The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1967 PCP Planning Commission Agenda February 2, 1967 Application No. 1. Roll Call: 2. Approval of Minutes Regular Meetings of November 3rd and December 1, 1966, and January 5, 1967 Special Meetings of November 10, 1966, and January 26, 1967 3. Bermel-Smaby Realty, Inc. 67001 Rezoning from Rl to Rb of the property at 6500 Osseo Road (northeast corner of 65th and Osseo Road - Tracts B and C of Brooklane Addition) 4. Z,, eidlik and Harmala Architects 67002 Special use permission for 5 two-family dwellings and one three-family dwell'ng on the properties along 68th Avenue and Noble Avenue between Orchard Avenue and 69th Avenue (Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, and Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, Northtown plaza First Addition) 5. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 67003 Variance from Section 35-340 to permit erection of a. freestanding sign on the property at 5425 Xerxes Avenue North 6. LeRoy Sign Company 67004 Variance from Section 35-340 to permit erection of two freestanding signs on the property at 5601 Xerxes Avenue North. • M PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67001 Applicant: Bermel--Smaby Realty, Inc. Description of Request: Rezoning from R1 (Single Family Residential) to RB (Residential- Business) to permit the use .)f the property for office purposee Property: Tracts B and C, Brooklane Addition (6500 Osseo Road and 6501 - 65th Avenue North) Owner of Property: Bermel-Smaby Realty, Inc. BACKGROUND: 1) The two properties involved abut "old" 65th Avenue North as that street was platted in Brooklane Addition. Since the time of this platting, 65th Avenue has been relocated south of its original position, across the northwest corner of Garden City School playground. This relocation • of the street has Left the "old" 30 foot wide segment of 65th Avenue and a small piece of the school's property to the north of the present 65th Avenue North. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The Comprehensive Plan suggest that the parcels on the northeast corner of the intersection of 65th and Osseo Road should be redeveloped as a "planned development area" . No rezoning of the properties involved has yet been suggested by the Commission or Council., however. The appli- cant has stated an interest in these two properties, as well as a portion of old 65th Avenue and a remnant of property owned by the Osseo School District north of new 65th Avenue as a site for its northern real estate office. 2) The present use of property across Osseo Road from this property is for multiple dwellings; the property to the south across 65th Avenue is the playground for Garden City Elementary School. 3) Although there are covenants on most of Brooklane Addition restricting the properties therein to single family dwelling use, the applicant has stated that the properties involved in this application are not covered by such restrictions. om ifi Pray vacant � p Y` �' #6'�©O1 home om oC hOme home 4 home home u home home h I ho home ofie me h home �.. some home home hom \ Ln e 6�SQ0 duplex 010. -,, ha" � 6Sth 1 Ave � � ArOAe 4-plex t rty 65th AVE. �.. w o GAEN vacant V 0400 RB zoned property PLANNING' COMMISSION INFORMATION PHEET •t Application No. 67002 � Applicant: Zejdlik and Hartaala Architects Description of Request: Special Use permission to construct five duplex dwellings on the property on the west sidle of Noble Avenue between 68th and 69th At7enues North, and special use permission �o, construct a three- unit dwelling o} the property south of 68th Avenue to the east of orchard Avenue. Property: Lots 1 through 5, Block 1, and Lot 3 of Block 2, Nor�htown Plaza First Addition. Owner of Property: Zejdlik and Ha"la Architects BACKGROUND: 1) As the Commission and Council will recall, the property involved in this request as well as adjacent properties • owned (then) by Lecon Properties was' the subject of a great deal of discussion during the Mall and winter months of 1965. At that time, development lof the area had been proposed including commercial, apartment, and townhouse uses. That land now on the west side of Noble Avenue between 68th and 69th Avenues had been suggested by the developers as being an apartment development without having Noble, .Avenue installed, but i',o] lowing a great deal of study on the part of the Village,; it was determined that the interest of the community Would best be served by the installation of Noble Avenue,!, and the construction of duplex dwellings on the west side] of Noble, to "back-up to existing homes along Orchard Avenue. At the time of rezoning, the only