parcel 5423, Aud. Sub, 4309
Owner of Property: Lutheran Church of the Master
BACKGROMi
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDER,;[):
13 The Zoning Ordinance requires screening of parking lots of over
six cars, but this has not been applied to properties abutting
across a street, except in the case of the east side of Shopper's
City
2) The church has adequate parking if some diagonal parking is allowed
• along the driveways, but if a future addition is constructed, there
may not be enough, and the applicant should be made aware of this
future possibility in the present plan approval,
•
a
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SMELT
Application No, 66027
Applicant: Homedale Builders
Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of "Northland
Estates 3rd Addition"
Property: Tract C, R.L.S. 41097, and Parcel 1220, Section
26, Township 119, Range 21,
Owner of Property: Homedale Builders
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Adequacy of the plat. (It is adequate in all respects.)
,TAFF COMMENTS:
1) The Planning Commission and Council should be aware that this plat
will "commit" the properties to the north and west to a similar
type of platting (east-west with no fronting on Humboldt Avenue),
r
rPlanning Commission Agenda
April 21, 1966
Application No.
1. Roll Call:
2. Miller Melba ti Roberts for Wiensch Construction ction 66025
Rezoning of the property lying approximately
between 65th and 67th Avenue North and
Bryant and Camden Avenues North from R1 to R3.
Approval of plans for a townhouse type develop-
ment on the above property.
3. DEMAC, Inc. 66019
Approval of plans of a proposed motel,
service station and apartment complex
on the west side of Highway #169 at 66th
Avenue North.
4. §rooklyn Center Church of Christ 66017
Variance to permit erection of three off.-
site directional signs within the
public right-of-way at the following
locations:
1) Humboldt and 65th Avenues North
2) Dupont and 65th Avenues North
3) Dupont and North lilac Drive
5. E W Ledin 66022
Special Use Permit to allow construction of
a multiple dwelling at 5444 Bryant
Avenue North,,
6. r1111iacn Beach 66024
Variance to allow division of a parcel of
land into 3 parcels by metes and bounds
description from an existing plat.
Variance to allow the above division to
allow two substandard width lots.
7. Wmedale Builders. Inca 66426
Appeal from the ruling of the Building
Inspector regarding the minimum gross floor
area for single family dwellings.
8. Davton_Develo„Lmpent Com,mpgny 66029
Variance to allow freestanding directional
and development signs on Dayton Development
Company property at or near Brookdale Shopping
Center.
MEMO To: -k�1allni f Comimission
FROM: �.- A. J. Lee
Pr pared by: RNIC
DATE: April 15, 1964
RE: Development of the area bounded roughly by Lyndale Avenue
(Highway 9169); 65th Avenue North; Bryout Avenue North;
and 67th Avenue North.
You will recall that in January of this year, Shell oil Company made
application for rezoning of a property (owned by Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Durland)
at 66th and Lyndale tjhich extended from Lyndale to Camden Avenge (extended).
Shell oil requested that the portion of the property abutting Lyndale Avenue
be zoned to permit a service station use, and the westward portion for 2Y2
story multiple dwellings. The application was denied due to a lack of
knowledge as to the future development of adjoining vacant properties and
the location of future 66th Avenue North, It was suggested that property
owners in he area uiork together so that coherent development, including
the development of 66th Avenue North, could tale place. In order to achieve
this objective, the Village Engineer was directed to prepare a layout of
66th Avenue, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and determine its
Peas ibil i e.y.
Since the date of the above disapproval, two other developers have
• become interested in properties abutting that of Shell. Oil. These companies
are Niensch Construction Construction of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and 11L'14C,
Inca , of Minneapolis. It cetas explained to these people that there is a need
for coherent development of the entire area, and that they should coordinate
their proposals wit'n each other and with the Vii iage Engineer's street
and utility planjj j sg of the area. It was further pointed out that the
Grillage does not make a policy of purchasing street rights-of-way, and that
dedicaf:ion of the future 60th Avenue forth, and peri:aps certain other
streets, would have to tape places With this information, the several
companies and owners of ;property which will become public streets have
begun negotiating. As of this writing, the results of these negotiations
is not mown, but seems to be proceeding favorably.
At the Planning Commission meeting of April 21, i.4e hope to have
affected par-ties present to ex plain their plans for the area, and to raise
objections and mcke corruen s regarding theme, The Village Engineering
Staff ;°iii?1 ,hare its ten':ative plans for the area prepared also,
�I
• PLIMUNG COMMISSION INFORIVIATTON SHEET
Application No, 66025
Applicant: Mensch Construction Company
Description of Request: Rezoning from, R1 to R3 and approval of plans of
a townhouse development on the property.
Property: East 1!2 of Lot 2, :Vest 1/2 Lot 1, the North
4/5 of the East 1/2 of Lot 1 of Mende.nhall's Gut:iots.>
Oerner of Property: Jacob and Agnes Sienko; Carl E. Anderson
BACKGROILI D:
1) The applicant is aware of the Village's desire to coordinate
development in this area and has been in contact with at least
two other developers in the area regarding a future street
layout.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Hot, far shall such zoning extend if it is felt correct for the
area? !Where shall the zoning line be drawn?
2) The site plan suggests a density of approximately 12 units per
acre rather than the O units per acre allowed by ordinance.
3) All units proposed are two story, and floor areas are slightly
deficient in the two bedroom units (1020 square feet required by
proposed zoning ordinance, 1010 square feet provided), The
three bedroom, two story units have sufficient floor area (1140
proposed to he required in zoning ordinance, 1520 provided in
plans)
4) Is more garage space than that shown desiLable`e
PLANNING COWUSSION1 INFOWATION SHEET
• A.-,plication No, 66019
Applicant: DOW, Inc,
Description of Request: Approval of plans of a service station •- motel -
multiple dwelling complex.,
Property: Generally bounded by 66th Camden, 67th, and
Lyndaie Avenues North,
Owner of Property: Scherer Bros. Lumber Cor►pany
BACKGROUI 10:
1) Due to the _problems of development of this area (coordination
with other owners), DE141AC is interested in getting an indication
from the Planning Commission as to their general views toward
the type of development proposed. A formal application has
been trade for plan approval with the understanding that it
cannot possibly be granted immediately, as there are platting
and zoring questions to be resolved first,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDEM:
• 1) Coordination of plans by this developer with others in the area
2) ;there should final. zoning lines be drawn in this area'.
;) If a motel and service station are appropriate here, hose shall
any detrimental effects be mitigated? (What type of buffering,
transitional zoning, etc?)
ICI
H H
H H H
1 I �-1
67th AYEA U E NORTH
--
I � � H kl< H
Church
H
r
I ( i
H �°'
I R R
1 R i I
i� kH j
1 !
1 R
i i� Qom`
H i Beacon >w1 0
n 1 1 H
Bod
_
Shop
65th AVENUE
NORTH
LYADAi.E AVENUE NORTH 9 6609 x 66025
w
1 si { l ti a u
I i m
y
x 1 I
5th
I i
*7
I:ST
71 :1
k
AV
c 14 i x
a z
0
x x x x s x z
Buff�N�
AVEN E t"'-r`�
OW x m
c�
{
€1 �
i
•
LLI
AVE,
ui
4�
R-V
qouSE --..j
pRoPOSED 83
tu PARCEL TO
R5 R5 BF D i—VI D
___ _ L___. _ ___1 ___ _______�_ _ _ _
AVE.
•
PLMYNING 00AWJSSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66017
Applicant: Brooklyn Center Church of Christ
Description of Request: Permission to install off-site directional signs
within the public right-of-way, one at each of
the following locations:
65th and Humboldt Avenues (S.E. corner.)
65th and Dupont Avenues (SAV, corner)
Dupont Avenue and North Lilac Drive
(N.W. or S.W. corner)
Property: Locations above
Owner of Property: Village of Brooklyn Center
BACKGROUND:
1) Previous to the closing of Highway 4100 between Humboldt Avenue
North and Lyndale Avenue;, this church could be seen easily
from the highway., and persons traveling thereon could easily
exit and find their way to it via Humboldt, Fremont or Dupont,
Since the highway was closed, however, the church has disappeared
from view of the bighway, and most of the accesses from the
highway have been closed. With an ordinary church, this should
be no great problem, as the majority of its parishoners would
live in the immediate neighborhood or cojmnunitym The minister
of this church skates„ however, that the greater majority of
its people come from outside the community and some for great
distances (up to 60 miles) by highways, and are unfamiliar with
the area, :hereby necessitating the proposed signing.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
11, The most recent draft of the proposed sign ordinance contains the
following section:
Section 3=•1104
F. OFF SITE ,DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
1. All off-site directional signs shall be free-standing
2. Two directional signs shall be permitted for each public
or semi-publics use not to include private clubs, Each
sign shall measure no more than five (5) squdre feet
in area and shall. he located no closer than four hundred
(400) feet and no farther than one-half mile from such
use, and shall be located within the right-of--way of a
public street. (See Section 3-1103, A�2)
2) The opinions of property owners in front of whose property these
private ("semipublic") signs will be placed; the Village Engineer's
comments regarding signing in the public right-of-way; and your
own feelings on the matter,
STAFF C(?1tMMS:
l) Many, perhaps all, of Brooklyn Center's churches utilize off-site
directional signs - all but two or three are unathorized, which
Probably explains the insertion of the provision quoted above in the
sign ordinance, It would probable be advisable that any approval
of signs in public right-of-way be conditioned on a;)proval of the
engineer as to exact . location so as to avoid obstructions to
traffic; a memo from the engineer could be inserted in the
file staing such locations as a permanent record°
e
i
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66022
Applicant: Fred Ledin
Description of Request: Permission to construct a multiple dwelling as
a special use in an RI zone.
Property: 5444 Bryant Avenue North (Parcel 5070, Bellvue
Acres Addition)
Owner of Property: H, A. Blowers -, same address
BACKGROUND:
11 The moratu ium which had been declared against the issuance of
special use permits expired on November 15, 1965, after having
been in affect for a period of two years,
Mr . Ledin is submitting rough sketches of two possible ways of
developing the property„ but does not care to coo to the expense
of advanced plans unless he knows he will be allowed to use the
site for multiple dwelling purposes,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The Planning Commission has suggested removal of special use
provisions for multiple dwellings in the proposed zoning ordinance„
2) This property lies :within the area proposed for R2 (duplex) zoning,.
3) The immediate area is primarily single family dwellings (some aged),
4) The general adequacy of those plans presented showir_g two alternate
site layouts.
STAFF COA4 EMITS:
1) As the drawings show„ there is very little landscaped open space
provided for on these rough plans; m,,st of what is open is surfaced,
It seems a perfect example of those characteristics which are
objectionable in lot by lot multiple dwelling development.
•
!
J
iEZ_ ��_:��►. \Cry= -�
r t
t d
y , �
Lo4
1
_- --____------ .__. ---- —._._ ���`z_A�.�._� �� _ __ __ . _ _._._
I
I
�y
�. '� � .fti t�"
�,� 4
��
> �5 � �� �}
t �� � E t a �
� �,
I- -�
� � � �� � �,
I
(` � � �
y 1 ��
�..�._.__. _I �__-__-___.______ __._.___._.._._.._
�� ���k�
--- —�--- --.____`A1 t
�.�
i I �-.�------. __ ----�-----
-- - �-
i,_._.__._._....._-�____— -..�.��.���.��,a. �a r ... _.._ _. r ._. ._ . ------____.. -
{
•
PLANNING MIKESSION INFOMIATION SHEET
A>pl icat:ion Not 66024
Applicant: William Beach
DescTiption of Request: variance from Section 15-106 to allow subdivision
of the above property into three parcels, two of
which would be substandard (63 .feet) in uidth.
Variance from Section 35-104 to allo,.� division by
Aietes and hourAs refere oes to an existing pla..
Property: Lot 15, Block 4, Bellvue Acres Addition
Owner of Property: William Beach, 5345 Colfax Avenue North
BACKGROI ID
I oiie
POINTS TO BE CONSIDEfi M
• l) The proposed p2 zoning of the area to encourage consolidation of
the smaller parcels of land.
2) The existing pattern of land division with many 63 'Loot wide lots.
3)
The large (--/.r 119 foot) setback of the existing house from
Colfax Avetaue more or ?less dictates Qt what poir,;; division would
take place; there :could be % feet between the existing house
and the new property line to the west. If it were not fow the
ex:istnnee of the Dome on the prop,e ty, a deeper duplex lot could
probably be had.
4) S-ue of the i voposed lots:
os.e lcr e duple z log: - 17.0 feet dVep by 126 4,.eet widc
�.",860 square feet of area.
b) ttvo s-in le °a.uily dwelling lots -- 63 feel: wide by 1.60 ;petit
c:;ep M 10,080 square Ieet of area in each.
C),,'�l r ch
14,
H H
53rd AVWJR
PLANNING COMMISSION INTFORMATION SHEET
A;,plication No. 66026
Applicant: Homedale Builders
Description of Request: Appeal from the ruling of the Building inspector
regarding the minimum gross floor area of single
family dwellings,_ and asking that permission to
build dwellings of the type shown in the planss
submitted be granted.
Property: -------,_.-
Owner of Property ----------.
BACKGROUM:
1) Ilomedale Builders requested similar permission in December of
19('4 for a slightly different set of plans - the request was
denied December 14, 1964„
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The following comments of J. R. Murphey, Chief Building Inspector:
• The Building Department has received an application for
a permit to build a two level split foyer type single family
dwelling containing 888 square feet of area on each level and having
an attached garage of 480 square feet of floor area. It is
necessary that the Planning Commission and Council maIte a
determi.nation regarding the interpretation of floor area require.-
meats for single family dwellings.
The provisions of the Uniform Building Code were adopted as
the Building Code of the Village of Brooklyn Center, Chapter d
of tine Uniform Code defines a story as that portion of a building
included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper
surface of the floor next above" and if the finished floor level
directly above a basement or cellar is more than six feet above
grade, such basement or cellar shall be considered a story. Since
the fin shed floor level of the upper story of the plans submitted
is six feet above the finished sot grade,. the ,petitioner feels that
the proposed building conforms to the requirements for a single
family dwelling two full stories above grade as set out in the
ordinance,.
STS X- COt,9PA M- S:
1) The crag of this whole matte: is the question of wiftether or not
this type of architectural design should be prohibited f the
only deficiency is that 2 or 3 feet of its loaner level are
below grade, It should be remembered that basements are not
required. and that this same design could be raised to grade level
and erected upon a slab foundation,,
I
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SKEET
• Application No., 66029
Applicant: Dayton Development Company
Description of Request: Variance from .section 35•-330 to allow freestanding
directional and advertising signs at the following
locations: Highway U100 and Shingle Creek W x
8' sign); Highway 4100 and 51st Avenue extended
(12' x 20' sign); 57th and Xerxes Avenue Noe (A'
x 6' sign)
Property: Tract E, R.,LA 4936
Parcel 130, Section 10
Tract Gr R.L.S. 4936
O::ner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACKGROUVO:
11 Regarding the two signs adjacent to Highway 4100: Dayton Develop-
ment Company feels there is a great deal of confusion amongst
highway users as to where Brookdale is, and how to get to it,
Furthermore, it feels the situation will only worsen in the
• future, especially with highway construction at 57th Avenue
(County Road 410) and Highway 4100 to take place this summer.
They feel these two signs will fallow travelers to make safer
exits from the highway to the Center,
2) Regarding the Broukdale Plaza sign, it is self-explanatory, and
similar to other development signs Dayton Development Company has
about the Center, and would not be of the permanent nature of
the two signs stated above
POINTTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The precedent-setting character of the approval of the permanent
off-site directional sign at Highway 4100 and 51st Avenue.
2) Are the directional signs necessary after construction work is
completed on Highway 4100? These signs, as well as the sign
at 57th and Xerxes, might be used for a specified period.
i
I
Planning Commission Agenda
May 5, 1966.
1: Ral Aj)nliation No.
2.> &orov 1 of Minutes
Regular Meetings of April 14 and 21
Special Meeting of April 28
3. HoMe ale Buildgrs 66026
Tabled at the April 21st meeting
Appeal from the ruling of the Building
Inspector regarding the minimum gross
floor area of single family dwellings
4, Centet Sales 66028
Variance to allow erection of two
freestanding signs at 6756 Osseo Road
5, Donald Mason 66030
Approval of plans and Special Use Permit
to build and operate a service station/retail
store at 4657 Logan Avenue North
. 6, Minneanoiis Star and Tribune 66031
Special Use Permit to allow continued
use of a carrier substation building at
the rear of 6830 Osseo Road (Spur Service
Station property)
7, Donald Wiehle b6032
Variance to allow construction of a garage/
Living area eight feet from the south property
Line at 7207 Bryant Avenue North
Northern Pump 66033
Approval of plans of a proposed office
building at 1915 r. 57th Avenue North
•
PLAi4ND!G GG WISSICN IDWORMATION SHEET
• Application No. 66026
Applicant: Hoamedele Builders
Description of Request. Appeal from the ruling of the Building Inspector
regarding the minimum grass floor area of
single family dwellings, and asking that
permission to build dwellings of the type
shown in the plans submitted be granted.
Property
Owner of Property ----..a-.:w.._
BACKGROUM:
1) Romedale Builders requested similar permission in Deceml)er of
1964 for a slightly different set of plans - the request was
denied December 14, 1964.
POINTS TO BE COfiISIDEEED:
13 The following comments of 3, E. Murphey, Chief Building Inspector:
The Building Department has received an application for
• a permit to build a two level split foyer type single family
dwelling containing 688 square feet of area on each level and
having are attached garage of 480 square feet of floor area. It
is necessary that the Planning Commission and Council make a
determination regarding the interpretation of floor area
requirements for single family dtivellings.
The provisions of the Uniform Building Code were adopted as
the Building Code of the Village of Brooklyn Center. Chapter 4
Of the Uniform Code defines a story as that portion of a building
included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper
surface of the floor treat above, and if the finished floor level
directly above a basement or cellar is more than six feet alcove
grade, such basement or cellar shall be considered a story. Since
the finished .floor levee: of the upper story of the plans submitted
is Six feet above the finished tot grade, the petitioner: feels
that the proposed building conforms to the :requirements for a
single fatlsily dwelling two full stories above grade as set out in
the ordinance,
STAFF COWIMS:
13 The cr°uv of this whole matter is the question of whether or not
this type of architectural design should be prohibited if the
only deficiency is that 2 or 8 feet of its lower level are
• below grade. It should be remembered that basements are not
required, and that this same design could be raised to grade
level and erected upon a slab fouWation.
i
•
?LA?,Z1-MG COINIMISSICN INFORMATION SHEET
ApplientiGn No. 66028
Applicant:: Centex sales (Used cars) Sy Glen E. Rick
Description of Request: Variance to allow erection of two freestanding
signs, each with a sign surface 14' wide by 4'
high.
Property: 6756 Osseo Road (Tract B, I .L.S. 9456)
Owner of Property: Henry Halvorsen
BACKGROUM:
1) Bu;ineess bei7an for Center Sales on Noved)er 2, 1%5, upon
issuance of a business certificate of occupancy. The certificate
tins conditioned upon accomplishment of certain site improvements
in the spring of 1966. No signing was indicated on a site layout
prepared by Center Sales, but several small IlDneonforming signs
appeared in the winter months, culminating in this applicatlon,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERM:
1) In additic►: to certain signs on the walls of the commercial
buildings, the proposed sign ordinance would allow the
4.0 01101.0ixng:
"b. One ireo-standing sign on each oolleo :or or arterial
street the establishment abuts if the building Is se`
back at least 50 feet Pram the street: on which the sign
is located except when the estnblishoteant is part of an
integrated development which has a development sign. The
sign shall not exceed two portent of the gross x rst Boor
b.3ilding area or 250 square feet: , whichever is smaller,
and it shall not extend more than 16 feet z;hove around
evel. Any freestanding sign in e:-Cess of one sf..all he
in lieu of one of the permitted ;,jail signs."
The cr.ea of the .f:ceastanding sign would be linited to 14.4 square
poet :*ly the 720 square foot area of the b ailding ca the property.
3 the siUas proposed would be installed perpendIcular to the Osseo
Road on3 =.Ire poles now suppoxtinV the light striugers. The
^pplican. hcs not indicated any specific height in his request
fox. the s igll:: .
•
r
e
p L, NNIING C IAMISSION Il`FOFtliiATION SHEET
A;-plication No� 66030
Applicant: Donald Mason
Description of Request: Special Use Permit to allow the oper=ation
of a setivic.e station, Approval of plans for
such use, including a possit31e variaticO(s).