zones which existed in the zoning Ordinance to permit construction ofduplex dwellings were: 1) RB-Residential Business zoning-, 'and 2) Rl -- Single Family Residential zoning, which pel# its duplexes as special uses. As the Council did not wish to zone the property to the RB zoning, which would have permitted apartments and commercial office uses as well �s ',duplexes, the property was left in Rl (Single Fame l.y Residential) zoning, with the understanding that the lots Would be platted into • properly sized duplex lots, and th a# the developer would apply for special use permission fort the duplexes to be built on the property. The developer is now at the point where he is seeking this special pexm .ssion. I i -r2_ 2) Zejdlik & Harmala, when designing the plat of Northtown Plaza as it now exists, was under the impression that Lots 3 and 4 of Block 2, to the south of 68th Avenue, were of sufficient size to allow a duplex on each lot. Since that time, they have been made aware that only the easterly lot is of sufficient size to support a duplex, the western lot being single family dwelling size. From an architectural point of view, the architects have determined that a more pleasing development of these two lots would be to utilize them together with a single three-family dwelling, rather than a duplex and a single family dwelling, in order to consolidate yard space on the two properties as a t?hole. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The land area required for a duplex dwelling in the Zoning Ordinance is 12,400 square feet; all of the lots under consideration exceed that amount, ranging from 13,225 to 14,268. 2) The two lots which are proposed to be developed as a three family dwelling site are approximately 23,955 square feet • in total area; 9,890 in one, and 14,065 in the other. The type of structure proposed by the architects is the "townhouse" type, with living units horizontally attached. It should be noted that the area per unit would be about 8,000 square feet, much above the 6, 200 per unit required for each unit in a duplex, or the 5,400 per unit for townhouse units. STAFF COMMENTS: 1) It appears that the architect's proposal. for a three-family dwelling is a logical and reasonable approach to the development of the two lots in the southeast quadrant of 68th and Orchard Avenues. There seems to be no good reason why any single family homes should be built in the block on the east side of Orchard Avenue. The townhouse type multiple dwelling would seem to be more nearly compatible with the proposed nursing home site. i �� • Solid lines show existing 4J • ID property _±6 002 lines or existing or r-4 proposed roadway easements. 0$4 0 44 C14 a; W4 A",rFZ4UF C> j-1 to) L) 0 M.AJOR in AVEI4IJE S:I :3 f tt re dup j, PLANNING COMUSSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67003 Applicant- Red Owl Stores, Inc. Description of Request.- Variance from Section 35-340 to permit erection of a freestanding si(m ., on the property Property-. 5425 Xerxes Avenue North (Part of Tract E, RuL.S. #936) Owner of Property: Red Owl Stores, Inc. &ACKGROUbM: 1) In approvals of the site and building plans of the Red Owl Store, approvals of freestanding signing were specifically exempted, hence this request, POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The location of proposed sign has not yet been firmly fixed, but it would be in the southernpartion of the property. 2) The size of the sign is proposed as 60 feet in height, the sign would be three sided, with each side having an Owl' s head of approximately 150 square ftot area, and a signing section iower on the sign stating the names of the. tertants (Rec-l 'Owl and Snyder Drug) of approximately 100 square feet on each, side. The argument advanced by Red Owl for the height of the sign is that this heigh-tt 4.s nec essary for the sign to be seen try- potential customers .A - or Brookdale from the southwest on Highway #100. Disregarding whether or not this is a valid argument, it appears f •orti calculation of the elevations of the highway, the Osseo Road overpass, and the Red Owl site that any sign greater than (;approximately) 12 to 15 feet above the elevation of the site could be seen on Highway #100 approximately 1100 feet t-o the west of the Osseo Road overpass. Using the Coram-issicn' s January 5, 1.967, Draft Sign Ordinance - 1 as a guide, a freestanding sign 2o f-eet in height and 250 square feet in area would be permitted on each collector or arterial street the establishment abuts. I 1 f Jay s State Bc'dtAil}C � - NOS,- 67003 & 67004 Ave. t f EROOFMALE CEN'S'ER � I � I �dio , VIC- Super- a a) ette ter. Goodyear �74i. Brook- dale.