Property: 5657 Logan Avenue North
(Parcel 4551, Audo Subo Q18)
OwneT of Property: Donald Mason
l _1C I.I?:•g£I_"N;1:
1? May 26. 1959 d A variance approved allowing a parking area for
a barber shop without a greenst:.ip bet:veejj the parking area and
the street, (similar 4o Casey's)
2) A,_igusL' ". 1961 ... The existing ilome vjas to be removed and a 40' x
60' building was to be built on the Prop.V+.Y. Variances were
granted to allow a 10' greenstrip alc:arj streets, and to allolra -the
building to be built 5 feet from the .vest p?operty lilia. A
restGuras?t was originally proposed, but =.°:e;s dropped, and woulel
• have required a special use permit in any event,
3) September 9, 1963 - A special use permit far a -restaurant and
accessory off-stTeet parkin(r on the NN. S.P. easeiiicat at 5716
L,oUan was approved. The previous approvais granted August 7„
1961 vaerti still in effect, The sl:r vial t s permit exp i red on
Scpteii'Ibev 9, 1964, one year after r,pproval,
1) The °o se* epzlication would st-,cm to be cor_:pl.euely �',ifferent and
separal e :224 11 those grarn:ed previously'., Is It As a different use
that i aS i_.,ivolved previously. In addition, it is a llll.`,l:ture of
cases Ineretofa e not present in I1roo tlyn Centclr.
2) The Zoning, ordinance requires 10 parking speces or a rey..a�l
_us ness 66' x 2+' as proposed an tile applicatioi7 . There �5
a::esently no specific statement as to hoe, lliz,y spaces °
ar
a:F2f, ui%,eta service stations, ?3ut in the proposed ordinz-ace,
the fvl lolyi lie, woiilc'==. apply:
"1!I't'%f ilit};3I.x
Service Statioills:
Three spaces .for each enclosed buy plus clue space for each day
SIIi:%s• empioyee plus a mininvint of trio Spaces :Zor ^ut33"OuO VO'Dicles
and one addit?.onx.l space for each se�['i{L' VQhiGIe over t:'dQ iil
nviIibiar, 1's2 addition,; there shall be providod one space for
each rentcl trailer and one spave ror each t Vending nit chines
i err.d 'tech L"�idrsuaatit to the provl Ions OF Chapter 35-10 rte £7:i these
I'' ,.itarces, arld in acco:rdanre it .s•:3 the x't?gnireme-tS of Sled on 35.4i5o
-2-
• The applicant claims that there will be no servicing, towing, or
repair of motor vehicles, only sales of gas and oil and retail
goods, thus no bays, tow trucks, etc.
3) Parking spaces shown are tandem, and the applicant states that
customers may park in back of employees' cars. We have not
allowed tandem parking spaces to be considered in any other
commercial area.
Q) Shall parking be allowed within the setback along Logan?
(the building setback of Northbrook Center to the north of
57th is one foot or less)
5) No details of the sign are presented in the plans.
b) The site does not have the required 110 foot depth.
STAFF ("MMEINTS:
1) In all requirements for the proposed development, it would seem
reasonable that the most restrictive requirements for each use
(retail sales and service station) should apply, for although the
service station does not now offer ordinary station services,
it could easily be a three-bay station under another owner. The
same holds true for the retail use, for by removing the pump
islands, the property could be put to several other commercial
retail uses. It seems apparent that the applicant is suggesting
too much use for a property; either one of the two proposed uses
would generate enough activity for this lot. It would seem that
a denial of a service station use on this corner could be justified
based on the "Standards for Special Use Permits" of Section 35-231.
0
603 3
P f1
.................
tP f,, M.._ __
NORTHBROOK
CENTER
CASEY'S
M KT
S. -ION
A$
NCRTHERN AAASON
106 f;C"I o
M P
LOA 11 N r R S,
09AM
F V CRlil
C
"D L
Lj
j M
DRIVE
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
•
Application No. 66031
Applicant: [Minneapolis Star and Tribune
Description of Request: A special use permit to allow continued use of
a part of a service station property as a news-
paper carriers' substation -- 12' by 16' in size),,
Property: 6830 Osseo Road (to rear of Spur Station)
Owner of Property: National Funds, Inc.
BACKGROUND:
1) Our records indicate that the corrugated metal building used as
a substation on this property has been in use for three years
now, under two special use permits. One was granted in May of
1963 for a one-year period, the other for a two year period
which only recently expired.
POINTS TO BE CONYSIDERM:
1) The property to the rear of the Spur Station has not been put
to any use by the Spur Station,
2) The metal building is in presentable condition, and carrier
salesmen are instructed to keep this area neat.
3) We have had no complaints regarding this building,
0
CL, EAN ,r"RS 1
STAR, -- , R-j'?5qN'E OLDG.
POO. 75' Appro)fl
TA
psoll )F-1'ect
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No, 66032
Applicant: Ronald 16 ehle
Description of Request: Variance to allow construction of an attached
garage/living area on a single family dwelling
eight feet from the south property line.
Property: 7207 Bryant Avenue North (Lot 9, Block 3,
Northland Estates Ads'Aition)
Owner of Property: Ronald Wiehle
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Due to the odd shape of his lot, Mr. Wieble's addition, if
built as proposed, would be 8 feet from the property line.
Ordinarily, an attached garage is allowed to be as close as
5 feet from the property lute, but as this addition will
also house a part of the living area (above the garage) the
ordinary 10 foot setback requirement applies. Even if this
variance were granted, the shortest, distance between Mr. Iftehie's
building and that to the south would be over 18 feet,
*60032—
. r
W
sz
�y
r
- $ oil
Zs
Vol
M07 8ryAnt Ave.
G.,P��yt,/Lv„ Arm
to 48 AsU8d
Lot 8'
!D'9
sit
7201 8P�''�nt
CWUMISSIONI INTIFORMATION SUM
Application 1j;o0 66033
APPI JT caut: Northern Pump Con,parry
Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans for an
office building
Property: 1915 -- 57th Avenue North (Tract D, R.L.S. 911143
01,+Der of Property: Northern Pump Company
UUKGROUND:
1) 'The propert involved is that formerly considered as a service
Y
station site by Pure Oil Company
TO BE. 0INSIDERS):
Northern Purnp has no plans for u3ing the portion of their property
left vacant after erection of the office building — it may very
well be sold.
2) Parking required this 37' x 73' butfilldlatj would be 14 spaues
at the rate of one space per 200 sqv'cnre feet of gross floor area.
3) Parkiag -,'Jill b,- in front, of the building, wits; the 15 feet edlincent,
to 57th Avenue North as a green strip, as pe5emi• ted by existing
and pz'oposed Zoniag Ordinvnee. If an add-ition to t lie building
is Znde, it 1,jouid be to tre sovtb, with sonne parking v1so then
Put' On the south side of the building.
4i3 Accordiing to the present ordinance, - 4 c, 6 foot IlicF11
C.
eve-;'cp.,ea:i he3dge oi, fence and c 25 loot iiide 1cnese'aped area
is roc!t'irad iflie-re TFU ah-uts YS dist4ric'.1-s.
y
•
Planning Commission Agenda
June 2, 1966
&)Plicgtion No.
1, Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
Regular meeting May 5, 1966
Special Meetings May 12,, 19, 26, 1966
3, Merlin Heagestad 66034
Variance to permit construction of a
garage three feet from the north property
line at 1906 Brookview Drive.,
4, Birchwood Investment Co.. by E. R. (Dick) Craia 66035
Special Use Permits to allow construction
of duplexes on the properties between
3006 and 3112 ... 61st Avenue North inclusive.
5� Doagld C. Stark 66036
• Special Use Permit to allow construction
of a duplex on the property at 500 µ
62nd Avenue North,
6. DEMAC.. Inc. 66037 and 66019
Rezoning to B3 and R3 of the property
bounded generally by Bryant, 67th. Lyndale
and 66th Avenues North.
Special Use Permits for a service station and
a motel on the B3 zoned property.
Approval of site and building plans for the
service station and motel
7. Shell Oil Company 66038
Rezoning to B3 of the property southwest
of 66th and Lyndale Avenues North, and
extending from Lyndale Avenue to Camden
Avenue (Lot 18, Aud, Sub, 4310).
Special Use Permit, including approval of site
and building plans, to allow a service
station on the above property,
8. Shell Oil Company 66039
Special Use Permit„ including site and
building plan approval to allow a service
station at the southwest corner of 69th
and Humboldt Avenues North.
9
66040
Variance to allow construction of a
garage/patio 24' x 32' in size, which exceeds the
660 square feet permitted, at 7013 Drei,., Avenue
66041
Special Use Permit, including site and
building plan approval, to allow a service
station at the nortiieast corner of 69th
and 1191-iml)oldt Avenues North,
ll� Dr., Irvino H-erman 66042
Special Use Permit to allow construction
of an apartment building in an HI zone,
Vaxiance 'Uroiri density requirements relaing
to apartments to allow 22 rather than 13
dwelling units.
Bo-#"h oi the above for the property at 6743
FhxrJ)old t Avenue North,
12. Donald C.—S-ark 66&13
Special Use Permit to allow construction of
a duplex dwelling on the property which
• abut-s Camden Avenue North (5544 Camden Avenue
North)
Variance fzom Section 15 •104 to gal ;.ow a land
division without a plat.,
I
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
. Application No. 66034
Applicant: Merlin Heggestad
Description of Request: W.riance from Section 35. 401 to permit, construction
of a 16' x 22' garage three feet from the north
property line.
Property: 1906 Brookview Drive (Lot 5, Block 6, Ryden`s 2nd
Addition)
Owner of Property: Merlin Heggestad
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) This house,, on a 75 foot wide lot, was constructed in the middle
of the lot rather than being shifted to one side or the other;
approximately 19 feet of open space remains on each side of the
house,
• 2) The house to the north is built 12 feet from the property line,
and already has a double garage on its property,.
3) The setback variance is necessitated by the desire of the applicant
to be able to park an automobile Immediately adjacent to the house
in front of the single stall garage while still being able to drive
Into and out of the garage itself, Access to the garage would
probably still be possible if the Crdinance requirements were
complied with„ but of course, would be easier if the variance
was granted,
4) The property drops approximately 1 1%2 feet in the length of the
proposed garage,.
STAFF COWENNTS:
None
- i
9
i
6.4 0,11
1
� s �
i
I
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66035
Applicant: Birchwood Investment Company
Description of Request: Special Use Permit for double bungalows
Property: 61st, Xerxes and Zenith Avenues North
(Lots 9 through 15, Block 2, Greenlawn Addition)
Owner of Property: George Hanson
BACKGROUW:
None .
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The applicant states as his reason for wishing to build dulexes
that soil in the area is poor ® this is true to a certain extent,
but definite analysis has not been made of the whole area.
Aside from this reason, however, the application can be judged
on the standards for special uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance,
STAFF COMENTS:
1) If it is agreed that special use permits should be issued for
X number of duplexes, a replat should be required redividing
the lots into sufficient duplex lots,
I
I
fT
NT 36 ie 3Q
45
NORTH
61 t -71
60
PF
11& 04
T,
A ,r rD v,
o d3� y.
Oro A
n
ai-
=qI-i jr:rv,
am No.
60 h
t-1 44)
0 F
JL51)
.17
4V
9 A.-
ol
14
LN6
U�, 11
0 tjj
A A
J)5 71: �l V5 76 X
L_!v
PL,
zg
4
Zal,
ff
ID
LA,_ 6i�4
I
I
I
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66036
Applicant: Donald C. Stark
Description of Request: Special Use Permit to allow construction of a two
family dwelling on the property described below.
Property: Parcel 5800, Section 36, (See survey on file)
Owner of Property: Donald C. Stark
BACKGROUND:
1) Application #63018 for a special use permit with the request "To
construct a double bungalow on large lot next to freeway" was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on the 2nd
day of May, 1963. The following was the action of the Village
Council on May 6, 1%3: "Motion by Phil Cohen and seconded by
Henry Dorff to deny application 463018 as submitted by Donald
C. Stark for a special use permit to construct a double bungalow
at 500 •- 62nd Avenue North, Motion carried."
2) Application 964071 for a special use permit with the request
"Special Use Permit for 2 family dwelling, Variance on lot area
from 16,000 square feet to 14,800 square feet," was approved as
a recommendation to the Village Council by the Planning Commission
• on the 6th of August, 1964. The .following was the action of the
Village Council on August 10, 1964: ,Motion by Phil Cohen and
seconded by Howard Heck to reject the recommendation of the
Planning Commission regarding application #64071 submitted by
Donald Stark and deny the request for a special use permit to
build a double bungalow on the lot at 500 - 62nd Avenue North
for the reason that the area in which the lot is located is
devoted to single family residential use. Motion carried
unanimously"
3) Application 965073 for a special use permit with the request
"Special Use Permit to allow construction of a two family dwelling
on the above property." was recommended for approval by the
Planning Commission on the 14th day of October, 1965. The
following was the action of the Village Council on November 1,
1965: "Motion by Howard Heck and seconded by Phil Cohen to reject
the recommendation of the Planning Commission on Application
465073 submitted by Donald C� Stark and deny the issuance of a
special. use permit to allow the construction of a 2 family dwelling
at 500 52nd Avenue North, said denial being based on the following
points:
1) The vicinity is devoted to predominantly single family
usage, and approval of a 2 family dwelling would establish
precedent which would govern if applications for similar
structures were submitted by the property owners at 516
• and 520 - 62nd Avenue North, said parcels being of sufficient
land area to also support double bungalows or other multiple
dwellings.
I
Planning Commission Information Sheet - Page 2 Application #'66036
•
2) The majority of the residents of the area are not in
favor of having a double bungalow at this location.
Voting in favor of the motion: Gordoa Erickson, Phil Cohen, Earl
Simons and Howard Heck, and against the same: John Leary. Notion
carried."
POINTS TO HE CONSIDER®:
1) The size of the lot is 14,800 square feet after the freeway land..
taking. There is, therefore, no variance necessary for a duplex
on this property, and only a special use permit need be issued.
The required land area is 12,400 square feet for a duplex
(6,200 per dwelling unit).
2) A duplex is not considered to be a multiple dwelling according
to the language of our ordinances.
STAFF COMMENTS:
None
•
•
I
i
I
I
CAA D A, COURT �
_ e
Lr.._-
i
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION MEET
Application No� 66019
Applicant: DEMAC, Inc.,
Description of Request: Approval of plans of a service station - motel
multiple duelling complex
Property: Generally bounded by 66th, Camden, 67th and
Lyndale Avenues North
Owner of Property: Scherer Bros., Lumber Company
BAC KGR01W:
1) The applicants appeared before the Planning Commission on
April 21st for a brief discussion of their plans for the
property, This formal application is presented at this time
for aid in considering the proposed rezoning. The plans as
presently prepared are not sufficient for a final plan approval.
but do warrent comment as to general layout,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Parking for the 100 unit motel, plus a restaurant, seems to be
I'i • insufficient, and the area delineated for the motel seems cramped,
Parking is deficient for the service station also, but have the
area to provide for it in a final plan,
2) When 616th Avenue is laid out correctly, the motel building becomes
too close to the roadway. Some of the townhouse units would be
lost as sell,
3) The plans show a possible way of developing townhouse transition,
but there is presently no plan by the applicants to construct them,
as they are interested primarily in the service station and motel,
Overtures supposedly have been made to the townhouse developer
to the west, but the outsome is not certain,
STAFF C OWENTS;
1) As was stated above, the motel property seems cramped,; and the
sufficiency of the strip of townhouses on the west, and perhaps
also on the north, is questionable. The applicants should„ however;,
receive some sort of confirmation or rejection of their general
plans and zoning proposals. If it is agreed that the sufficiency
of the areas designated for the various uses are locking, perhaps
it should be suggested to the developer that the motel site incorporate
the presently suggested townhouse strip and perhaps move the northern
boundary of the motel site southward, awaking the H3 property north
of it more useable,
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application Noe 66037
Applicant: DEMAC, Inc
Description of Request: Rezoning to 83 and R3, Special Use Permit ,
for service station and a Special Use Permit
for a motel on the B3 property.
Property: Roughly bounded by 66th. Camden, 67th, and
Lyndale Avenues North (Parcels AA, B8. P. Q. R,
S, T, U, 0, N, W, X. X, Z, 6650 and 6710,
R. L. S. #80)
Owner of Property:
BACKGROUND:
1) Rezoning of this property was discussed at a previous meeting
where transitional zoning from 66th to 67th Avenues was suggested
• The zoning proposed would allow commercial uses adjacent to
66th Avenue (a motel and service station if special use permits
were to be granted) and townhouses between this B3 zoning and R1
zoning to the north,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The applicant has revised his plans to incorporate transitional
zoning suggested by the Commission,
STAFF COMMENTS;
1) If the zoning and special uses proposed are acceptable in
their present locations (the preliminary plans must be reviewed
in conjunction with this request), they should be made contingent
on submission of final plans (for motel and service station special
uses) and a plat setting out legal descriptions of the lots to
be zoned and the 66th Avenue right-of-way to be dedicated.
i
•
LYNDALE AVENUE #66039
m° n
ST.
iN to
G
L-
t � E
G W
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application Noe 66038
Applicant: Shell Oil Company
Description of Request: Rezone to B3o Special Use Permit for service
station, including approval of plans
Property: 6545 Lyndale Avenue North (Lot 18, Auditor's
Subdivision #310)
Owner of Property: Stanley Durland
BACKGROUND:
1) Shell Oil Company requested (in Application #65099) rezoning of this
property to 83 for the portion abutting Highway #169, and R5 for the
land lying west of the B3 area, The following action regarding that
request was taken at the January 24, 1966 Council meeting.
"The Council considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commission concerning Application No. 65099 submitted by Shell
Oil Company requesting the rezoning of portions of Lot 18,
• Auditor's Subdivision #310 to B3 and R5, and the granting of
a special use permit for a service station for a site at 6545
Lyndale Avenue North, The Village Council also heard comments
from the petitioner and interested property owners.
Motion by John Leary and seconded by Theodore Willard to
deny Application No. 65099 because there is need for the develop-
ment of a street plan for the immediate area and the Village
Engineer needs an opportunity to develop a street plan to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission, Council and interested
property owners. Motion carried unanimously,"
2) Since the time of the previous application by Shell Oil, two other
developers have become interested in this area, and a street plan has
been prepared for the area by the Village Engineer.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
1) Only preliminary plans are being submitted by Shell Oil at this time,
so any special use issued should be contingent upon submission of
final plans.
STAFF COMM94TS:
1) Assuming that rezoning and a special use are approved, mention should
probably be made, as in the approval of R3 zoning for bViensch Construction,
• that a successful plan approval should provide that the proposed 66th
Avenue North be dedicated to serve the property. A platting of Shell
Oil's property dedicating the street right-of-way and setting out the
station site would be in order.
PLANNING COMA!SSION INFORMATION SHEET
•
Application No., 66039
Applicant: Shell Oil Company
!Description of Request: Special Use Permit for construction and operation
of a service station on the following property-
Property: 1505 - 69th Avenue North
(Lot 1, Block l; flellstad Addition)
Owner of Property: Shell Oil Company
BACKGROIM:
1) On August 13, 1962, rezoning to B3 of the corner site was accomplished;
and special use permits were issued for a service station and two
apartment buildings. The special use permits subsequently expired
2) On January 6, 1964, the apartment property was rezoned to RB,, and
another special use permit was issued for the service station, but
this permit also expired,
3) Apartment construction is now taking place on the portion of Hellstad
Addition not included in the servip.e station site,
POIN T S TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Shell Oil has informed us that they will not have final site and
building plans available for consideration at this time, but would
like coNsideratioe of the applir_.at.ion for a special use permit.,
This could be accomplished by approval of the special use contingent
upon submission of final plans, as in the Horbal property immediately
north of this, With no special use permits in effect at this corner
at present, the conditions for the special uses here should be thought
of as being applied to the other corners as well-
i
*�Gv3g
70 r64 �--- —
�� I 70th A VE.
i a R-8
I R"8
�5
R•8
B 3
AVENUE NORTH
.,....._.� ITS.- -
13.3
R—B
r�
0
cis
—
�
i
•
i
PLANNING COMMISSIUN liN ORNMON S iLLT
Application No� 66040
Applicant: Duane Vettling
Description of Request: Variance to allow construction of a 24' x 32'
garage/patio
Property: 7013 Drew Avenue North (Lot 8, Block 2,
Palmer Lake Terrace Addition)
Owner: Duane Vettling
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The existing zoning ordinance lists the following as a permitted
use in an R1 zone:
"Private garages used in connection with single family
dwelling units and not for commercial purposes, containing
not more than 660 square feet of floor area."
• The garage/patio proposed by Mr, Vettling would be 768 square feet
in area,
STAFF COMDMWS:
1) .fudging by the increasing number of requests regarding the construction
of garage/patio or garage/porch combinations, it may be that the
ordinance itself should be altered, This, of course, is something the
Planning Commission and Village Council must decide, The variance
is an inappropriate tool in this respect, and if it is felt that
a change should be made in the Zoning Ordinance„ this could be
accomplished by adding accessory buildings larger than 660 square
feet in area to the category of special uses in an RI zone. This
would then provide reviewal of these larger structures as is done
presently in the variance procedure,
II
I
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION MEET
Application No. 66091
Applicant: American Oil Company
Description of Request: Special Use Permit to allow erection and operation
of an automobile service station including site and
building plan approval,
Property: 6900 Humboldt Avenue North
Owner of Property: Homedale Builders, Inc.
I
BACWROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Screening against the apartment complex to the rear. A redwood
basketweave fence is proposed.
2) Thirteen parking spaces have been provided, which would seem to
. satisfy the provisions of the new Zoning Ordinance.
3) One further point bears mentioning; the sign proposal on the
corner has a supporting column which is slightly larger than the
12" allowed by the existing zoning ordinance; should this preclude
Its being installed as shown?
i
f
t
i
! I
i �
70 to A VE.
IQ � a
I R-B
t �I
II
B-3 ® 9-3 -
1
J73'
AVENUE NORTH
3
i
i -B
co
d�
A
i
P9"ING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEL
•
Application No. 66442
Applicant: Dr, Irving Herman
Description of Request: Special Use Permit to allow a multiple dwelling
In an R1 zone, variance from density requirements
to allow 22 dwelling units rather than the 18
permitted by the area of the property.
Property: 6743 Humboldt Avenue North (Parcel 4001,
Section 35)
Owner: Dr. Irving Herman
BACKGROUND:
1) An 11 unit multiple dwelling exists now on a portion of this property
(6737 Humboldt Avenue North). This building was built under a
special use permit issued January 23, 1961, which allowed erection
of one eleven unit building and one seven unit building. The
existing building was constructed before adoption of the Building
Code amendments requiring two egresses from each apartment unit
and before the requirement of two parking spaces per unit,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The property contains approximately 49,080 square feet, which would
permit 18 dwelling units at 2700 square feet each; 59,400 square
feet of land would be required to accomodate 22 units.
2) Although the existing building was built under the old requirements,
the new building would have to conform to requirements now in
effect, and it would seem reasonable to require two parking
spaces per unit for the total development and not just the proposed
building as a requirement of a special use permit, as the area
on which the proposed building stands is presently being used
for parking by the present tenants-
3) This property is proposed as being R5 when the new Zoning Ordinance
is adopted.
STAFF COMMENTS-
1) While the issuance of a special use permit for construction of an
additional apartment building appears to be in order in light of the
proposed zoning, the variance does not, Apartment developments on
small lots have been criticized as being only adequate or less than
adequate as far as a suitable living environment is concerned, and
lessening the amount of land required will only increase any
deficiency which exists.
P 1
70th AVE.
> R-8
AVENUE NORTH
►
8-3
co
►
D ,. . . ..
0
M
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEETS
• Application No. 66043
Applicant: Donald C. Stark
Description of Request: Special Use Permit to allow construction of
a duplex dwelling on the property which
abuts Camden Avenue North (5544 Camden
Avenue North)
Variance from Section 15--104 to allow a land
division without a plat.
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The subdivision without submission of a plat would follow the
procedure which has been allowed in this area for divisions
of the old large lots of Garcelon's and Bellvue Acres in this
area. The divisions have been accomplished by reference to the
pre-existing plate The lot as it presently exists is an example
of this type of division, being described as "The West 1/2
of the North 1/2 lying South of the North 50 feet thereof,
• Got 29, Garcelon's Addition to Minneapolis
2) The lot produced by the division proposed to be enacted in
accordance with the survey submitted would be approximately
135' x 100' of 13,500 square feet., 12,400 square feet are
required for a duplex.
STAFF COMMENTS:
None
i
H
I
H
a H
H
1
H H s Vac.
H ►
H Vac.
H
4
if � L 11 N H H i Vacant
+ _ 6th AVENUE NORTH
f �!1 H c H Vac.
H H
Vac:. Madsen H Vacant ; vac.
ac. Vac. Vec Madsen H H a,
H H Vacant
Floral H
4i a�see
H � H �
a
$ H H vac. Vac.
kD
PI ex H H H s
. ..___.__ J — H H H
55th AVENUE 6 NGRTH
y H H H H
�-__ --- H H
- - - P_:rU.
f H H H
H -- Vac. .� H
�-
li H _
[� H �,
—
t
Dialogue of the Planning Commission meeting of May 12, 1966.
• NOTE: This record does rat propose to he a verbatim nword nor to include
all comments made.
AnDliaat n ? §W byAy�g bv t Qaare
Mr. Jensen read a letter submitted by Dayton Development Compaq dated May 6, 1966.
Je g*a —; a roaon for srsola Inge ow OW on preylowly is that,tla Planning
Commission" 2epwsod obseeriod with the off-site character pf the sign
approved.
Oberuc (Dayton Development) - If persons traveling on Highway *100 to
Brookdale amiss Highway *152, they have to go on to 57th Avenue North, and
this is beyond the Brookdale complex.
Ausen - How about if the Highway Department put one sign one quarter mile
ahead of the Highway #152 turnoff and another at the turn?
Ausen - I am concerned with the off-site character of the sign, Mr. Jensen
is concerned with its size, and Mr. Bogucki questions the need for the sign.
Jensen - If Brookdale is able .to obtain an off-site sign, how do we
differentiate that approval from a request from an Osseo Road business?
This sort of thing could pyramid.
Brookdale merchant -� Brookdale is a business district; the Osseo Road is
another business district.
Ausen - I took that viers previously, but Brookdale is owned by one corporation.
Ditter .. Don't you feel that signing by the Highway Department mould be
sufficient?*
Bogucki - Let us explore the need for this sign. I cannot believe that
people are as stupid as is being implied; they might have trouble the first
time they come out this way to get into Brookdale, but that would be the
end of it. Brookdale has a huge mass of buildings and is immediately adjacent
to the highway, so persons on that highway can easily see it. If the
people complain about access to Brookdale are in the shops telling the
merchants that they had a hard time getting in, it sliaws- that they finally
made it in.
The sign, constructed with the message are shown, may not be as effective
as is anticipated, as it does nest tell the person to move into a right lane
to take the turnoff onto Osseo Bond. The Fact that the name "Brookdale"
appears on the sign constitutes advertising; the words 'Business Area" would
be better. A Village or State Highway Department erected sign direotiLo
traffic to "Business Areas" would be preferred.
Oberuc - Approximately W% o.� the oheAs taken in during the Christmas
• season were from outside the wetropolitan area, demonstrating thF drawing
ability of the existing Brookdale. When the second stage is completed, we
expect to do even more of this drawing from the outer metropolitan ,area.
Jensen - We lire in Brooklyn Center and know it fairly well. People who
are coming to Broakdale came from all over. A safety f.ac,tor is involved
in that we don't want accidents to be caused by persons making abrupt
shifts in lanes to make turns.
Ausen - i think there should be several signs throughout the Village saying
"Brooklyn Center Shopping Center" or some such general terminology.
Dorenfeld - I don't see what the problem is. As a result A this appli-
cation, I drove up Highway #100 toward Brookdale to see *hat sort of
visibility there was and I saw the Sears sign from the Soo Line underpass
very plainly. If you happen to miss the turn once, you won't do it a
second time.
Jensen - If we granted a sign for Brookdale Canter, how could we refuse
a similar sign for Shopper's City, Chrysler;, Lynbrook Shopping Center,
Iten Chevrolet, etc.
Bogucki - It is a sign of the times; people have to be alert on the
highways. Minnesota is just beginning to get its freeway program under way
and people have to learn how to drive them. This is only a temporary
problem. This is a billboard they are asking fox.
• Oberuc - Doesn't Dale Tile's semi trailer track serve as a billboard?
now about adding Brooklyn Center Shopping Distri.c to the sign?
Jensen - By allowing a sign saying Brooklyn Center Shopping District this
way, up the Osseo Road, Northbrook Center could say we were diverting
their traffic. Not all of Brooklyn Center's shopping districts are up
the Osseo Road.
Dorenfeld - The proper agency to solve this problem is the Highway
Department. Shoi3, them your accident statistics and encourage them to
sign the highway and the interchange better.
Ausen - You should 'check iaixh Jamieson of the Highway Department on this.
He seems to be a reasonable man.
Brookdale merchant - We don't want the highway junked up; we want it
Olean and nice looking. We feel that we need this type of signing to
get the people into the Center.
Boguoki - This opens a whole new can of worms, We have only completed
5 to 10 per cent of the freeways in Xintaesota, and it is simply a matter
of getting use to them.
Jensen - It is in the interest of the Village to aid its commercial
development. We should look at the problem not only from Brookdale's
view, but from the view of the Village as a whole,
,Ausen - This might not be a zoning matter. It might be in the realm of
the Highway Department; perhaps we should send a delegate of the Planning
Ckm=ssion aid the Coancil to talk to the people at. the Highway Depaftmenu.
i
r'
F�
Oberuc •- As of August_ 1st, 20 more stkores in the Brookdal.e Center will be
opening, drawing more and sore people to the center.
Jensen - H about a temporary sign for 12 mDaths or so?
Oberuc - A temporary sign for a year would resolve the iamW iate needs of
the Center for the opening, Christmas and Easter of next year.
Ausen - This is a particularly difficult Intersection.
Bogucki - I can't agroe that there is any problem or need for this sign.
1Dorenfeid - What basis do we have for granting a temporary sign of this
type?
Jensen - We granted a similar sign for Shopper's City in the past. A
temporary sign would give us further time to study the problems involved.
Oberuc - We could live with the temporary sign for a period of oKe year
but would prefer it to be one year from July 1, 1966, if possible. For
a one year period, we would prbably put up a wooden sign similar to the
other signs we have about the Center, as it would be too expensive to '
install a steel sign for only one year. As our letter to you states, the
would put up a 9' x 20' sign, 17 feet in height. (The motion on application
966029 tryok place at this -time,)
&eguest for gayment beyond LOI contract requirements
® It, e
Jensen - I guess he is saying he could have been done, i.n five hours rather
than six when we didn't get at the 701 Study for an Hour or so because of
other business at our meetings,
1Dorenfeld w You can't count consultation work that closely.
Jensen.- Isn't it kind of arbitrary to say one hour times 53 meetinVs?
Boguoki - We should have been forewarned if this was the oase.
Oorenfeld w 'This could be written off by Hodne as sales time which most
consultants take into account.
Ausen - We spent a great deal of meeting time reading information he didn't
give us beforehand.
Jensea - When a mate signs contracts, he knows there are variables. He
admitted he caused some of the slowdowns. In addition to that, a great
many of the times only Kerm .Crouch was here and we couldn't get as mu.%h
clone.
(Cee the Minutes of this Meting for the comments of
the other two item regarding Hodne Associates.)
'�
I
Planning Commission Agenda
June 9, 1966
Application No.
1 ,
&IL Call
Rance Enterprises 66044
Rezoning from R1 to B1 of the North 140'
of Lot le, Block 2.,: Ewing Lane Addition
(the southwest corner of 63rd Avenue North
and Ewing Lane);,
3, John L Greenly 66045
Variance to allow subdivision of Lot 4, Block
4V Twin Lake foods Addition (5255 Twin Lake
Boulevard) and approval of the subdivision as
proposed„ including lots substandard in
size,
• 4. Center Sales.- Inc., 66046
Variance to allow paving of and parking
on the property within 15 feet of the
highway right-of-way at 6756 Osseo Road
(Tract Bn R.L.S. 4 456)
5n St:, Alahonsus Church 66047
Variance to allow sideyard setbacks
between 7024 and 7030 Halifax Avenue North
to be zero feet for a period not to exceed
10 years.
I
PL IM COMMISSION INFORMATION ;ITEM
• Applica-tion No. 66044
Applicant: Mange Enterprises (by k'rank Scholaer)
Description of Request: Rezoning from RI to B3 of the southwest
corner of 63rd Avenue North and ! jinq Lane
(the north 140 feell of Lot l, Block 2,
Ewing Lane Addition)
Property: As above
Owner of Property; B. C. S. C., Inc.
BACWROUND:
1) Rezoning requests by B.C,.S.C., Inc„ In the pest (owners of the
property) have involved multiple dwelling zoning, and were considered
at k*.he times when rezoning of the other portions of Ewing Lane
Aedill-ion were rezoned. Igo action was ever taken to rezone the
property vies% of Ewing Lane.
POUNT.S TO BE CONSIDERED:
• I) The Comprehensive Man developed by the Planaiing Consultant and
the Planning Carmission suggests that this 2rea be utilized for
kultiple dwellings, and the zoning suggested by the Plauning
C€m- iss ion carries through on this same idea 'ith R4 zoning.
FLAMING ODIDUSSIO N INi*'+DRIIATION Sl1IIXT
Applioation No. 66045
Applicant: John Greenly
Description of Request: variance from Section 15-104 to allow sub-
division without a plat, and approval of the
subdivision as proposed on the attached
suvway including lots substandard in size.
Prroperty: Lot 2, Block 4, Twin Lane VDods Addition
(5256 'lain Lake Boulevard)
Owner of Property: John Greenly
BACKGRDUM
1) The Tkin Lake Woods Addition was platted in 1947,
POINTS TO BE COSIDERED:
.1) The approximate areas of the divided lows would be as follows:
a) northerly lot - 8,928 square feet
b) middle lot - 9,712 square feet
c) southerly lot 11,200 square feet
so that a variance on the northerly substandard lot would be
necessary. The ealoalations include the "inlet" or marshy area
on the north snide of the northerly lot, but this would require
filling of that area.
2) Tice: width of the lots along the building setback line on the lots
would be 70 feet, instead of the 75 feet required,
3) The lots proposed would be "out of character" with the platting
of other similar lots in the subdivision whiob are larger in
width, depth, and area (almost all are in the 16,000 square foot
range).
i
STAFF CODdtUM:
1) The variance to subdivide without n plat is not of too great concern,
as the division proposed is from a previously platted piece of land.
2) Due to the feet that the platting of similar property in the area is
of a substantially greater size, and as variances are required from
the established standards of the ordinances, it is felt that the
division as proposed be denied, and that a maxiamm of two lots be
produced from the existing let. To this end, another possible
subdivision has been included in the Agenda. This subdivision
incorporates lane "A" which crosses the lot diagonally 10 feet
(required sideyard setback) from the existing house; the lots so
formed are approximately 16Q320 square feet (north) and 12,864
square feet (south). By utilizing line "iB" as well, 240 square feet
can be added to the southerly lot and subtracted from the northerly.
The building setback width of the south lot using lines "A" and "B"
1s approximately 75 ft, whi ah should be verified by survey,
<+fi�a•4 ,gg.i+�.s�k �� � "�-a�.yl�al�i4. '�s�.w^l,-' te`�a43 ._it `•�?t�3pc`�.y;•�+ . ,.. f .._•,s:_.
...�b.+�, i� u����►. "«�G:x.L i4MaSa+K .R. �kzJ'N�)
���� �"�t�; >� Aid ' E`►�t�e.,� .�.,.
eve-'rfal to j"'d blew &»W. 1-wvlt 'l'EM6 le, C:�"tE`mr'
ut
6lt{� 4. .+ Zfm
.
b! µ F
.
�,.'t"fir '�'��� '�': °�3�c�? a,�;#� ...��: �.��� Y� �:!� �'�� ,. '�'*�„�,�� {� �, •,�+ `�•�
• ���;..: � r ._ ; '.x urn �,:' :3'i�,-= 3. • .'�, �._w.w ;.; �+ .�,., ,rk y;.:r�4 M...<. ':
fi sl"Lir Nr T R #.>"' .i aiiM iFu4"�•�& ':it/r' ..t
` ¢;° r;" +? a43 C v: ?a id." o 'sir f ► '. f °i a= rt'W
(-�V47 , x }y, iii Fy � f ,.� :.�;y ftif jlwI
wr
w. �- �+� ���.•n�< �.i h�,gy�t ��l'Y 3T�Fia'�., f.r.�:b.a y y.�.ae ,. +'.. ftA`. r
x' y+.w.'?'
•a ^, te.,,`;, y.t.#rye.^ :.`# `:!�` ,a �."�dtea.�4�.�'.,��t.�� '+�#� nT« .R+�'vs� �-'.��?}�_` ��y�,".�>-�'�<
{`.:,;.
.w
PROPERTY TO BE
Dlymr
TWIN LAKE
SHORELINE IN Qp/
1947
114C
PAR
xo
PH-OPERTY
x.
°
ee
r�
LAI1
PLAMING COIGUSSTON INUMMWIDI SHM
Appiica%iou No. 66046
Applicant: Center Sales (Glen Rick)
Description of Request: variance from Section 35-7CI to allow, Paving
of and parking on the property Ivithill 15 feet
of the highway right-or-Way.
Propexty: 6756 Osseo Road (Tyact, B, R.L.S. 941,56)
Owner of Property: Henry Halvorson
BACKGROMID-
1 ) In November of last year, the operators of Center Sales applied for
a Business Certificate of Occupancy. Prior to issuance of this
certificate, the applicants submitted a layout of their proposed
car sales operation, and submitted a band to guarantee -lobe inStallZ%i0n
of site improvements shown on this drawing. Apparently ';-,here was a
misunderstanding as to where the applicants' property ended, and
where the Highway Departments'began, as Center Sales has paved as
sales area several feet of Highway Depar-tMerit PTOPert"Y. The applicant
is now vequesting that the terms of the performance arAeement and
Land be altered somewhat, and a variance be granted to allow theL--i
to have their paved area extend to their property line.
Fo"U"U's TO Bill CONSIDEISIED:
in the past, there have been occasions whea the street o-t.- highway
?Trjghto11vj.ay" has beep confused with the llroad.,.vay" by both home
and business owners.
2) aah(�,,r than the J.0 or 15 feet which is coulmon on residential
streets and the 10, 5 or less feet wM%ch is often the case along
Osseo Road as "bo-oleyard" area between the readway and the property
line, the property line of Center Sales and adjacent p;vopertles
is ap I i
25 feet away from the roadivcy.
-4,
J.) The applicant: feels that a hardship exists in the use of his property
due to the unusually tilde "boulevard" area.
PI..Aleil PNG CrUMAUSSION INFOMATION SHEET
1lpplica€.ion No. 66047
Applicant: St, Alphon;us Church
Description of Request: Variance to allow sideyard wetbooks be ween
Lots 23 and 24 (7024 - 7030 Halif= Avenue
North) to be zero feet for a period not to
exceed 10 years, thereafter becoming conforming
structures as far as sidegatd setbacks are
concerned
Property: 7024 and 7030 Halifax Avenue Worth (Lots 23
and 24, Block I. Bobendrier's 4th Addition)
Owner of ft"opehrty: St. Alphonsus Qhurch
13 A single family dwelling type building is now being utilized at
7030 Halifax Avenue North as a convent, The Church proposes to
construct another building of the single Family dwellizg type at
7024 l aiica; jlrefltte north to al.lo:u for a:e.p:ansaan of ,-Ile conveazt
tacil'f.ti.es, The building would be constructed as tShe PlaUS
submitted indicate, with all enclosed walkway crossicg the property
line between the buildings, a<id connecting the two bui?diilgs. This
uallav4, and the fact that the "garage` on the new b ai:Iding would he
used for livi:3g purposes during the period o3 use o:c hese buildings
as Q cOnve"t, necessitate the variance requested.
P0- I'1%'TS TO 3l CONSIDERM:
3 Both the existing building and that proposer to be }wilt would conform
if they Dlele to be used as normvl single family c vael i lgs, and in
fact, they ;;vial undoubtedly revert to such status at scum time ill
the f�_lure, The use of the ' garage" c'lran on -the propose:i hkorne Zo
crape]. Pu poses maces the a' foot setback too sawili, howeveA, and
01jen 11.1: thIs were not tone, the Ct)11S'v'1`Ci#'i`L3F3:i {?.P^. a jvajRjt4,y �1e- e�°§1
the t wo buildings would require a variance on ,Meyard setbacks,
The hardship which exists here is one of having to repiaL the two
parcels ill question into a single parcel in order to ovoid i-ecciing a
Ue ibt rk vQriance, and then having to divide i:ae property iilto two
parcels again when the homes are sold Qs homaes t0 ''tldi,viduLl. 07:.14rsa
4
ia ,E��f the June- .2
Planning Commission Dee 'n
NOTE: This record does not propose to be a verbatim record nor to include
all comments made,
AM)_Iication 966035 b Birchwoo Inv strneent Comoanv (E.R, Craial
Craig - Gde would like to get special use authorization to put duplexes on
the land now included in Lots 9 through 15, The cost of building single
family homes is too great with the existing soil conditions If we are
going to use pilings, it would be more economical to put a greater investment
into the building to be built on these pilings.
hitter - Usually the cost of the land is less when it is known pilings will
be necessary for construction,
Craig - The cost of the land was substantial. as it was. The cost of sewer„
street,, and other related development costs weren't less because of the soil
tonditions,
Dorenfeld - That is one of those things, the bad ones go along with the good
ones in the development of a larger area.
Ciesko(3117 Lawrence Road) I can't see horn there could be any bad soil
in that areas It is all smooth lard, sandy and goad dirt, and I have noted
that in your construction nearby, you have excavated for the basements and
all that is down there is sand,
Craig - Is the past there were a series of potholes and hills In the area,
but this was graded over burying some of this bad soil underneath good soil :,
If we can't get special uses to build duplexes which would be economical in
our thinking, it is likely two or three of the lots would remain vacant.
Ciesko - I would prefer empty lots there to double bungalows,
tLero(320I Lawrence Road) We have got commercial on Osseo Road with multiple
dwellings buffering that along Beard and it should stair that way. I don't
Brant double bungalows. I have seven years' experience living in .rental
property, and people in rental property do not take ca',:e of the property as
well as homeowners do
Aitkins(3212 Lawrence Road) Opposed
Johnson(3219 Lawrence Road) - I am opposed also; this is a single family
area. It is a nice area of town and we would like to keep it that way. Vie
should not have rental property mixed in with single family homes.
Jecobsson(3200 Lawrence Road' - I act opposed for the sane :reason.
Aonlicatio 3b btu Don C Stark
Stark - I have applied three times previously for this special use; it has
been approved three times by the Planning Commission and denied threa times
by the Village Council, Coast fall after the third application, an erroneous
statement was published in the Council Minutes to the effect that a majority
of the residents in the vicinity were not in favor of the duplex at the loca-
tion I proposed, As a result of that comment, and a statement by Mayor
f I
r
Erickson that letters should be sent to the Council, a number of letters
were sent, by residents of the area stating no objection to this use. I am
• embarrassed to submit this application for the third tinge as I think it is
good, both for the property and the neighborhood.
Ausen -- 'ghat was the shape of the lot prior to the highway taking?
Stark m It was a rectangular lot-
Ausen - Could it have been divided at that time into two normal single
family lots?
Stark -- Yes, it could have if the old house that was on the property at
that time had been removed.
Grosshans Would you live in the duplex after it was built? You mentioned
you had planned to do this at one of the previous herrings.
Stark - I wouldn't wait to mislead you; the people next door to this property
probably wouldn't appreciate my living there, so no, I probably would not
live in the duplex..
Bogucki - How about a quick summary of the letters sent in since the last
application?
Strong(516 62nd Ave, No.) -- He'd build 60 feet of the back of the building
ten feet from our property line. We don't want rental property there, As
• to the letters Hr. Stark talks about, the people immediately close to this
property are not in favor and they are the ones who should be considered.
Madsen(515 w 62nd Ave. No.) - I am opposed also. It will be a rental property,
We don't want nnzltiple dwellings in the neig�borhood,
Strong - We were told before that written letters mean nothing, and that you
have to attend the meeting to count,
Grosshans -- I don's; recall that statement ever being made by the Commission
or the Council.
Ritter and Dorenfeld - The writers of the letters in the file could have
changed their minds since last November, so I don't think we should consider
them in regard to this present application.
Stark -- At the time of the last application,, I was going to resubmit as soon
as possible, but was asked not to, The letters were submitted in accordance
with a request of Mayor Erickson that they be sent to the Council, but no
reapplication was wade by we until now.
Grosshans The Chair elects not to tread the 12 letters as they are not
directed to the present application specifically
Bogucki. - You have Cison's letter, and I won"d like to hear his November
letter also.., (Mr. Grosshans read both letters)
Strong -- If it hadn't been made so clear tha-,; letters were of no importance,
we could have brought one from the lady across the street° We cam- into
• this neighborhood 20 years ago and have raised our kids and made them happy
in the area and now Mr. Stark has to disrupt things,
Dorenfeld - Things have changed in 20 years with the freeway and all.
Could a single family home be built on the property? (other members say yes)
Bugucki - My view in the past regarding this piece of property is that the
lot is bag enough, and a duplex could probably exist better than a single
family dwelling against the freeway.
Ausen - Special uses were explained to us by the attorney in the past, as
were the limitations on us as to what things we may consider when considering
the issuance of special use permits. Duplexes are considered by the ordinance
to be appropriate in a single family dwelling zone, provided that it is
accomplished through the special use device which allows us to mitigate any
bad affects of the use if they do in fact a-tistu All we can do is see if
there is a problem to the health, welfare, and so on as stated in the Stan-
dards for Special Use Permits in the zoning ordinance. We cannot deny the
special use because we may or may not like 1uplexes personally, As 1 under.-
stand the special use, it is a special type of permitted use, What then is
wrong with the use? We have set the figure of 12„400 square feet as being
sufficient area for a duplex, and Mr. Stark is asking no exceptions, The
problem might be he can't use the property in soiw other fashion. The
freeway probably makes it a less desirable location. This application
differs frow the Birchwood Investment Gompatty application in that the
Birchwood parcels were already platted into single family lots of appropriate
size. In this case, there are extenuating circumstances which argue for a
special use permit for a duplex. Duplexes as such do not have to be object-
iarableo The fact that one may not personally like duplexes should not have
a bearing on the application,
Dorenfeld - You wouldn't ;pant duplexes west of this property in the future
if the main factor in this case is the proximity to the freeway,
Strong Mr. Stark is in it for money, We ::lave lived there for years, and
he doesn't have to be that way,
.A_csen - I would question whether M r Stark's motives have any bearing on the
application. It is not "sinful” to make pr fits or speculate. Hany people
make their laving by investment.
Strong -, I am sorry, but it does affect us .personally,
(Bogucki makes a motion including the fence, and asks iiro Stark what he
thinks of time fence requirement)
C. - I would prefer that you did require a fence,
Dorenfeld ., How about: turning the duplex to face 62nd Avenue or to face away
from the freeway gather than toward it?
Stark - It probably would not fit if it facpA 62nd .Ave, ue NaA th and the view
would be better to the east.
(The motion was passed recommending approval of the special use)
,A,� J ie sns__-x.19 A-ad,l 3' -bv DEM#g Inc,,
• A discussion ensued regarding the uses in the area and transition zoning,
and during the calling of those who were seat notice, Wx. Szyplinski stated
that he had no objection and Mr. Herdine stated that he was not really sold
on the town houses between the commercial and the single family area but
that the commercial use was O.K. ,
Aunlication ;T66043.,by, Do,ngld C. Stark
During the public hearing the roll of those notified was called and other
spectators were asked for comments, Those who replied dial so as follows:
Seven objected to the duplex use specifically
Two were not against the duplex use
Two were against a rumored complex of 4-•pl.exes to the east of their
homes, and they implied objection to the presently proposed duplex
use of it would lead to the fourplexes.
Mrs. Simons(5530 Camden Ave, No.) „ She expressed violent dislike for Mr.
Stark due to his proceeding against her for an illegal duplex she operated
while he was building inspector for the ViK age.
The comments from the audience were essentially the same as those heard in
the Birchwood Investment application and the other Starts application this
evening.
Ausen �- The ordinance r !a'
eco zaes duplexes a,, an appropriate
use in an R1
• g p
zone.
Bogucki .. I can't see than we are faced with any fourplexes as is rumored
to the east, but the duplex mere might set a lease for duplexes to the east
of thiso
r 4
• Planning Commission Agenda
June 30, 1966
&Vlication No,
1, Roll Call:
2. DEMAC, Inc., 66037
Statement of Intent made by the Planning
Commission on June 9, 1966, and by the
Village Council on June 164 1%6,
Approval of the preliminary plat of "DEMAC
Addition
Rezoning of the properties within the plat to
B3 (General Business) and R3 (Townhouses)..
Special uses for a service station and a
motel on the properties appropriately zoned,
Approval of preliminary plans,.
All for the properties generally bounded by
67th, Lyndale, future 66th, and Camden
Avenues,
•
3. Shell Oil QMU9ny 66036
Statement of Intent made by the Planning
Commission as above.
Approval of the preliminary plat of"Shell Oil
First Addition'
Rezoning of the property within the plat to
B3o
Special use permit for theoperation of a service
station on a portion of the B3 property.
4. Shell Oil GoMRM 66039
Tabled at the June 9th Planning Commission
meeting.
Special use permit for a service station at the
S.W. corner of 69th and Humboldt Avenues
North (Lot 1, Block 1, Hellsted Addition),
5, Homedale Builders 66050
Variance on density requirements for a multiple
dwelling development.:
Approval of preliminary plans of the proposed
apartment development.
Both for the property lying east of Xerxes Avenues,
extending to Shingle Creek, between County Road
X10 and 59th Avenue North (presently part of
Tract C, R.L.S. 41142)
6, Discussion of the Pr2posed Sign Ordinance
I
�I
COMMISSION !:01"i MATION SHEET
Application No, 66037
Applicant: DEMAC, Inc,
Description of Request: Rezoning to B3 and R3, Special Use Permit for
service station and a Special Use Permit for a motel
on the B3 property. Approval of the preliminary
plat of"DEMAC First Addition",
Property: Roughly bounded by 66th Camden,, 67th. and Lyndale
Avenues North (Parcels AA, BB, P. Q, R, S, T, U,
0, N, W, X, Y, Z, 6650 and 6710, R. L. S. #80)
Owner of Property:
BACKGROUND:
1) A statement of intent regarding this application was made by the Commission
on June 9th (and confirmed by the Village Council on June 16th) for
approval of the requests made, upon submission of a preliminary plat,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The plat being submitted is in accordance with that given tentative
approval on June 9th,, and provides a description for rezoning,
2) Refer to the June 2nd agenda for some further comment on Application
V£,63
STAFF COi MOMS:
1) Special Use Permits should be contingent upon the submission of finalized,
accurate plans
•
I
• • FI
t
t
1 67th AVENUE NORTH
I
H H tl H -�
I t
Church � i ` j 1• t t -____
H
H H lle d► - - - - - - - - --1!+- - - - -- - -- -
1 S I p tli
H C' 1 C y1 I Ab I I I
t '� C j i-----___--- -- -
H H < H
g 1 U C I I ___ I i .�. _ - -- - - -- - -
c i �, -!----- T I 1 g
H
001 i j p I � N c
� I C,
,y � I ; i rr:
H H 1 PA k l I I
1 � � II ►
i
0
H 1 t
1 I 1 i � H
H
H 1 1
1 i
1 t �
i iO
PROP SED H SFr
1 L
I
H
7
PAR H
1 � �
H 1 H 0� o
1 Beacon Howl
H ! p It _ w
H H
H �
H Body
65t Shop
1 h E
t "' -
NORTH
�i
L
PLANNING COMISSION INFORi9ATION SHEET
• Application No. 66038
Applicant: Shell Oil. Company
Description of Request: Rezone to B3o Special Use Permit for service station
including approval of plans. Approval of the
preliminary plat of "Shell's Brooklyn Centex Addition
Property: 6545 Lyndale Avenue North (Lot 18, Auditor's
Subdivision #310)
Owner of Property: Stanley Durland
BACKGROUND:
1) At the June 9th meeting. a statement of intent was made by the Planning
Commission (ratified by the Village Council on June 16th) regarding
approval of the rezoning to B3 and the special use permit. The applicant
was requested to submit a preliminary plat making the service station
site a separate parcel, and delineating 66th Avenue North. Such plat
has now been submitted„
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
• 1) The site plans have been altered to conform to Ordinance requirements,,
2) Parking space provided is sufficient to conform even with the require-
ments of the proposed Zoning Ordinance,
3) The site has been enlarged by the addition of 25 feet to the west, in
addition to the plus/minus 98 feet on the south, which will propably
not be used in the station use, but will be retained for future use
or sale,
4) The screening suggested by Shell Oil is a vegetative one,, made up of
shrubs, which would separate the station activity from adjacent commercial
properties,
•
I
I
I
I
FUMING ODMISSION INFOIIWI014 :WET
ApplAcation No. 66039
Applicant: Shell 031 Company
De=:.`Li Lion of iiequost: special Use Paxwait for construction and opovatioa
of a servioa Station cU the follow property.
property► 1505 - 69th Avenue Mavth
(Lot It Block 1, llellstad ��di'iic►n3
Ownev of Property: Shell Oil Company
Ii On August 13, 1952, rezoning to B3 of the eoraew site fa:as nieeompii<shed,
and special use povzits iiere issued for a set;vice station and two
apa�:;r�zei�t buildings, The speoi-al use permits subsequent-l.y e_t)ircd.
�} On January G, 19'64, the apartment property was rezoaed to i?D, and
another special use permit was issued for the service st a .ioa, but this
permit also e,,:peized.
Apartment construct do 1 is aow taking place on the portion of HeUz-zlad
e Cd tie'n not iY cluded in the s ei'vi.ae station ;site.
POI n'?' TO -, CONS€llRRED:
• I fhe design of the building to be built ora the property is ranch style,
whie.h will ca:ipl.ement the style of •ths AaericGa ail Company stat:*.o!s can
the N.E. corner of tte intersection, as well as the apartments be3::g
bui]t and yet.,. to be built in the area.
2} The plats have hae-41 a te�:ad to conform to Village OLdiitaijtues. A screening
&-vioe has not boca designated by Shell flit on its site plan, and i'e is
my LIndexaun ding Miat. (key arcs ix«eptvcd to instlall one. But xvish to have the
CflM-Mi:lion stale the type desiVed• The approval o+" jrericaa Oi_} on the
i�
N. L. cooler, you will recall, included a 4 foot; high, vedwood b:sketweave
i'et?ce a10s.9 its join- propeTt:y Lane with the apartment deve?opmeni t.
During a discussion of the fence prior to the Council's apraval, it =.vas
decided that thz ence should be vo close, than 30 feet to the stxeet
ri!'t-or-way, es tho entrances 'Co 's110 ap'l tmeirt gamplQ were adjateat to
the ;service: tta ion sate. Cons-iderat ion should be givex3 to this also on
t aP, $b.°3 l s ltz C'3iong Rumboldt Avenue, r4here, an "'partI en-41 d-eitrelvaj i t also
rsdjaco-nt to the station's property line.
�I
I
kk
I
l �
' I
I --70 tA
---A
--___ -
` � 1 0 ! I
l
R.8 '
73' 150' _
6 AVENUE NCBRTH �--_ ---
�. F-3
R-B
673
1 �
i
{
1
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
• Application No. 66050
Applicant: Homedale Builders
Description of Request: Variance from the density requirements of the zoning
ordinance, Approval of preliminary plans for a
multiple dwelling development,
Property: Part of Tract C, R.L.S. #1142
Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACWHOU D:
1) This property is one which was discussed in the past as a possible
high-rise apartment location by the Commission.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Regarding the density variance, no hardship has or can be shown which
world warrant such a variance,
2) Approval of the plans, even preliminary ones, depend on the outcome of
• the variance proceedings.
3) Refer to a memo contained in the April 14, 1966, Planning Commission
Agenda regarding Application #66005 by Twin Realty Company for a similar
variance,
•
59th AVENUE NORTH -
z
>
PROPOSED APARTMENT SITE
1
W
FUTURE ROADWAYS
COMERCIAL
USES
METRO. FUTURE COMIKERCIAL USES � BROOKDALE
INSUR. FORD
CO. RD. #10 '
0
e
Planning Commission Agenda
July 14, 1966
Ahnlication No,
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
Regular Meeting June 2, 1966
Special Meetings June 9th and 30th
3; Twin Realty Investment Comaanv (revised 66005
Rezoning from R1 to R5 of the properties on
the east side of Drew Avenue from 5000 to
5030 (Parcels 424 and 442, Section 10).
This application was tabled by the Village
Council on June 27th to allow the Commission
to consider a proposal of the a )glicant to have
additional property abutting the original site
proposed for a multiple dwelling development
zoned that same use.
4. Thomas Wild er 66051
• Variance to allow a sideyard setback of 8
feet rather than the 10 feet required for
the single family dwelling at 6724 Ca-aden
Avenue North (Lot 6, Block 2„ Roffman Addition)
6. Mrs Gerald Stano. 66052
Special Use Permit to allow a beauty shop
operation in the basement of the home at
6000 Girard Avenue North (Lot 13, Edwin
E. Nelson's 2nd Addition)
6, Village Builders Inc, 66053
Approval of the preliminary platting of
Outlot one. Northland Estates Addition,
and Part of Lot 37, Aud. Sub. No. 309;
7. Dayton Develonment Company 66054
Approval of site and building plani for a
"Bonanza Sirloin Pit" restaurant at the
S.E. corner of the intersection of Hwy. #152
and 56th Avenue North (Part of Tract E,
B.L.S. # 936)
8. Mr, and Mrs. Mike Tisch 66055
Approval of the preliminary plat of "Tisch's
Addition" at 1708 - 69th Avenue North
(Parcel 5 600 Section 26)
s
• 9.. LLeconPropert es 66:156
I?ezoning from RI to 133 of the property lying
generally a.ithin the following bounds:
F.A.I.V94 on the south; Hwy 7152 on the west;
69th Avenue Morth or the north; a::id Grim"-, Avenue
on the east
10, Macey S 66057
Variance to allow alteration of a freestanding
sign formerly approved for Lynn Brook Shopping
Center, 6215 Osseo Road (Lot 1, Block 1, Owing
Lane Addition)
ll. o �)ayton Pev .2an:renw Comt)an! 66059
Variance to allots erection of three free-
standing signs, one on each side of the
Broskdale complex,
'."L.: Dayton ,i'=velo went Co• an 66060
Approval of site and building plans for a
Goodyear Tire and Accessories Store and
Insta?latior Center,
13. DERAC. _ 6t5037
Approval of plans of a service station at
• 6601 Lyndale Avenue (Lot 3, Block 1, proposed
DULAC Addition) to allow issuance of a
special use permit for the statio .
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION %EET
• Application No. 66005
Application: Twin Realty Investment Company
Description of Request: Rezoning of parcels 424 and 442, Plat
89010 (Section 10) from RI to R5,.
Approval of site and building plans for
a multiple dwelling development,. Variance
from density requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding multiple dwellings;
Property: Parcels 120, 130, 424, 442, 450, 700
and 815 of Plat 89010
O. ner of Property: Dayton Development Company and
Twin Realty Investment Company
BACKGROUND:
1) The site and building plans for a multiple dwelling development and
approval of a slight variance on the number of units on the properties
listed above (with the exception of Parcels 424 and 442), was granted
by the Commission on May 19, 1966 At the time of the Village
Council's consideration of this application on June 27th, the appli-•
c•ants .stated that they would like to provide better access to the
10 proposed development by acquiring two properties abutting Drew Avenue
North., The Council took action to table Application 466005 until the
Planning Commission had an opportunity to voice its opinion on
whether additional land should be put to the multiple dwelling use:,
As the plans for the development would of necessity be changed with
the addition of these lands to the development, plan approval and
the variance have also been listed for this revised application,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Originally, the applicants had proposed the use of 17.35 acres of
land for the multiple family development; to this was added a second
area of .95 of an acre, and finally, ,76 of an acre was added along
Drew Avenue to make a total of 19,06 acres (plus or minus 830,254
square feet) which according to the Ordinance would allow 307.5
multiple dwelling units- The :ite plan submitted shows 310 units
on the property.
2) The applicant has provided an access =,)then than those onto 53rd
Avenue North as was previously suggested by the Commission and Council
STAFF COytP"TS:
1) As a great many different parcels of land have become involved in this
apartment development, it would be our recommendation that these pro-
perties be combined into a single parcel as a condition of rezoning
and the other approvals requested as has been done with other appli-
cants such as Chrysler Corporation,
0
, �
53rd AVE- No, #66005
NO .Tfi
52nd AVE.
M4
ul
IL ___ -_
51st AVE.
io
2nd
ISI
I
I
I
i
I
I
�I
��
�I
IIII
�i
�I
I
�I
�i
i
I
i
I
i
i
• PLANNING COMMISSION INF0RMATI0N SHEET
Application No. 66051
Applicant: Thomas Wilder (builder)
Description of Request: Variance to allow an 8 foot sideyard
setback rather than the required
10 feet.
Property: 6724 Camden Avenue North
Owner of Property:
BACKGROUM:
1) Mr. Wilder procured a building permit to build this home in May of
1%5, stating that the home would be built 10 feet from the north
property line and 35 feet from the street. The house was built
and a final inspection made February 28, 1966, at that time, snow
was on the ground, and property stakes could not be found. Later,
in May, it was discovered that the house had been built parallel
to the street rather than the side lot lines, and as the property
had 850 corners rather than the 900, the real' of the house was two
feet closer to the property line than allowed by our ordinance,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
None
STAFF CO&&RENTS:
1) The primary .reason for submittinw this application is to have the
Commission and Council aware of its existance, Secondarily, the
owner of the home might have a difficult time finding financial
backing of an illegally existing structure, and an approval by the
Council would legitimize it,
•
i
�I
6051
I
w
VACANT PROPERTY
NA TH
10'
t �
t I
f I
• N I -
r
i V
Proposed CD
Location _ I � Actual Location
f
! I
-�-°-3 5
135'
i
��
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No, 66052
Applicant: Mrs. Gerald Stano
Description of Request: Special Use Permit to allow operation
of a beauty shop in the basement of
home,
Property: 6000 Girard Avenue North
(Lot 13, Edwin E, Nelson's 2nd Addition)
Owner of Property: Same as above
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Section 35-880 - "SnecciialHome Occupation, A home occupation which
involves incidental stock in trade in performance of the service, or
equipment not customarily found in a home or light enough to be
carried, but not employment of persons not residing on the premises,
(For example: Barber shop, beauty parlor, shoe repair service,
photography studio, day nursery, and T;he like)
• 2) The standards for special uses set out in Section 35-231 of the
Zoning Ordinance,
3) Quite a number of beauty shops have been approved in skngle family
dwellings under special use permits for similar situations in the
past. In the most recent approval, that of Robert Schmidt, 6200
Osseo Road, a special use was approved with the following conditions:
1) the applicant meets building code requirements.
2) the special use is permitted only as long as the applicant
is the occupant of the subject house.
3) the driveway small be capable of accomodating two customer's
cars.
4) the permit shall be reviewed three years from the date of
Council approval to determine whether it shall be allowed to
continue in effect,
5) Operation of the beauty parlor stall be restricted to Wednesday,
Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of each week, during the
approximate hours of 9 A.M. to 5 P,M.
STAFF C4UENTS:
• None
�
�
. .
,
�
+
NOR M
E-4 60th AVE NO.
GRAINDV3EW omRIE BROWN .
PARK ELesomzj%,"x SCHOOL
^ A Vt'fr,,j S
CHVRCH
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORiNATION SHEET
• Appliration W 60053
Apps icent: Village Builders, Inc.
0(.-scription of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of
Outlot One, Northland Estates Addition,
and Part of Lot 37, Auditor's Subdivision
No� 309, (Approximately 831 - 73rd
Avenue North, between 73rd Avenue and
Woodbine Lane)
Property: Same as above
Owner of Property: Village Builders,, Inca
Homedale Builders, Inc,
BACKGROUND-
1) This property was originally included in the preliminary plat of
Northland Estates Addition, but only a portion of it remains as
Outlot One when the final plat was recorded.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The feasibility of the plat and its relation to future platting of
• property to the east. The plat proposed by Village Builders would
make four lots and two narrow outlots, the two narrow outlots
supposedly then being available for combination in a plat of the
unplatted area to the east,
STAFF COMMENTS:
1) Although the plat as proposed is a sufficient one, and the
combination of the two narrow outlots with a future plat to the
east is quite possible, the Village does not advocate the platting
of small unusable strips of land when their future is as unknown
as that of the two outlots in question, It is the recommendation
of the Staff that the division approved be for four 'lots only,
utilizing all of the property under consideration. If, in the
future, the owner of unplatted land to the east wishes to
purchase some of this land, it could be platted off the lots in
this plat at that time.
•
• PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No„ 66054
Applicant: Dayton Development Company
Description of Request: Site and building plan approval of a
"Bonanza Sirloin Pit" restaurant.,
Property: S.,E., roamer of the intersection of T,.Hz 4152
and 56th Avenue North (Part of Tract EQ
R,L,S: 4936)
Owner of Property Dayton Development Company
BACKGEOUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
13 Several points have not yet been resolved regarding the site plans
submitted; the Staff will be prepared to make a reronmendation to
you the evening of the meeting„
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application Noe 66055
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Mike Tisch
Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of
"Tisc;h's Addition"
Property: 1708 - 69th Avenue North
(Parcel 5600, Plat 89026)
Owner of Property: Same as above
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Adequacy of the plat - the plat is adequate in all respects
for the property involved,, and follows the trend of present
platting in the area,
2) The attached sketch map (with existing lines solid, and future
lines dashed),
• STAFF COMBOVTS:
1) Although the plat is adequate in meeting the standards of the
Platting and Zoning Ordinances, the Commission and Council should
be aware that the proposed platting of the former long lots in a
piecemeal, one at a time fashion, is an uneconomical way to plat,
in that utilities must be extended lot by lot. This type of platting
in this instance throws the burden of dedication of future Irving
Avenue on the last person to plat on the east. This may, however,
not be an undue burden, as the location of Irving Avenue has been
common knowledge for quite some timed Even with this "looking in"
so to speak, the most easterly property has a good deal of versatility,
in that the property could be divided into six single family lots,
4 duplex lots (as shown on sketch map), or 3 duplex lots and 2
single family lots, or certain other combinations of single family
and/or duplex lots. We have had a discussion with two property
owners, and there is a possibility a larger plat can be worked out.
For this reason, we would suggest a tabling of action on this
application,
2nK"V unommu
IDSI 4
PF
HIMN alINRAY
•
• PLANNING C0MMISSION INFORMATION SHE1i r
Application No:, 66056
Applicant- Lecon Properties
Description of Request:; Rezoning from Rt to B3
Property, That property lying generally within the follow.
ing bounds: F,AI. 994 on the south; Hwy, 9
152 on the west; 69th Avenue North on the
North; and Grimes Avenue on the East (Lots
1 through 4, Block 3,; Sunrise Manor Addition;
Lots 7 through 10, Block 2,, Sunrise Manor
Addition; Tract li,, R>L.S. #370; and that
portion of Tract At, R.L,S, #595 lying west
of the west line of Grimes Avenue North
extended
Owner of Property; Lecon Properties
BACKGROUND-
None
• POINTS TO BE CONSIIDERED
l) Although this may not have a bearing on the appropriateness of the
zoning proposed,; the immediate proposed use of the area designated
on the sketch map by heavy dashed and solid lines is for the Holiday
Oldsmobile dealership,
2) The zoning proposed is generally in accord with the proposals of the
Commission;, on both its land use and zoning maps, The applicant does
propose to extend the commercial zoning to the east slightly beyond
the point laid out by the Commission„ however-
I
•
ITAILOXAZHO MIT
cn
i ► T 0T Oi 4
x
a�
I
t �a
PLANNING COABUSSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No:. 66057
Applicant: Macey Sign Company
Description of Request: Variance to alter the existing pylon
sign at Lynbrook Shopping Center,
increasing the square footage of that sign:.
Property: Lot 1„ Block 1,+ Ewing Lane Addition
Owner of Property: N % C Realty,, 501 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota
BACKGROI.IUD
1) Macey Sign Company submitted an application (#65055) in the fail of
1965 :requesting that a monument type freestanding sign be allowed
to be placed on the grass strip between their property and Highway
4152„ This request was denied by the Council on October 11„ 1965,
because it was felt the masonry sign would constitute a visual
traffic hazard
2) Macey Sign Company made a second application for a freestanding sign
at Lynbrook Shopping Cente=r (465091) somewhat later in the year .
This application requested a freestanding sign for the green strip
between their parking area and Highway 4152, but was not a monument
type„ The .following action was taken by the Village Council on
November 8„ 1965:
"Motion by John Leary and seconded by Earl Simons to uphold the
recommendation of the Planning Commission on Application No. 65091
submitted by Macey Sign Company and tjrant a variance from Section
35330 of the Village Ordinance to permit a freestanding sign 8 feet
from the Osseo Road right a o.f--way and 40 feet south (along the right-of
way) of the 22 foot wide driveway entering 6215 Osseo [toad (Lot 1,
Block 1, Ewing Lane Addition);: said variance to meet the following
conditions:
1„ The sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in area on each
of the two sides,,
2, The greatest height of this sign shall not exceed 12 feet
above the centerline grade of Osseo Road at this point (center-
line grade equals 1361;,00 feet above sea level or 873 feet above
sea level.,
3< There shall be no sign message on the sign structure
between 861 feet above sea level and 868 feet: above sea level
(between 0 and 7 .feet above centerline grade),
• 4, The illumination shall be from ground mounted lights near
the sign which do not interfere with the safe use of the .
adjacent roadway,
Motion carried unanimously.,"
2�
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Since the time of the approval of the freestanding sign described
above, the sign has been installed and the tenants of the shopping
center have expressed a desire that the sign be improved by the
addition of the individual shop names and the addition of a Kroger
emblem along with some other minor revisions. These revisions
would increase the area of the sign to approximately 85 square
feet which would be well within the square footage limitations
which the Commission has envisaged in the forthcoming sign ordinance.
The present proposal of the sign ordinance would allow a free-
standing sign on each collector or arterial street the development
abutts, each sign not exceeding one percent of the gross floor
building area in the development or 250 square feet whichever is
smaller, and not more than 32 feet above ground level (gross floor
area in this case is 20, 120 square feet) , Individual establishments
within an integrated development would also be allowed signs.
STAFF COMMENTS
•
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66059
Applicant: Dayton Development Company
Description of Request: Variance from Section 35340 to allow
erection of three freestanding signs in
accordance with the drawings submitted.
Property: Brookdale Center
Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACKGROUND:
1) See the enclosed letter from Ralph Martinson
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) Temporary signs which are presently in place would be replaced by
these permanent signs,
2) The signs proposed are well within the standards of the proposed
sign ordinance,
II
T
A e AO 0
1.7.-'rnflia auiuing, gm Wpsf GZA Street, Fdms, ldi"n. Sb�35, T bi ne 92 4100
July 7, 1966
Mr. Robert Jensen, Chairman
".X.t,tz!r PlAnring oomm.-Imision
bror,�Cl.rn Center V1.11ase Fall
716'�' Opser Road
Broo'i0yri Co.riter, Minnesota 55430
S t!b j ec t: Permanent Sfte Fiigns - Brookdale 55boPping Center
CA-nt.leua-vi:
Because ! will not be able to attene the Planning. Camaission Meet-
ing or, Jivly 14 to discuss t?,f ;,ennxnanr site sjKris for the Brook
-
dale. ::hop-,iop. C:ent-r, I would 1-ke to review our propr�naL by letter.
lice_ site plan an submitted fniiicntws three site Fitirn's. 17nic to be
,ocatod near the present entrance to the shopping center from County
Road #10, the accond site sign to be located at the ontrance to the
thopping cpnter frehn 55th Street and Xer-,rrs Avenue North and tl',te
third 91te sign to be located immediately waibt ctf Shingle Cret-4 adj^-
C.T'nt to Hfghway 4.1m.
ApO n x
rOxj7j&rejy one I
Inttl rage you approved the location of a directional
• Sig' rt (jireCtijig, traffiC tf, tUT-r or. to Xerv, !3 Avemm to Brookdale Center
for west bound traffic, At that time, I stated tj-,,&t if we ever
7u,, iq site aign in this general area io-e would 1ncOVP*rAt41
di -raltze. thon
-rectimal. sign within the site sij;n. I dtd n,-,*t. r 11
thgt xje vDu'le, elect. to make the install*ttnn at this time. Wroevcr ,
Jr. svbst�qjuent discussions in mr officp ve now fets,l 16n'- Afould like to
P_ RiLe Pjj;Tj jtl thilS 1OC.►tiC_,1 and hAW, to inco, pOrAte the
dirmr tional Sig V
"n 1ehich You have ipproved into the sire 11m, 10
-tall tu*n ont
portic'n oi� the site Sign In a read,.-,r board end 4c. 0
er , I 1 0, 'k '"A
ling fn,,, 11'recticynel purpomea. '11hese sit:* Sig-,14 Will be ' 'IWAIII at
ran. ithe orte or CounLy Tkoad 010 and Vighve:y 0100 will be V-m-side4.
*7,,,�, sign -,j:i Wermaa Avtnu� North ,:ill be omae-0,do.d.
T" locatim of the 61,911-t cOTIfOrms to your new
it Staten that. to Site! gi
an Wt
zhctz-Ou3jjf*rO. Secondly, I believe the Berea is &M&*
Irt,,F rhan that vflaich your Ordinance will V+emtt. 71-,,erefo• e, V.-IN ye"
g;-pv. r.�Vully requeat that you apprcj.-e the instal lAtion of these u-i9fiff
11hwtk you for your confiieit ration,
y r n.6
D Ma
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SBEET
Application No, 66060
Applicant: Dayton Development Company
Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans for a
Goodyear tire and accessories store and
installation center,.
Property: N.W. corner of the intersection of Xerxes
Avenue and 55th Avenue North (Part of
Tract L„ R L.S. 9936)
Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
DACKGRO[NT)
None
POINTS TO DE CONSIDERED,
11 Several points have not yet been vesolved regarding the site plans
• submitted, the Staff will be prepared to make a recommendation to
you the evening of the meeting,
PLANNING C09HISSION I NF'OxiMai ON SHEET
Application W 66037
Applicant: OFMAC, Inc
Description of Request: Approval of plans of a service station and
issuance of a special use permit for the
service station operation.
Property: Lot 3, Block 1, proposed DEMAC Addition
Owner of Property: DEMAC, Inco (to be Texaco)
BACKGROUND.
1) Rezoning and a special use permit along with a preliminary plat
of the property, have been recommended by the Planning Commission,
but no plan approval of the station has yet occurred,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The usual greenstrip requirements are shown on the site plans submitted,
2) Sufficient parking spates are provided on the property.
3) No sign approval is being requested, as signing will be installed
at a future time in accordance with the proposed sign ordinance.
• 4) A recommendation to the State Highway Department would be in order
that the median strip be extended to prohibit crossing to the
easterly lanes of the Highway from this service station as was done
in the case of American Oil on the east side of Highway 19169.
5) No screening against the B3 mote! property has been shown, and it
is questionable whether it is necessary.
. Planning Coimission Agenda
August 4, 1966
AL"11 1,RCation loo_
1> Poll Call
2, BrooLdvle Car Wash (by Mehl Banta) 66061
Special Use Permit for a drive.-in car
e,jash including sales of automotive fuels
Approvai of site and building plans
Of the car wash
Bath for the property at the northeast cornea
of the intersection of Hwys 9152 and 55th
AYranue north (Part of Tract E, R.L.S. 6)
3, end?4r4_ s� C,eor Gerber 66062
Special Use Permit to alloo) use of the
home at 6400 Willosu Lame as a duplex
(Parcel 1210, Plat. 89036)
4, 11. J. laj4ke 66063
Variance ft opt Section 35402 to allow a
garage to be -hree feet from the side
tot line of the property rather than the
• 5 feet required, at 5907 Washburn Avenue
North (Lot 8, Block 4, Hipp's 4th Addition)
S. Richard j;jc ?? 66064
Variance from Section 35-310 to allow a
garage vitl! a I:loor area of 831 square
feet rather than the maximum of 660
square feet allowed by ordinance, on the
property Qt 7216 Fremont Avenue North
(Parcel. 5002, Plat 69104)
c , 3; citi iti sc. ? s�c! Su��e� meric� Stativ�h Deco 66030 (amended)
Pefo rred r acic to the Planning Commission by
-,c ion of the Village Council on May 16, 1966;
at the teavest of the applicants, to allots
cons idernit ion by the Planning co"Unission of a
revision of the request,
Special Use permission tto constrict and operate
a service station in accordance with Section 35-.320.
:special Use permission to allow retail sales at
a service station in accordance with the
requirements of Section 35-413,
Variance$ from Sections 35413 and 35704 relating,
respectfully, to the size of the Nate required
for a service station site, aHd a variauce on the
num!)eL o`" required parking spaces for the proposed
retail/service station use,
All for the property* at 5657 Logan Avenue North
(Pzrcel 4551, Auditor's Subdivision #213)
i
•
7. Iio►i:edale Builde-s 66050
Approval of the preliminary plans of a
pro,po sed apartment development
Variance from the density requirements of
Section 35-401 to allow construction of 276:
multiple dwelling units on the 15.22 acres
of land provided. %,
Boar for the property lying south W7 Hipp's 4th
and 5th Additions, between Xerxes; Avenue and
Shingle Q eek (Tract B., R.L.S. lg .1$6i).
•
•
PLANNING COMISSION INFOM,1ATION MEET
Application No. 66061
Applicant; Brookdale Car Wash (by Mehl' Banta)
Description o! Request: Special Use Perwit for a drive-•in establishment
(care wash) including the sales of automotive
fuel. Approval of plans for a car 'waSh.
Property: N.E. corner of intersection of highways #152
and 55th Avenue North
,vner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED.
1) Green areas along Highway IP152 and 55th Avenue North in some
places are less than 15 feet in width.
2) No sign plans have been submitted for consideration,
3) Mr. Banta has stated that the machinery in the car wash will
operate at a maximitm of 60 cars pe-,r hour, and has illustrated
stacking space for 52 cars in the :Vashlnq process or awaiting
ivashisig. Teti spaces are provided for employee parking.
STXF,--- 0011M.NITS:
1) As with other peripheral developme-,,its at Brookdale, the flaal
lease lines of this business should be wade into property lines
as soon as i5 practicable.
Our Zoning Ordinance does not specifically tame car washes into
i
accoun reUarding parking requiremants. They appare-'-.tly- would
fall into the tategory ot:
"Uses r.ot covered by this lls-t:
Spaces as required for thfa most similar use
or &s determined by the Planning Comm-iss iolt."'
of Section 35-7011. Mr. Poss has reviewed the plans subzaitted and
recommends that the Commission find that the number of parRing
spaces and stocking space provided is sufficient for the use
proposed.
r.
I'�
1 0 '
JAY'S
tSTATEL . �:K DR=VE—yl+i
#66062
Ssh AVE.
-- e4
BMAMA
SF$r Ill.:X pIT
r t
� 1 BROOMALE
r----'"1 �, �.�� ate'•
CENTER
'its � `� �►
SUPER ETTE �
7
CTOOIDYFAR
✓� T.B.t-
. µ BR4i+LE, .i
CAR APPLIANCE
t l
�4
ti
•
PLPAINING COiJiMISSION I1VFOIR.MkTION SiEff
Applicvtio a No. 66062
Applicont: Nr. and Mrs. George Gerber
Description of Request: Special Use Permit for ai duplex dwelling use
in a single family residential area.
Property: 6400 Willow lane (Parcel 1210, Plat 89036)
Owner of Property: Same as above
BACKGROUND:
1) The subject property is a one aere tract with the Mississippi :fiver
to xts east, apartments to its west (across a street) and other
single family homes to its not th and south, most of the others
also oa one acre tracts. The building the property consists
of a first story and a basement saitable for habitation.
POINTS TO BE WNSIiD ERM, :
1) Standards for Special lases of Secwion M-4231.Sa -rF CGWMS:
1) In he. Most recent past applications for special use perwitu for
duplexes in an Rk zone, the Village Council, decicred as v,ajor
points that
a) no buffer use was necessary
b) properties were surrounded by single Zamdly hctr_es
c) the use coup, substantially lower su;:rourding property
values (See Minutes of dune 8 and 16 and Resolution 66--170)
Further, during the discussion of these zpplications, it rAas
sta Cd that it vias the responsibility of the applicant to prove
'that his duplex use would not create problems erurmarated in he
"Star=da ds "or Special. Use Permits" of the Zoning Ordinance;
if this interpretation is still in effect, the present applica3:t
has feilcd to meet it.
<) tar. Murphey, Building inspector:, has inspected the l;uildings on
this 1?3:operty, and lies made comments it the at= ached "tiemora idum.
•
• REMO TO: Planning Cc-.-mission
FROM: J. R. Murphey, Building Inspector
SUBJECT: Special Use Permit •- 6400 Willow Lane
Dti�F: July 28, 1966
I have inspected the house at 6400- Willow Lane in view of a change in
Its use Biassificatlon to a two family dwelling and I find the followinc,
conditions:
1 The floor area in each of the twm level: ex^eels the
minimum _requirements;
2) 'she number of exits or means of egress are sati.,_factory;
3) The ceiling height conforms to code requirements;
4) The light and ventilation is sufficient for the living
roor but is not adequate for the bedrooms or the kitchen;
S) A mechanical ventilator could be installed in the bathroom.
to comply with the Building Code;
• 6; Ti3ere are some non-conforming conditions that should be
changer._ such as: the grease pit in the garage should be closed,
a 6 inch high concrete curb should be installed around the
staii!wc 1, a gua .d rail should be installed around the stair
and 1--here should be a one-hour fire resistive separntion
between the house and the gar�ige.
.'tae noa-coi._*&: iing conditions hav€: been alloried to continue because
Vie o (jiikal Str.uCwUre ?°las built and Occupied Prior to the arloption of
the code a:rg-:iid+raats but comp n ianc.: ;1?th the coda could be one of the
co:i' is ics:.w
of th.,u SDeCial uSe perMit or if confoVMatace tn_ :311 regUirementu
seers uil easo ablo, variances could be z�pprovedo
•
a '��
•
SINN
APART- VACM
65th
(6440) �
It � /�
(6424) H
vocalit
(6408) 13
X00
v ca
( o
if wVZ':i L 4 `r�A�
�J
Vacant
(6352)
T.a.
P.A.1. #94
A
S
,3
a
r
•
PLANNING CO149 USSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No, 66065
Applicant: W. J,, Hawkes
Description of Bequest: Variance from Section 354402 to permit a garage
to be three feet from the south side property
line instead of the required 5 feet.
Property: 5907 Washburn Avenue North
(Lot 8, Block 4, Hipp's 4th Addition)
Owner of Property: Same as above
BACKGROLM:
1) Mr. Hawkes' present garage is 20 feet to the rear of his house
and three feet from the side lot line,. He would like to build
an addition to his house to its rear, which would there be 8 feet
from the garaged According to the Ordinance, if a garage is
20 feet or more away from the house, it may be three feet from
• the property line; if less than 20 feet;, it must be 5 feet from the
side lot line, hence this request for variance.,
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The standards for variances set out in Section 35•=221 of the
Village Ordinance,
STAFF COMM:
None
•
• PL.UNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66064
Applicant: Inter City Builders for
Richard Wickman
Gescr:ipciota of Request: Variance from Section 35-310 to allow the
addition of a 22 x 24 detached garage to the
present 14 x 22 detached garage, the area of
which (£3a sq< 1t.) will exceed the 660 square
foot Maximum.
Property: 7216 Eremint Avenue North
(North 64 feet of south 3v5 feet except
street of Lot 45, Auditor's Subdivision
3309, Parcel 5 02)
Owner of Property: Richard Wiclanan
DACKGROUDD:
1) The applicant presently has a 14' x 22' garage. fie proposes to
add to this existing structure an additional 22' f 24' garage,
giving as Iris reason for wishing to exceed the 660 square foot
limitation of the Ordinance that the present garage is too anali.
• Pt)DUS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) in the most recent variance application (r,66940) for an oversized
garage, the fol.lo.ving action was taken by the Council :
"After dare consideration of the reco-mmertlatioaa:l and cfl: melts
offered, meraber Earl Simons movad and ar ;rhea: flowcotd Heck secolided
that the Council find tl:at because the zoning orLdlnauce does not
recognize a popular and acceptable type of residelitia' coazstTuc :ian
the garage/patio, that a hardship does in fact exist;, clad hereby
grz ats a variance from Section 35-310 00 to (perr,.i: t the construction
of a 24' <� 32' garage/patio uith n a area of 768 square feet, rathor
thau the required 660 square feet of floor area, un t ire FT0V3Y ,y
located at 7013 Drew Avenue Nortt'a, legally described as Lot 8, Black
2, Pnl aer Lake 'Terrace Addition. Motion carried unatairously."
Although the application in that case proposed us ng r, portion of
the garage for outdoor living area, it may have s pane imPortarce
in this case as well,
2) The proposed accessory building (836 square fee! will be larger
than the primary building (672 square feet). It is pass lbl
Pt some 'Future date that the area bo iaet; the exist:r.g 310z:7e and
,,'sae proposed garage could be fillod in w th ad lit: onc3. structure,
t �ezeby iomo�rin the treed for this variance, as there ws M rr�axipxx
•
area
size �fV �or a !louse other than those irlpo;ed by setbacks znd floor
- _
I
• -2-
STAFF ODM147WS:
1) Again, I refer to the most recent application of this type
( 40) from which the following Staff Comments were taken:
"Judging by the increasing number of requests regarding the
construction of garage/patio or garage/proch combinations, it may be
that the ordinance itself should be altered. This, of course, is
something the Planning Commission and Village Council must decide,
The variance is an inappropriate tool in this respect, and if
it is felt that a change should be made in the Zoning Ordinance,
this could be accomplished by adding accessory buildings larger
than 660 square feet in area to the category of special uses in
an RI zone,, This would then provide rev.iewal of these larger
structures as is doge presently in the variance procedure."
2) The applicant should be asked about the specific purpose to which
he proposes to put this large garage, and restrictions on the
type of hones occupations permitted explained.
•
I
•
j j
u TAEC
e
•
k'I.,itNING COMMISSION I WOMIATION SHEET
i Applicatzon No. 66030
Applicant: Donald Mason and Superameric Stations, Inc.
Description of Request: Special Tise permission to co=struct an,,! operate
a service station in accordance with
Sectior_ 35..320.
Special Use permission to allow retail sales
at a service station in accordance with
the requirements of Section 35-413.
Variances from Sect-ion 35-413 and 35-704
relating, respectively, to the size of the
site required for a service station site, and
a variance on the number of required parking
spaces for the proposed retail.;service
station tise.
Property: 5657 Logan Avenue North (Parcel 4551. Aud.
Scab� V'21f?)
(hvDer of Property: Donald Mason
BACKGROUND:
1) Application 1*6030 was initially submitted April 18, 1966, and was
• heard by the Planning Commission on I,Iay 5, 1966. The Commission
recommended denial of the application as it was there drawn as follows:
"Motion by Ausen, seconded by Bogucici, to ecoamiend to the VillaVe
Council tlsat aPplication 966030 be denied .far the fo11o49 rr9 .reasons:
1) :`.fie area of the property is sulos•tantialJ. ?cos th�?tt
':oat necessitated by the requirements of the Zoninfj
Ordinance for the s )ecial .ase proposed.
n Tiiis prODOXtV, although zoned commercially, is
in-omediately adjacent to a single family residential
Boning district and is ina propriate for -this type
of use.
3) The proposed use at to is l ,cation does not meet th�j
tlst�iadards for Special Use Pel::itits'' s>It out tt ti uoillllg
fotiot= carried unanimously with Mr., Crosshens abstai;iing.t.
2) The Vili_ctre Council, at its May 16th Lweting, was requested by the
applicant to allOW hi:r to arend and revise Application �6,&G-30 so
;.:feat it cuu d be re-heard by the Pl ann- inn Coma-issi.ota. A Motion
taaaw made <;tc1 passed to allow the application to do th13.
POINTS TO BE CONSTD13RED:
%) The following standards for the issuance of special use permits
of Section 35--231:
"Section -35-231, STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS. A special
use permit may be granted by the Village Council when recommended
by the Planning Comtaission after demonstration by evidence that:
to The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special
use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare;
2� The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoy-
ment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the
purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood;
3� The establishment of the special use will not impede the
normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding
property for uses permitted in the district;
4. Adequate utilities, access goads drainage and necessary
.facilities have been or will be provided;
5, Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide
ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic
congestion in the public streets; and
b. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to
the applicable regulations of the district in which it
is located.
The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Village Council may
stipulate such conditions and restrictions upon the establishment,
location, construction, maintenance, and operation of the special
use as deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest
and to secure compliance with the requirements specified in this
ordinance. In all cases in which special uses are granted„ the
Village Council shall require such evidence and guarantees as it
may deem necessary as part of the conditions stipulated in connection
therewith as are being and will be complied with."
2) The following standards for the granting of variances:
"Section -221 STANDARDS FOR VARIANCES. The Village Council may
vary the regulations of this ordinance when supporting evidence
in each specific case indicates that:
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape,
or topographical conditions of the specific parcel of land
involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result
as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict
letter of the regulations were to be carried out;
• 2. The conditions upon which the petition for a variance is
based are unique to the parcel of land for which the
variance is sought and one not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification;
i
3. The purpose of the variations is not based exclusively upon
a desire to increase the value or income lvtential of the
parcel of land;
4. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the provisions
of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons
presently or formetly having an interest in the parcel of
land;
5o The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the
,public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements
in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located;
and
b, The proposed variance will not impair an adequate supply
of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially
increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase
the danger of fire„ or endanger the public safety, or
substantially, dimish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
The Village Council may impose such restrictions and conditions upon
the premises benefited by a variance as may be necessary to comply with
the standards establisiied by this ordinance, to reduce or minimize
the effect of such variance upon other properties in the neighborhood,
• and to better carry out the intent of the variance."
With reference to t",L wu variances required,. the dimensior_s of a
service station site as per the Ordinance is a minimum of 120' by
M' , The number of parking spaces required for the use proposed
with its 1,,750 square .feet of gross floor area is 18, using the
standards for retail stores of 11 spaces for the first 1,000 square
feet and 9 spaces for each additional 1,000 square feet,
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Caeh of the four requests should be reviewed against the standards
laid out above Following the public hearings on the requests, a
separate motion should be made on each of the four requests, following
the general fort given below, The motion need not contain mention of
those standards which are obviously irrelevant to the request,
Motion on Special. Use for service station ---
"Notion by seconded by that the Planning
Commission finds that the granting of the special use permission for
a service station at 5657 Logan Avenue North as requested in Application
466030, as amended,
• 1) (would be or would not be) detrimental to or endanger the public
health, safety, morals, comforts or general welfare;
2) (would be or would not be) injurious to the use and enjoyment of
other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already
permitted, and (would or would not) substantially diminish and
impair property values within the neighborhood;
3) (would or would not) impede the normal and orderly development
and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the
district;
And further firms, that:
A) adequate utilities, access roam, drainage and necessary facilities
(have or have not been) or.(will or will not be) provided;
5) adequate measures (have or have not been) or twill or will not be)
taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize
traffic congestion in the public streets;
6) the special use (does or does not) (will or will not) in all
other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the
district in which it is located (except as varied by action of
the Planning Commission and {tillage Council according to
• variance procedure)
And, as a result of these findings, recommends to the Village Council
that the request for special use permission to construct and operate
a service station operation at 5657 :.organ Avenue !North be (approved
or denied),"
Motion on Special Use for retail sales at a service station --
If the service station was denied in the first motion, this second
motion should have an opening phrase such as: "No service station
speexal use permission has been granted for the subject property at
5657 Logan Avenue North" before the findings and recommendation are
made. Then, follow with: "The Commission rir0s, however, that if
such a special use were in effect, the Planning Commission would
find that the granting of special use permission for retail sales
of the type proposed, in conjunction with a service station,; would:
1)
2)
3)
and the:sefore, the Planning Commission recommends to the Village
Council that the request for special use permission to allow retail
sales at a service station site as contained in Application V66030 be
denied,"
•
I
If the service station special use was approved, a separate finding
should still be made on the second special use request, for retail
sales at a service station site,.
Motion on Variance relating to dir.ensions of the proposed site
follow a format similar to the special uses, with findings first and
a recommendation following„
Motion on Variance relating to required parking for the use proposed
same as above„
I
5712
APP o 66030
nGY' a1 :"OU}C driveway (amended)
W
cr°s !
WI.RF.T i
sr?rvice 1900
.3tation l AOR
• 57th AVENUE
5657
L- !
f �
`s6 0 K !
I '
Ij
15642
S f"q
i
Aa
HOUSE
ET7L, .. ._ _,
57 4
i iv
DRIVE
mo.'s{�y J1.�_,.�pµ•`, ,+n;,+p �` ; ��£�tl�� � yJ M�
r,. �JM F/f Qy�..."���Jet Y+'.n � (x�{ � f�d.f Atr��,�. �r F A.f1+i.T ^� "•r
A ±� .�fi ie�sra:uX+,�:•ar.�.awacec ti.�a�'axr,<.�.r,)...:..`!C.e�u aat r,,, /l
I,
PLAVI►IING COMMISSI0N IMF'fUATION SHEET
Application No. 66050
Applicant: Homedale Builders
Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plans of a
proposed apartment development. Variance from
the density requirements of Section 35-401 to
allow construction of 276 multiple dwelling
units on the 1522 acres of land provided.
Property: Tract B, A.L.S. X1186
Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACKGROUND:
1) This application was heard by the Commission at its June 30, 1966,
meeting. It was tabled following the closing of the public hearing
that evening to allow the Commission sufficient time to study pertinent
issues.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The number of units which would presently be allowed on the 8-B
zoned land in accordance with the -oni:ng Ordinance would be 246
versus the 2 76 presently proposed by the developers.
2) Refer to the Planning Commission Agendas of March 3rd stud April 14th
for memos referring to a similar variance request 066005).
I
III
I
1
5 9t t AVENUE NORTH
1
PROPOSED AFARTMEIV'T SITE _----_..
(15.22 acres)
Tract S, R.L.S.#1186
f
f --� b u URT; ROADWAYS /
COMERCIAL
�
USES
s FUTURE COMMERCIAL USES
METRO. � �� j � BROOKDALE
WSM-1. FORD
CO. RD. 410 � �+
� I �
Planning Commission Agenda
September 1, 1966
� Iication No.
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes
Regular Meeting of August 4, 1966
Special Meeting of August 25, 1966
3. IDLayton Development Company 66060 (revised)
Returned to the Planning Commission by
the Village Council at the request
of the applicant to allow for revision
of his plans and ap,,)Iicat-,on.
Approval of site and building plans for a
Goodyear retail store and automotive
service center, and approval of site
and building plans for a "Brookdale
Superette" retail slt.ore, located at
5501 to 5515 Xerxes Avenue .
• 4. Mr. and Mrs. geo,
C-2e_Gerber 66062
Tab'ed by the Planning Commission at its
August 4th meeting to determine whether
the applicant wished to proceed with his
request.
Request for a special use permit to allow use
of the hovie at 6400 Willow Lane as a duplex
dwelling.
Mr. Gerber has noted on his application that he
would like to withdraw his application.
5. Evans-Nor dbv Funeral Ho-me 66065
Variance from Section 35-315 to allt`w erection
of a freestanding sign at 600() Ocaeo Road.
6 . Mrs. Mabel Stewart 66067
Variance from Section .15-104 to allow
a subdivision of land without. a plat.
at 520 - 62nd Avenue North.
i
® �
i
��
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 660s0 (revised)
Applicant: Dayton Development Company
Description of Request: Approval of site and buildi ng plans
for a Goodyear retail store anl
automotive service center, and
approval of silte and building plans
for a "Brookdale Suoerettell retail
store.
Property: 5501 to 5515 Xe--xe.,s Avenue North
(Part of Tract E, 10).L.S. 093G)
Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACKGROUND:
1) The Planning Commission, on July 19th, recorvamended denial
of Application #66060, -Which at that time �fequestad approval
of the plans of the Goodyear facility alone (including
a request for a variance to allov., sub,,;-tan tial ly� faver
parking spaces than would be required by the Zoning
Ordinance) , When the applicants appeared before the
Village Council for action on that. applicat-ion, they
• requested that the application be referred back t-o the
Planning Commission for review of revised plazas incor-
porating the Goodyear operation wit-h a 1_)rol,_:�osed S-upe-rette .
Such revision is now ready for review.
POINTS TO BE CGINTSI'DERED:
1) ahirty-six parking spaces have beel-li de-li.-tseated for the 50
Loot by "110 foot superette, and sixty-one spaces are shown
_.oar the Goodyear portion of the propert-.y.
2) he superette and Goodyear would share an entrance onto
'"erxes Avenue rather th,--tn having two se,_,ara-te cur;:) cuts .
All other access would he from private roaflw-ays.
3) It is our unders-IL-anding that these t�,'Fo bus-i.nesses will
exist on separate Tracts of a future Registe--ced Lard
Survey.
4.) No request for freestanding signe-ry is under cc-nvideration
at this time .
S'I'AFF C01CA6ENTS:
As we stated when this application was pre s. ously before the
Commission, it is the Staff Is opinion and 3=ecol-m17end c^-ion
that in the absence of a sp-acific category into Which a
T.B.A. operaticn would fit, the fol.1owing reasoni.nq shoulCl
be applied relat-llag to required parkii-Ig.
�I
�,
!I
i
J
M
-2-
a) The 4300 square foot retail area of the Goodyear store
provide spaces as required for retail stores .
b) The service bay area provide 3 parking spaces for each
service bay, one of which can be in each bay.
c) That parking spaces be provided by the superette as
per retail store requirements for its 3500 square foot
of area.
Thus, for Goodyear, 41 spaces for the retail portion plus
20 (30 minus 10) for the service bay area should be required
for a total of 61. A total of 34 (actually 33.5 rounded)
• should be required for the superette .
The superette has provided 36 spaces and Goodyear has
supplied 71 (including 10 inside spaces) , for a total of
107 spaces combined, while 106 are the number required.
I
•
•
aROOKL.YN CENTER LDRIW-IN l
STATE BANK I
56th AVE. #66060
fMAIWA i
STRLDUt PIT k
BE.STAURA14gT j
1
S
\_1
BRo®!D AL.E
-- e CE�i`TER
® RETTE
i CUt 3Y EAR
\� T.B.A, s� \
BRlti?�.E.
CAR APPLIANCE
MAC STORE
�-
Nit n
a,
�I
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66065
Applicant: Keith Nordby for Evans-Nordby
Funeral Home
Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-315 to allow
erection of a free-standing sign.
Property: 6000 Osseo Road
(Parcel 4720, Aud. Sub. #216)
Owner of Property: Evans-Nordby Funeral Home
BACKGROUND:
1) The funeral home is located on an RB zoned property, which
zoning presently allows the following signs per Section
35-315 :
"c. Unlighted nameplates not exceeding one square foot in
area, with a 24 inch maximum for any dimension, bearing
the name of the occupant of a residence; and bulletin
boards for churches and identifying signs for schools or
other public or semi-public institutions not exceeding
• 30 square feet in area with a seven-foot Maximum for
any dimension.
d. Unlighted real estate "For Sale" or "For Rent" signs not
exceeding two square feet in area, with a 24-inch
maximum for any dimension.
2) The sign for which approval is being sought has an area of
42 square feet (60 square feet if considered to be solid
from the ground up) , and would be placed approx:Lmately 45
feet from the intersection of 60th Avenue North, centered
on the doorway of the mortuary on the green strip adjacent
to the highway right-of-way. The applicant's contention is
that his business needs identification in addition to the
present small sign on the wall of the building to make
known his location to potential customers and to persons
unfamiliar with the area who may be attending funerals.
POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The sign would be of a "monument" type, with little or no
clear space between ground level and the top of the sign.
This type of sign appears to be common among churches and
mortuaries.
2) Approval for a similar monument type sign was sought by
the Lynn Brook Shopping Center at 627.5 Osseo Road in
September of 1965, but was denied by the Planning
Commission and Council primarily as a result of the staff
assertion that monument signs close to the roadway would
constitute a visual obstruction for traffic, even though
the sign was to be placed 40 feet from the driveway to
the shopping center.
e
•
..2_
• 3) A monument sign of a similar type exists presently diagonally
across the intersection of 60th and Osseo Road at Cross of
Glory Church. The sign is approximately 5 feet from the
highway right-of--way, has approximate dimensions of 4 feet
in height and 8 feet in width, and an area of 32 square feet.
STAFF C014MENTS a
i } My personal opinion, after having had an opportunity to see
the sign which was eventually installed at Lynn Brook
Shopping Center, is that the monument sign, if it had been
approvers, would not have constituted a hazard to traffic,
as the distance from the driveway to the sign is sufficient
to allow traffic entering onto and coming off the highway
to see what traffic movements are occurring. This type of
sign does seem to be pleasing in design, and the proposed
sign ordinance as presently drafted would allow a monument
type sign to be used by public and semi.-public places and
by us as in the Cl zone, such signs to be limited to 8 feet
in height and 35 square feet in area. I would suggest
that we include some restriction as to the distance
from any driveway, property line, or street intersection,
the monwi,ent type sign may be placed,and acknowledge
explicitly in the sign ordinance that requirements for
visual clearance between the sign and the ground do not
apply to these signs. It might- also be advisable in the
• case of monument signs to state that the entire profile of
the sign will be considered sign area, so as to include the
"structur4 " of the sign as well as its message,
I
I
I
i
• ICI
I
i
i
i� —MOWL
(60rz)
(6019) siF '�, , A
1 g
1 MORTUARY
(6013)
60th Aver
(6007)�,._.l
• ----.._..,.�' _..� ' s i� (5 X54) .
(6001) ! ' �{ a
(.5960)
60th Avenue
a a. l
(5950)
t
Cross of Glory
Church 1
6 ,
t1
1
�r
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
• Application No. 66067
Applicant: Mrs. Mabel Stewart
Description of Request: Variance from Section 15-104 to
allow a subdivision of land without
a plat.
Property: 520 - 62nd Avenue North (Parcels
5010 and 5200, Plat 89036)
Owner of Property: Same
BACKGROUND:
3 ) When the .Merry View Addition to the north of these
properties was platted, access to 62nd Avenue was
gained by dedication of Camden Avenue north of 62nd
Avenue, this portion of roadway was 50 feet in width,
30 feet of which came from the west side of parcel 5101,
leaving a lot width of 45 feet. This 45 foot remnant
would provide the base for a 75 foot wide lot to be
gained by resubdivision of the subject parcels.
• POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:
1) The platting ordinance requires 90 foot wide corner lots
with a minimi.uu depth of 110 feet; Mrs. Stewart proposes
to resubdivide the two properties in her possession which
now form a tract approximately 176 ' x 185 ' into two lots
with dimensions of 75 ' x 1851 (corner lot) and 101 ' x 185 '
(lot on which her house is built at 520 - 62nd Avenue North .
2) Two reasons for wishing o tat as shown are that a buyer
er
P y
is interested in the 75 foot wide lot, and Mrs. Stewart
wants to keep existing trees on her property.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1.) An argument can be made easily for or against the proposed
division as follows
a) For - The predominant platting of corner lots in the
area is in 75 to 78 foot wide lots, with depths ranging
from 123 ' to 1351 . The 75 foot corner lot which is
proposed follows this general platting character, but
provides a lot at least 50 feet longer than the others.
b) Against - The platting of the property into 75 foot
corner lots was done in the past, and cannot now be
changed; we need not continue the practice. Mrs.
Stewart has sufficient land to plat the pland into a
90' wide corner lot- and still leave her homestead 85
feet in width.
•
G0 G 7
COURT
622 0
Nrl
LJ
L -1
E�l
k
x
�-- • k
4
Planning Commission Agenda
September 29, 1966
QUSURt Yt 0[i �0
1. Roll Call
2q EMAC, Inc. 66037
Consideration of freestanding signs as a portion
of a service station special use permit at the
northwest corner of the intersection of 66th and
Lyndale Avenues forth.
3o aiscussion of the public hearing held September 220 1966
regarding the proposed Sign Ordinance.
4, E_v_ensR-N�r+���, unexal Home 66065
Consideration of a variance to allow a .free
S«t,ont i n-g shin on the property at 600(3 Osseo Road,
The application was tabled by the Commission at
. its September 1st meeting to allow discussion of
the request following the hearing on the proposed
Sian Ordinance, (Refer to the September 1. 1966,
planning Commission Agenda)
5o Thomas Hodne of Iiodne Associates
Mr. flodne will be present at 10:00 P.M. to discuss
the possibility of compensation to has firm for the
completed "701" study beyond that covered by his
contract with the Village.
•
PLANNING CONWISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66037
Applicant: JLNIAC, Inc.
Jescription of Request: Approval of freestanding signs in conjunction
with the proposed service station use,
Property: Northwest corner of 66th and Lyndele
Avenues North (Lot 3, Block 1, J&AC Addition).
Wner of Property: JENAC, Inc
BACKGROUNJ:
1) The rezoning, special use, and plan approval requests of JEMAC
concerning the proposed service station was granted by the
Village Council on September 12, 1966. Specifically exempted
from the approvals was freestanding signery for the station site.
The reason for exempting signery from the approval was to avoid
the development of a sign ordinance by piecemeal actions rather
• than comprehensive overview of the entire situation now being
taken by the Planning Commission in its preparation of a Sign
Ordinance, The future operator of the station site, Texaco,
wishes da AC to proceed to request approval of freestanding
signs, hence this amendment to Application 466037.
POINTS TG BE CONSIJORE,):
1) The applicant proposes to install one freestanding sign 24 feet
in overall height and +/-170 square feet in area 10 feet from
the north property line adjacent to Highway 4169,:
2) A second freestanding sign is requested adjacent to 66th Avenue.
North, 16V feet in height overall and a sign area of f/ 2305
square feet.
3) The provisions in the present draft of the proposed sign ordinance
provide that a service station could have the following:
"Section 3-_1104 (a)
2. Drive-in establishments and motels may have all signs
specified above for other individual establishments, except
that there may be only one free-standing sign. It may
extend 24 feet above around level and shall not exceed 250
square feet. If the establishment is at the intersection
of two major streets, there may be a second free-standing
sign not exceeding 64 square feet in area and 20 feet in
height„"
Therefore if the provisions of the proposed ordinance were now
in effect, and 66th Avenue North were designated a "major street",
the two signs described above would be allowed„ Mr. €'oss has
not yet developed a list of "major thoroughfares" or "major streets",
but it is his opinion that when such a list is developed, 66th
Avenue, from Bryant to Lyndale, will be on that list.
•
Y .
Planning Commission Agenda
October 6, 1966
Ap,Dlication No.
1, Roll Call
2, bpg
_j�oval -at Minutes
Regular Meeting September 1, 1966
Special Meetings September 22 and 29, 1966
3. Richard Rocksted 66066
Rezoning from RI �sinqle family residential) to
RB (residential business) of the property at
6045 Osseo Road (the southwest corner of the
intersection of 61stAvenue and Osseo Road) .
4. Walter Skinner 66068
Variance from Section 35-310 to allow construction
of a 24' x 32' garage, in excess of the 660 square
feet permitted.
• The property involved is at 7100 Indiana Avenue (Lot 11,
Block 2, Northbrook Manor 4th Addition) ,,
5,,, John D. Sheehan 66069
Rezoning f-rom R5 (multiple residence) to )32 (regional
business) .
Issuance of a service station special use permit.
Both for the property at 6501 Humboldt Avenue North
(northwest corner of the intersection of 65th and
Humboldt Avenues Xo�rth)
6. Donald Ylortenson 66070
Variance from Section 35-401 to allow construction
of a carport/tool storage area 3 feet from the side
lot line rather than the required 5 feet.
The property involved is 4612 - 65th Avenue North (Lot
10, Block 7, Northqate Addition) .
7. Bergstrom Investment Co. 66071
Approval of site and building plans for an apartment
development.
The property involved lies along 67th Avenue between
Humboldt and Emerson Avenues (parts of Blocks 1, 2,
and 3, Hi Crest Square Addition) .
r
i
•a
8.. Red Owl. Scores Inc__ 66072
Approval of the site plan of the proposed Iced Owl
food store operation.
For the property generally bounded by Osseo Road, 55th
Avenue, Xerxes Avenue, and Highway #100.
9. Smestad and Engquast Construction Co. 66073
Special Use permission to allow construction of
two duplexes on the property at 3907 and 3913
52nd Avenue.
10. Frank Conlon 66074
Variance from Section 35-401 to allow construction
of an addition to the existing 'house to be 5 Feet
from the west property line rather than the required
10 feet.
The property involved is at 7001 Regent Avenue North
(Lot 13, Block 4, Miller' s Willow Lane Second addition) .
PLANNING COMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
• Application 'No, 66066
Applicant: Richard Rocksted, agent for the owner
Jescription of Request: Rezoning to RB from the present RI zoning
classification,
Property: 6045 Osseo Road (southwest corner of the inter-
section of 61st Avenue and Osseo Road - Parcel
3120, Plat 90090)
Owner of Property: Ben 11, Holmes
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIJEREJ:
1) The planning consultant, in preparing a recommended comprehensive
plan for the Village, suggested that the future use of this
;property be walk--up multiple dwelling. At the same time, he
recommended that the property to the south be left single family
residential, and the property to the north across 61st Avenue
be "planned development area", To the north of the "planned
• development area" was proposed another walk -up multiple dwelling
area (the Chrysler property) ,
2) The zoning district on a proposed zoning map now before the
Council alter the proposed Plan somewhat, inthat the Chrysler
property is general commercial rather than multiple dwelling;
the property to the south of it is tentatively proposed to be
commercial offices; and the property in this application (including
an existing apartment) is designated single _family residential,
3) The primary question involved with this application is whether
or not commercial service office uses are appropriate at this
location on the Osseo Road as they are on many other Osseo Road
properties both North and south of this one.
4) The immediate use of this ;property, if rezoned, is as a beauty
shop, A site playa has been submitted showing how parking and
access will be dealt with,
•
•
b #66066
Zenu
Ewina Lane
1
Chrysler Property
Y P.B.C. Clinic
zoned X33 RB zone
- RB
Burger RB
King
Park -° 82 Apart.
r
service e
61st Avenue station
B3
a
to e Apart. a
_ azoned? B3
> servic
Apart. statio
,. iby spec. H3 b
Ln RB
Commodore Drive � - RB
mortuary
RB
' s
r � f
•
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHELL
Application No 66068
Applicant: Walter Skinner
Jescription of Request: Variance from Section 35-310 to allow construction
of a 24' x 32' garage, in excess of the 660
Square feet nermitted:.
Property: 710,0 Indiana Avenue North
(Lot 11, Block 2, Northbrook Manor 9th Addition)
Owner of Property: Walter Skinner
BACKGR( UNd:
None
POINTS TO BE GONSIJEREJ:
1) Another application for an oversize garage (466040) was approved
earlier this year with almost identical conditions present. The
Planning Commission, on that request, recommended approval
(June 2nd Minutes) but also recommended that such uses be provided
for in the new Zoning Ordinance- The Council approved (June 8th)
the application in the following manner:
•
"After due consideration of the recommendation and comments
offered, member Earl Simons moved and member Howard Heck seconded
that the Council find that because the zoning ordinance does not
recognize a popular and acceptable type of residential construction ,r
the paragejpatio, that a hardship does in fact exist, and hereby
grants a variance from Section 35--310(f) to permit the construction
of a 24' x 32' garage/patio with an area of 761 square feet, rather
than the required 660 square feet of floor area, or the property
located at 7013 Jrew Avenue North, legally described as Lot 8,
Block 2, Palmer Lake Terrace Addition. Motion carried unanimously."
2) A second useful. reference is Application 466064 by Richard
:Vickrnan� Mr, Wickman requested permission, to build an oversize
garage also, but withdrew his request at a spirited public hearing
before the Planning Connission on August 4th, The comments
contained in the "Ji.aicigue" of that meeting give insight into
the Commission's thinking on this subject„
STAFF CIONIMENTS:
1) As was stated in a previous .Agenda in relation to Application
966040 mentioned above, the variance is not the appropriate tool
for such requests, If it is felt that garages larger than 660
square feet should be allowed, they could be placed in the permitted
or special use categories in an R1 zone. Planning Commission and
Council review would still be required if they were treated as
special uses„ but the standards applied would be more appropriate
than are those for variances, which are based on hardship. ghat
in essence is now ~lone, is that these requests for variances are
bci-ig judged in the light of "detr:iiwent." as in the special use standards,
rather than "hardship" as in the variance standards.
466068
• 40'
20,
16'
5
97.9'
_.___1_2-4 e —T-8
—------7--L-
94
40 'i
240
25'
35'
PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET
Application No. 66069
• Applicant: John J. Sheehan
Description of Request: rezone to 82; issuance of a special use
permit for a service station,
Property: 6501 Humboldt Avenue North
(northwest corner of 65th and Humboldt
Avenues North _ see legal description on file)
Owner of Property: John J. Sheehan
BAGKGROCAVi.D:
1) This property is a portion of the "Brown Farm" which has been
studied from a planning point of vied in the "Urban Community"
study, and during the "701" study leading to a comprehensive
plan for the Village, In the more recent of these, the
Planning Consultant proposed that the property contained in
this application be put to multiple dwelling use, and this was
effectuated in the fall of 1965 in a rezoning of the farm
property. The present zoning of this property is R5 (multiple
family residence) with I2 (industrial park) to its west and
south, P.5 to its north, and R1 to its east,.
• POINTS TO BE CONSIJE1%W, :
l) The reasonableness of the present R5 zoning, based on previous
planning.
2) The issuance of a special use permit for a service station on
the property based on the standards for special use permits.
s
466069 _
I
R5 coning r
Q
12 zoning
a
Brooklyn Center
High School
>
sp
!
site
65th Avenue North
f >
"
Jf
PLANNING ("01A MISSION INF OM.IIAl I ON Dui;
to,;�i iCai i 3t3 tvu 0.6070
• Apol icalit Jonald Mortenson
�>esc:ci�.'-ion of Request: Variance from Section 35-401 to allow construction
of a car,)ort/tool storage area 3 feet from
the side lot line rather than the required
J feet,
Pr0Per y: 4612 Ott1 Aiewie North (Lot 10, Block 7,
No;.thgate Addition)
Oviner o�` Property: uonald Mortenson
BAC KGROUNO:
Nome
POINTS TO LIE CXJNSIi;Zii?FJil
I) The carport/tool storage structure, if build; as proposed, would
be 5 -feet from the ,property line at its front, and 3 feet from
the property line at its rear , This is dne to the 87014'
deflection: of l;he jot, coupled waiO the desire of the Mortensons
• to have a "garage" 14 feet in width rather than 12 -feet„
SrMFF COMMENTS:
1) It is quest,lonable that tale problem here evidenced is one which
is "Lini.que CAD the parcel of land", as mpnv other lots in the
vicinity, and elsewhere in th-- Village, have been platted in
n—r,inctnom.-Jar shapes„ In fact, the Problem exists as a
re 1e13_' of Lhe Original developer construct, I ng the house eit' er
t' Ithout 'or ,s?tlht to prcviding a Carag , or with ':he vie4U that
a fE_:11re sjarage .CLald be deta:achod, tc the rear. of :.he property.
Iii °c'ac+', the present and fat-u e J4Ua 'A do or !'Ove £"2.fferent
corcep' s of site (level4pment than those of the originEii developer
sue•._
i,a.:. t�t=:a E.c.Sc,, the h(;b15E' !'ei:S built 'Vr isle %'iL?1't81s: Lit?S}„ d;
Que-S L.''Gi? OlPa should ask ten. is to ,,ihat extent is the
r::selution of these differences of opiniore a pub-1-1c matter?
`i a tiG-ns on variances such as this one, a z nir g ori,!i nanc-e
ullcsving construction close to property l i:es is Y'V n,�O v0d;
if less restrictive lire?tits are Oesioe i, Perhaps t%':ey should be
;31-r,tcd e::nlicitly n the text of the j ri'ten e;ru1::K: ce,
•
�I
I
D
i
i
a
f �
i
F
'
�k
0
d
I' ANI KING CUMMISSION INFUIMXf10N SHL T
Application: 66071
• Applicant: Bergstrom Investment Company
description of request: Approval of site and building ;M ens for an
apartment development
Property: Lots 5 and 6, Block 1., Lots 3 and 4, Block 3,
and Block 2, Iii Crest Square Addition
(67th Avenue North from Humboldt eastward)
Owner of Property: Bergstrom Investment Company
BACKGROUNJ:
1) A problem has developed in coordinating the recording of the plat
of Ili Crest Square and preparation of the plans has occurred.. A
representative of Bergstrom Investment Company will be present
to discuss this, and the Staff will be prepared to comment also
2) The most recent actions regarding this multiple dwelling area
took place on January 24; 1966, in conjunction with Application
965096 application No.. 65096 requested approval of the plat of
"Hi Crest Square Addition" and commercial multiple duelling
zoning for the property southeast of 69th and Humboldt Avenues
North. The actions taken by the Council on that evening are as
• follows:
"The Council considered the recommendation of the Planning
Commission concerning Application. No. 65096 submitted by
Jiversified Developers and Bergstrom Construction Co,. for the
approval of the preliminary plat of Iii Crest Square Addition and
the rezoning of Lots 1 and 2.; Black 1 from RI to B1 and the
rezoning of Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6 Block I and all of Blocks 2 and
3 from Rl to R5.,, The Council also heard comments from the ,petitioner
and abutting property owners
Motion by Theodore 'Willard and seconded by Howard fleck to
direct the Village Attorney to prepare the .necessary resolutions,
ordinance amendments and agreements to approve Application No.
65096., Motion carried unanimously,
Motion by John Leary aind seconded by Earl Simons to approve
the preliminary Mat of Ili Crest -Square Addition. Motion carried
unanimously.,,
The :reparation of the documents described were not prepared by the
Administrative Staff pending recording of the approved plat.. The
plut is presently being recorded, and rezoning soili then take place.
•
I
i
6
• �..x..d4L6:0.o...........
ar1C. t.ib
# 0,1lt e
site
Ul
1
M
LoA e E
{ 1tr
if
.LC7 t
`
-nt ,/ 7
S '
i
PLANNING COMMISSION INFUFNL;',TION SMELT
Application No. 6GQ72
• Applicant: iced Owl Stores, Inc,
Description of request: Approval of the site plan of the proposed Red
Owl food store operation
Property: 5425 Xerxes Avenue North
(Part of Tract z, R,L.S, 4936 (see survey)
Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company
BACKGROUNJ:
1) Iced Owl Stores is planning to locate one of its retail outlets at
the above location, The building proposed to be built on the site
is one not previously used by Red Owl, and final plans of it have
not yet been developed The company would, however, like to
have the approval of the Village of the site plan at least, so
that the entrances onto Xerxes and 55th Avenue can be properly
located, and so that the building proposed can be a firm
commitment, based on the present shape of the site, Several
public easements cross the site, and building shape is quite
limited by these easements and by zoning controls, so that the
approval of the site plan controls to a great extent the type
of building to be designed,
VOINTS TO BE CONSIJErEJ:
1) Access will be from 55th Avenue along a private roadway, and
through a 30 foot curb cut onto Xerxes Avenue.
2) The require 239 parking spaces for the proposed 32,400 square
.foot buildi g have been provided,
3) A minimum of 50 feet has been used for setback along streets,.
STAFF COMMENTS:
1) It should be noted that the plans prepared propose paving and
parking up to the edge of the highway right-of- way, without a
fifteen foot greenstrip,
In a parking layout approval of Brookdale approved with Stage I.
and most recently ratified in June of 1966, Brookdale Center
to the east of Xerxes was allowed to pave its parking area up
to the highway right-of-way, The paving in that case, however,
is being used for driveway purposes immediately adjacent to
the highway,
i
s
•
•
5
]AC`S f
\:.SATE BANK DRIVE-L4 J
56th AVE,
----_.-- eat a
ITce
BCNANZA
SIREDIN PIT
RESTAURANT ` � � #66072
BROOKDALE
r
CMER
a
�-,.SLIPFREE
;o lr4
1 cOODxEA
T.B.A, t
r� BMLE. an
CAR APPLUMW��
WASI S, ORE
.r
\ M OWL MOD
IMOP
ES LOCATION
A*
l
PLANNING CGLMISSION INFORMATION MEET
•
Application No, 66OT3
Applicant: Smestad and Engquist
Uescription of Request: Special use permission to allow construction
of two duplex dwellings on the property.
Property: 3907 and 3913 - 52nd avenue North
(Nest 25 feet of Lot 3 and East 126 feet of
Lot 4, Block 5, Twin Lake Soods Addition)
Owner of Property:: Laurel Zipf
SACKGROUNJ:
1) A similar request for two duplexes on this property was made in
1963 (463008) . The Planning Commission recommended approval
of that request (May 2, 1903) while the Village Council denied
it (May 6, 1963) , No reasoning for these actions is present in
the b►inutes of those meetings,
POINTS TU BE CONSIL)EIR J:
1) An interesting situation arose in regard to the previous duplex
request, The property is very low, and has served as a sump
• area for runnoff water„ apparently a question was raised by
someone regarding this runoff, and an opinion from the Village
Attorney at that time was requ--sted, The Attorney's letter is
enclosed for review,
2) The property will be used as two lots, each 75' x 237', each
with an area of 17,775 square feet„ The zoning ordinance
requires 12,400 square feet of land for a duplex site.
3) It is quite likely that the nature of the property will require
the use of pilincs to support any structures built there, in
addition to a good deal of infiliing,
RI D 0,43 4 V T, F RAS R M A 11.1 'N U 6 0 N
ATI'ORNICTS AT LAW
.% I P I
OS— cf.Aka
'two. it."AGO. 30N
14 NVIXOt,191 A.W ma"COOTA
q,ua# t N.--AT ..13 WCOT.., I-e•B,
AA -1 Pt.t -,AT, •901.
VA
Mmrch 22 s 1963
T."ImnIxg, 0�=:Lqssicn
VII'I.Iage i0f C4WUP
7100 Ossto Ruad
c
Ri'mampoll".9 1,I)p Mium-gota
The COMAzalb-m, _-vt its met:big of Kv,! ch 't,, 1,,,j6 requested ear,
oalntal 2rca tblj uPfIce ,*),,,) the follovi"
• I. Can an meve.,: of platted rprW�7�,ty I-m requixed to grartdo-I
o:C a lot which hms been uzad for yet%rp
wmn zutmo V11"k'n he to :1&11 PrArt of the lot ud
qon'tribu i-ve. tt, '�be covv�, ur
o-m,!�rs chie to the f act that p,_srt of their starfece
14 U411.6 coxv, rm'0,0
in .4'1 is *,=,?, are& vWp 1 pre&vc�wv bt skw-
coc-mcn 1 m r!i.11v, ;efWt resymect to v,-urVN_-.c: water iz the l.
all!'facl WztrrI,I IS a cuirou ;=W uhich e4vatt, owamr zlq dllslewie of m betit
to c: ., 11.1a rul.e is mc4ifted in Mina"Ova try th.-
'.Iropc�rl;j omazev vxky not imm,cessuily or �-xre-fvmm.-bly injur(t bit ,kei#.bor.
riie gmerzAll apprrmch tbn Czwts tdkv in ap "v th-im U tv ca ,A c
rmx the Av7aaml �4h,� Stoface
a avth the inJU17
'ti-'ce
-Ity owners. ;�rcxe,4.. Vt -�_vur of prvc,?erty 1
is
t'._ .t# leay., to a rewc,`=blm ase & tl.s th."�teSh the zlu-
.t,v4o v.ter msy to diverted causing sove herm to others. Lk is %=I;,, Usibl-s-
wqhen ho srU u=easmably, U addition, T kr<i4 of vo rule of
V to
P,
Arch st 1963
Pay Two
If WO Pv0 g ° were
.{yto9$cr- �t �a rmrYt.�_jj,.Ry��p J�x��,�� � (��.y � y����
�s�R+ g d ��+s��eF.:.aj }�.r"ays �FA.r right o &r'15�4 the in igh �.+��v.Y.'S Un�iliFr� �� Ed+4�f. f'�-�'�''
out Mny Opp�d'i�°.t 11 pe x LP or �.�3x�w�m��«h�F��i a�3 �+ � h y. �,
g� ��''����yy tS ?, '•.", "t��e9;d' � ,�2!`k:�"�''tTw? Mat. 4�Yjq-
.�:� }e� ��.-,v'rx ifl;d �.d a�t� � .e MAN! Use A fi,^ifn 4UPIAX. MOB
3'3! �Aha°r"sXd' the villye raqvi t39 Pr; �fidt?G
In�'`,��qq ��•• opinion,...�CC �,y ?� u� 5I 1y' A� t y�
ry opin.�.-on, aF o conditions C�.�d.h RAV 15: qi � ✓a�o�{ � C'�• f L'�'4Yi c
t � � �s' d� �L8 �;fie.- 4-.t�� ,u.�� Vic. a
'Ph"" the W"al m16- Mae We sunh thiplo &i earvanyq me SW AL invalt a Z6 CaMitiong "ich will nel l rete thl MY WM60h
.i e 1 iC;2:°�:et 'Arl'T.5-id ��'r�y .I�F �,.3�a*a�ab 3AL �rSdw�.�r 4,."�'kse hc�d4`�a'"4W4.°a •b..t... R i4^'
S ° ink �.�..r�nge 40 act
that c�,..nditlonjrZ the ,�•�«{�� see k�81G'°vIt tls�
�;" t:�:�s:,tial c� � t R e +: s s , s a~.
The fkcialfg SWAY CI°rn= Aft At int z rerobV+i3nal+,:il;s�a;f re 8;T-:--t' �"a,�.A 93
All nr" f:?+'' n Y11082,
Mk u8 '•'�-. � L:?LF•,f Li y�.}A : 6G �'t }y,� l�:x' ,,y�/�ygi�-A•
YYP�S .P ww Sys�g• p�1��r, y�..� yv lf�Y, the y, 9i�,-Z13!'�llpa+eiWy •�a+LK�yS'S,OYyr�?�.4��,y�tl�+(,
l `� wor fe�9YNe 0.. ,tY y f .A� the Village awl p K aee 94.R.b(1h �iAAb4'f �lSfie'f � �n bd�OaM Q�i�n .SILr��S,bxiiP'i�+9ltML...•Fi
"�..) aP �'"a�'':�.t�'�a '�..�� �' �6*i.. L'X..sk�i fN..f�,,",�?•.,
Pq(
4ngsY Only �BYd'tzi'c�'}
t �
�#65�� �✓ eR�y.' Jai e��..Ar,
X
6073
ItS
as 4
3 9 2f 3
.3612 3806 3800
OR
392 g 3 91.;'
3 1?1 1.3 3 8 11
4001
PLANNING COM14ISSION INFORMATION SHELT
Application No. 66074
Applicant: Frank Conlon
description of Request: Variance from Section 35--401 to allow ,.
construction of an addition to the existing Y<
house to be 5 feet from the guest property line
rather than the required 10 feet.
Property: 7001 Regent Avenue North <' ;>
(Lot 13, Block 4, Miller's Willow Lane 2nd)
Owner of Property: Frank Conlon k
BACKGROUND:
None
POINTS TO BE CONSIdEREJ:
1) -With the exception of this proposed addition, the nearest the
house is to the west side lo* .line is 17 feet, with the
neighboring house 10 feet further away beyond the property line,
• 2) A single stall attached garage presently exists on the
5106 r- 70th Avenue property, If a detached garage were to be
built on this property, it would probably be placed on the
east side of the lot, with 10 feet of clearance between the
house and the property line Conceivably, then, a detached
garage on the 5106 property could be 3 feet from its side
property line, or a total of 4 feet from the proposed addition
at 7041 Regent
s7�.
s
•
•
#§60 74
o
i
$0e
YM1�
E'I
�r....w....rr�.ui�r.r+nr.-w.+.rw..........w.•.r..+....«..rw-.r. �....-_ww.........rw+.r�..+►_..w�.�'+.�._r�.e...�._..._.v�.__-�....�
Ad:� .a0 TI,
s. X2 tRaw
[° r
Gar,
Pft
, 1
• ....«.......�......-«.,,.�.. .m.........-.�.w +4. ��.,.p,�„'Z fix, 1"V'^+�u_ �+ y _
y
. , ' VE NYU E :
i
Flannizie7 Commi. ;Sion Agenda
October 27, 1966
Aatlic.aLion No,
1 .. Moll Call .,
?, Evans-Nordbv Funeral. Home 66065
Tabled at the September 1st meeting to allow for further
discussion following the public hearing on the suggested
sign ordinance to be held September 22nd,
Variance from Section 35 -315 to allow erection of a free-
standing signs at 6000 Osseo Road -
(refer to the September 1st, 1966 Agenda)
Richard Rocksted 66066
Fabled at the Uctober 6th meeting for further considernation.
Rezoning from 131 (single family residential) to 12
(residential business) of the property at 6045 Osseo Read
(the southwest corner of the intersection of 61st Avenue
and Osseo Road),
(refer to the October 6„ 1966 Afjenda)
4 Walter Skinner- 66060
Laid aside at the October 6th meeting as the applicant
MIS not (present
Variance from Section 35--310 to allow construction of a
24" x 32` garacjr, in excess of th-e 660 square feet
permitted The property involved is at 7100 ind.it anaa
• ;avenue (Lot ll, i_3lock 2, Northbrook Manor. 4th Addition)
'refer to tit( October 6. 1966 Agenda)
5 John J, Sheehan 66069
Tabled at the October 6th meeting :fon further study
Rezonin3(j from 9i5 (aul"t.i',91e residence 2�� story) to B21
(,regional buslazess)
Issuance a service stat?.or special use permit
Bab for the property at 6501 llunfboldt Avenve North
(northwest oorn, r of the intersection of 65th and
Humboldt Avenues !`forth)
Smest ad 6 _Lig
_qLii s* ruction Co 66073
l~abled at they October Path meeting for further. consideration,
Special. Use permission to :allcaA construction of two duplexes
on the property au 39+07 and 3113 - 52nd Avenue North,
7. Ler..on 1)roperties 6: 077
Appruval of the site plans for a coaunerciaal establishment
at 6801 Osseo 11o3d. (National :yea , Buger's Market
building)
6, Jiscussion of proposed sign oxdinan,°e„ including c,o:rncaents heard
at the public bearing September 22nd ,
r
N Planning Commission Agenda
November 3, 1966
<1r,)lication No.,,
1. Coll Call
2< Approval of Minutes
Regular Meeting October 6; 1966
Special Meeting October 27, 1966
3, BerosYrom-Construction CumDan3{ 66071
Approval of site and building Mans of an
apartment development along 67th Avenue North
to the east of Humboldt avenue (Lots S and 6,
Block 1 Lot 1 of Block 2; Lots 3 and 4,; Block
3, Hi Crest Square Addition)
4. ilialmGr Troan (station manager) 66075
Special Use permission to allow sales of dairy
products at the Phillips 66 service station at
6550 Lyndale avenue (the southeast corner of the
intersection of 66th and Lyndal.e Avenues North) ,.
S Christine Isaac 660'.76
Special Use permit to allow a beauty shots as a
spec:iai home occupation at 6325 Osseo Goad
(Lot 2, Block 2,, Fair Meadow Addition`-
6 LeRov Ah l e c 66070
Special Use perraiss.ion to permit the erection and
use of an accessory building on the R.1 zoned
property at 5412 Girard Avenue North (Lot 23,;
Block 1 ;, Fairhaven Park Addition)
7� Joslyn ManufactL_ri_ncr Conn an - 66060
Approval of the glans of an industrial building on the
company's property at 49th and France Avenues
North (parcel :330; Section 10)
8,, discussion _of_chs PrQpost Sj Lrdinance
't
its GO J. --IIEFT
NRIIISS,GNI INFORMAVON
66071
A; J.c-,!nt Bergstrom Constructioix
Je,nc=iptioa of Property: Site and building plan 2pproval of an
apartment development
Property; 67th Avenae North from (appleoxtrMntelY)
Humboldt to Eqv�,-rswi Avenuet (Lots 5- and 6.
Block I ; Lot- I of Biock 2; Lo"Z-Is 3 mcl 4,
- tin)
Block 31, IL-1.11 Z 5j' UaTe Addi 0
Bergstrom Constructioz Com-Dany
M.-T 0.7
BACKGROUND:
I r
.he Corunc.11 ac-:Ion rezon- ing th-LS property to RISP took place
al-, the Coanell 's October 333t meet inq.
1, Klilo 1611 have com-mens for you on ejell-irtO, Of the
:nee t r!"'.
s
s
#66071
Static
Site
69th AVENUE NORTH
`it.at ion jot, 1 well
sito -
-- - �
Lot ^ a
04
O
• ssa
H
5' walkways -"� 0
LOt �t i I�t
� 4 Lot 6
1 , !
67th Avenue Noy:tis "`� Lot 1
Lot
Lot 2
i LC.t 3 LO t 4
wal"t-way r
x
i
Z
S
PLANNING uO&MISSION INFORP► XION SHEET
Application No� 66075
Applirant: Eij almer 0. Troan
description of Request: Special Use permission to allow the sale of
dairy products on the premises of the service
station at 6550 Lyndale Avenue North in
accordance with Section 35413,
Property: 6550 Lyndale Avenue North (parts of Lots
4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 1, Olson's Island
View Terrace addition)
Gwner of Property: Phillips Petroleum Company
BACKGROUND:
None
F'0INILS TO BE CONSI;IERE:d:
1) Section 35",413 states the following:
"The following activities are prohibited:
c, Sale or vending of items other than automotive fuels, lubricants
or automobile parts and accessories (except the vending of .
soft drinks, candy, cigarettes, and ether indicental stems
within the principal building for convenience of customers).
The renting of trailers or other equipment., and other uses,
unless they are specifically approved by a special use permit,"
From the above quotation, it is apparent that the -Council can allow
such items to be sold by special use permission,
2) The proposed sales, storage, and display of the dairy products
in question in this application are to take place within the
service station building itself, within a Misplay case to be
approved by the Village Sanitarian, and upon proper licensing by him„
3) The station ;property has space for approximately 14 vehicles. It is
a two bay station, and assuming 3 employees, a minimum of 11 spaces
would be required for the station by our present zoning ordinance,
exclusive of auy additional parking for -miscellaneous uses.:
STAFF COMDA ' IT—`` :
1) It is becoming more and more obvious that oil companies are entering
into a new phase of marketing; in addYtion to selling fuels and
lubricants, other byproducts of o?I refining began to be sold on
station premises, and now items unrelated to the oil industry are
considered fair came for merchandising at service station locations
(witness bycycle:s, 'sawn furniture, hardware„ etc, at certain
retail service stations), It is 'Logical that this should happen,
_g-
as the station operator has already drawn the prospective customer
from the traffic flow, and has the opportunity to interest him in
other items from which a profit can he drawn,
In this specific application, the applicant proposes to merchandise
food items which are ordinarily regarded as staples, not general
merchandise, Referring once again to the provision regarding
special uses for unrelated items at a service station, how do
cigarettes, soda pop, candy, and other "incidental items" differ
from the sale of milk, eggs, cheeses, bread, etc. , if our
Sanitarian will approve the sanitary conditions of storing these
items? One of the ways in which the sale of miscellaneous items
on a service station property might differ from cigarettes and
soda pop sales is the effect such sales might have on the traffic
using the station and that on the adj"e..t G2.t,.,`ss, :.During
discussion of the Superamerica Station application, one of
the primary concerns of having a service station serve also as a
retail outlet was the problem of traffic congestion and the
PrOv* sANn cJf st!fficient parking space on-site in an amount equivalent
to that required of other retail uses,
Several months ago„ the question of limitation of commercial
activity at service stations arose in connection with discussion
of the proposed zoning ordinance, The re.ult of this discussion
was the inclusion in the Planning Commission's recommended
ordinance (Sec, 35 -704) of the following provision for parking
at service stations:
". , .In addition, there shall be provided one space for e9ch
rental trailer and one space for each two vending machines
permitted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 35. 1000 of
these Ordinance, and in accordance with the requirements of
Section 35-415.,"
As I understand the present thinking regarding retail sales not
related to automotive equipment;. it would be by machine; not open
shelving; a :further quotation from the proposed zoning ordinance
(Sec 35-415) explains this concept:
"The sale of merchandise from a vending machine or machines
used in conjunction with gasoline service stations shall be
permitted, provided that there shall be one additional
customer parking space for every two vending machines, provided
further that the vending machines as located on the property
do not encroach upon the required setback of the zoning
district,. However, the parking requirements shall not be
increased for any service station maintaining only one soft
drink cooler, one randy dispenser, and one cigarette machine,„
Applying the requirements of the proposed zoning ordinance to this appli-
cation, then;, the requested use would not comply, for although the items
to be sold are prepackaged, the manner in which they would be dispensed
(the attendant or the customer would open the door to the dairy case and
withdraw the item) does not fit our description of "vending machine If,
then„ it is desired that retail sales of non-automotive items are to be
allowed (and I assume this is the case given Section 35-415), should the
method of dispensing be expanded to allow other than coin operated machines?
NG C- 2,17 lNFO_ M9fllvi SHLIl
No, 66076
Christine 1.,aac
I c to a w beauty
�lo a bea
iiptl.on of Reques-- : Special use per
shop as a special home occupatioll.
•roperty: 6325 Osseo Road (Lot 2, Block 24, Fair
Meadows Addition)
Owner of Property: Christine Isaac
l0r and Isaac operated, for -,,) number 'At" years, lboth a beauty
1,arbc?r ;31)op, jil tjit,: basement Of thei-f llome at
67,30, As the proper'lly was zoned B3, no S,11'¢:cia' use
rwf 23,oil requireld for a special hoot occupattion,, The
N
j,:1— mlicla 'Nars,. Isaac is now moving, however, is am Rl
i,,one, anis t-ho. sue.cial Permit is a recuivernent in that zone.
TT NN S T
Tl in Section '11,5231 of tho
�e for Special uses set out
Zoning
PLANNING MMMISSI" ' INFORMATION SHEFr
Application No 66078
Applicant: LeRoy Ahlert
Description of Request: Special Use permission to permit the erection
and use of an accessory building on this R1
zoned property,; such building to be constructed
without a slab foundation, and with studs 24"
on centers,
Property: 5412 Girard Avenue North (Lot 23, Block 1,
Fairhaven Park Addition)
Owner of Property: Same as above
BACKGROUNd:
1) In May of 1965, Alr,, Thomas Wilder applied for "Variance from
See.. 35--601 and Sec, 35-•401 to permit construction of a single
family dwellong on a 40' by 128' substandard lot, Variance
from Sec. 35=••401 to permit a 71A2' foot side yard setback on the
proposed lot and a 4 foot side yard setback from the existing
house at 5410 Girard,"
On ,Tune 7, 1965, the Village Council approved these request for
• variances, and the house at 5412 Girard was built ,
2) The previous o.,uner of this property is Robert Brown who lives
immediately to he south of 54103 Girard,
3) The accessory building was ender. construction Ahen it came to the
attention of our Building inspection Department; work on It has
since hated
POINTS TO BE CON51JEREJ:
1) The Zoning Ordinance :foes not list accessory buildings as being
permitted in an R1 zone, ai.though garages under 660 square feet
are permitted nsaes„ Under special uses, however, are aliowied
"other non-cocnaaercinal uses compatiable v?ith the permitted uses
in an R-1 district,", hence this application,. There is no
building on the property other than the house.
2) This structure was first brought to our attention by the neighbors
to the north., vflio noted that it vas being buiit without a building
permit; Upon inspection by the Building Inspector, it was noted
that the building was being erected within one foot of the north
property line, and close to the alley where it would interfere
with access to the northerly neighbor's garage, A carpenter
was at work constructing the building, but was instructed by the
Building Oepaxi;ment to cease until the matter had been settled
by the Planning Commission and Council,
-2-
Much of the discussion of this building is likely to center
on comments from either or both of the abutting property owners
that their garage access will be impaired, At present, both of
these persons are driving across the rear of this property to
reach their garages, blatantly ignoring the property rights which
the applicant purchased when he bought the property. Arguments
from these persons relative to their garage access are irrelevant
to the issue of the special use, even that standard which says
the special use may not be Injurious to the use of adjacent
properties, for the use of these other properties is presently
predicated upon illegal use of the applicants property, and,
in fact, the applicant could as easily halt their trespasses by
a permitted use, a fence,
STAFF COISIEN S:
1) The proposed use seems to meet all of the standards except
number 6, which states that the special use shall conform to
other regulations applicable in the district. If this structure
were required to be 5 feet from the rear property line and 3
feet„ this last standard a!ould also apparently be met,
It would seem advisable to consider; for purposes of the new
zoning ordinance, whether outbuildings such as this one should
be permitted uses, In certain cases, such as this one, a person
does not want a garage, but merely a place to store outdoor
equipment; should there be allowance for one outbuilding and a
garage, two outbuildings (one of which must be a garage„ a
choice between a garage and a storage building„ or some other
combination of uses.
40
•
a 0
t
i
6
ICARAGE R
it
CX
t
W �
ri
� f
ICARAGE
building are ay7roxirltn CRY)
i
E �
1
��
s
s
66060
o s I y n 114 a n u Af ace..u ring o
0 f ale-41 e t Approval of the plans of all i"dustr lal building i
49th and France Avenues North
(Parcel 330, Section 10)
of F-.-operty- Joslyn Manufacturing CO,
1_0 A, similar structure ,Vas approved in October of 1965, contingent
i;pon is submission by Joslyn -,>f a detailed s:-te plan of their
property,, Such 3 site plar was subsequently recaived, and the
" U'Ilding then proposed has been completed, The Joslyra property
refe:.-red to as "ho . 0 e yaLd
q'I
is well within the company's property. and
uf-fe- no problem regarding Village ordinanzes.
r
l