\t T.SA • 1 woe Car Wash Firestan'� T BA \ \ 1 I \ Red Owl yGo Store ��I3 PLANNING COMISSION IAA 01 SHEV,r • Application No. 67004 Applicant,.- LeRoy Sign Company Descriptiol! of Request: Variance from Section 35-340 to permit the erection of two freestanding signs on the property. Pr<-,perty: 5601 Xerxes Avenue North (Tract A, R.L.S. #1162) Owner of Property: Jay' s Brookdale, Inc. BACKkGROUND. 1) Jjay's Restaurant is changing hands., and the new operator is planning to rename it to some as yet unknown name. T1,1e new owner apparently feels that his restaurant can better be served by two signs, one on each side of the building, than eith a single freestanding sign on the corner of 56th and Xerxes. If the two signs are approved, the sign • presently on the corner would be rm-to i ved. POIN'TS TO BE COINSIDERED; 1) The signs proposed would be installed, inmediately- adjacent to the north and south siides of the Steeply slanted roof of the restaurant. The peak of the roof is approximately 26 feet in height, and although no h�ight is specified for the two signs, the applicant has indicated that the two signs. would not exceed the I-ieight of ilie peak,, thereby utilizing •-he roof itself as a background for the sign. The area of each of the sign messages (gross dimensions 19 feet by 9 feet) would. be approximately 14.5 square feet. 2) Although this proposal, is apparently at odds with the pro- posed Si-,M.. Ordinance Draft of the Corrunission dated January 5, 1967, it shouid be noted that Section: 3-1104. 2. would provide for two freestanding signs at a drive-in at the intersection of two "major streets" (which 56th and Xerxes will probably be designalted) , although the size proposed for 'Che second sign would be smaller than that being proposed by LeRoy Sign Com�pany in this application. v • Playining Agenda Karch 2, 1967 Ro 11 C al 1. Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting of FebruarY 42, 1.967 Special Mieeting o-E February 23, 1967 3. Maco-,7 S:L�-ffi Coillp V 6605-1 Variance to allow alteration of a YE t-andkaq sign fo=er.ly appro-ore a for Lynn Brook Shopping Center, 6215 Osseo Road (Lot I., 13-31-ock 1, Dwing Lane Addition) 4. le on Pra-t-LL--ties 66087 Rezoning from BI (Local. Business) to B3 (Genceral. 1:1usiness) of the property lying generally south ±.>f 69th lkvenule • and -west of Osseo Road. 5. Bruce Hasselberty 67005 Rezon-.Lng from. RI and Rx", to W (Regional Business) ; special use Permission for a service stationi; for the. vroperf---�,7 at 11-1,ie sou-Chwest corrier c: -tI-je intersec-t-ion of France Ave--ni.7.e and THigh-way #100. 6 Hame Federal Say.LiL 7��d an-Aszoc-latiOn 67006 Appro,val of site ;-:1.nd bj:jjjdin.-j p]k-ans of a ca-mme-rcilal bui.lding; variance from Sectioli 35-330 to permit errection of a freestaxiding sign (the property involved lies at apjwoximately 2900 County Road #10) - ance t permit a leaser building setb�i,ck than il*-.*. requi-red b,,:�,- the Z,pning Ord-ir.ance. s s s plannixzj COZnzr.�l�.,..�iozz Agenda . (Continued) weslev -Reavely 67007 Special use penaission to allow the storage and rental of trailers on the service station property at 6044 Osseo Road. S. Da ton Oevelcs -�zent -Cons 67408 variance from Sec. 35--330 to permit the erection of a freestanding sign on the property at 5501 Xerxes Avenue North (Goodyear retail store) Sbo]22er'a 2itV, Inc. 67009 Special use permission to erect and operate a "garden store" , :including relocation of the "garden store" building to the north side of the Shopper's c:i ty property following closing of the."garden store" operation. I, I i • i �I I PLANNING CCMI•IISSION INFOWIATION SHEET Application No. 66057 Applicant: Macey Sign Company (for M & E Realty) Description of Request: Variance to alter the existing pylon (freestanding) sign at Lynn Brook Shopping Center. Property: 6215 Osseo Road (Lot 1, Block 1, Ewing Lane Addition) owner of Property: M & E Realty Company BACKGROUND: 1) The present sign was approved as a variance by the Comicil on November8, 1965, with (briefly) the following restrictions: a) the sign shall not exceed 50 square feet in area; b) the height of the sign shall not exceed 12 feet; c) no signing shall be on the sign structure from • zero to seven feet above grade; d) the illumination of the sign front ground mounted lights shall not interfere with the use of the adjacent roadway. 2) The original hearing on this application was held before the Planning Commission on July 19, 1966. At that time, the application was tabled by the Commission to allow further study of the request. During this period in which the application was tabled, one of the prime movers for the alteration of the sign, the K."oger Store, entered into discussion with Macey Sign Company, and the status of the sign request became clouded. The differences of opinion on the form the sign is to take have been resolved, and Macey Sign Company Mould again like the Commission to consider the sign' s alteration. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The sign sketch which has been submitted to illustrate the proposed alteration to the sign measures slightly under 125 square feet in area. The overall height appears to be in the neighborhood of 18 to 20 feet. i '' i -2- 2) mli.e re refit :gin relation to the Pl.a�bi 5 Commission I a January 5, 1967, draft sign ordinance. The proposed ordinance provides :►�o� freestanding :signs cr "indix.*idual destached esta'bUshdnent" ane. for ;I integrated developments" , but not' for: �) two attached establishments (example: Red Owl St-Ores building which houses a Pled. Owl food store and a Snyder: Drug Store; ...~ a) three or more attached :buildings ,,�it'.h Leas than 25,000 square feet: of total floor area (note: t'k:e pinpo;sed ordinance defines an integrated development as having a, minimmm, of 25,000 sgllare: feet of floor. area - Lynn Brook Shopping Cent ar has app:ro�Unlat~ely 20,000) . If they standards of the ";Lntegrated commercial deveJ opm.efits" were applied to L'Tm Brook, a freestanding sign not ex,ceeding :32 feet in height and 200 square feet in area would be per.ai ssabl.e. T f t:lie standards applicable to "individual detached e-stablishments" were to be applied, the permissabl.e freestanding sign could not exceed IS fees: in heigxzt and 170 ::square feet in area. Reference dimensions: a) 861 feet - centerline e-1-o-va ion of Osseo Road adjacent •t:o sign b) 862. 5 feet - finished floor e ev t:ion of shopping center. • i �� • 2Spplication 14o. 6608 Applicant: Lecon PropertieS, Inc. (by H.S. Wessim) Descri-0 tion of Request: Rezoning from the present R1 and 39 BI t-o 133; (General. Business) Property: Lying generally south of 69th Avenue and West of Osseo Road. Owner of propertY-. Lecon Properties BAC1,CGROUND: 1) The public hearing on this application was held on December 1, 1965, baf-"are Planning Camr—ission, but action on the application was tabled 'at -the applicant' s request, • POINTS TO BL' CONSIDEUM: .1.) The Comprehensive Plan proposes co.,mraercial use of this entirc--., area. It is may recollection that, -when the proposed comprehensive zoning map was drafted by •the Comantission in accordance with tbe Plan, it wais undwrstood. that zoning lines in this area would have to be readjusted to conform wllith p-latting and road layouts when they were prepa.-ed. In the adsence of such a subdi-,7 s ion and futul-t'! 68th A%Yezme North, the zoning laid out along existing propetty 1-inas. Since that time, the Engineering Departrm,ent has prepared a ltentativ:e layout for 68th Avenue, and -the applicant is seeking rezoning for approximately 4 acres of land to its nor.th, e'x-'-ending Ito the south property line oil the present 27?. & W Drive.. In property. A plat of the remaining unplatt-ed property in confo.mance with -these= plams is sup 'Uy un a7 • posec rider w • i . • solid lines show existing ✓, � 1 • property lines or existing or ,; M•r t proposed roadway easements. N 7 N^ E+ I eP•[' ��rµva�r+iwwer � i YM�C 10, � f 1 0 0 • I 0 pC F-7 co tr AjOR t I � 1 Il C 1 $ A PLAINW1114'G COMUSSION 'tf_N1 .P0R%PT.L ONT Application No. 67005 • Appllcant: Bruce aa8selberg (.,hgant for Shell oil com"Pany) Description of Recmiest: F.ezonkng froiu the :,pxesent: R1 and RE to B2; special use permission for a senrice station or -aAe property SO zoned. Property: The southwest, corner of the inter- section of France Rvenue and ijiqlaway ,,100. (Tract "A" of R.L.S. 41-1082 ruid Parcel 2910 of Section 11.0, T.118, R1 .21) Owner of Property: Non,.ian Cha-zin - Parcel 2910 Isolda Gllles:l - reraat "A" MCKGROYM) 1) This property was zorv,-:0. IZB on May 1,2, 1959 upon an application by Homedale Builders. the original • ap plication asked for B3 zi:)ning for a combination ination constmiction office and warahous-e- -� the e�j,provral was Eor. RE With "'. -%?,ariance to alla�v Sto'rage in the baslament of the office building. 0".oviously, the proposed develop- ment nevor took place. 2) In JEnuary of 1966, Robert BajdAqj.n o-t' Baldwin Realty, acti-pla as aoent for Star.dard Oil, requested zezoning or' these two properties to B3, z:ind a aped al use permit to, construct and operate a service station on property. The request was denied on February 14, 1966. POINTS TO ME CONSIDERED.- 11, 17%e prop,.xty in question is prolposeid for -au ltiple family do7elling use in the Corckpxehensive P1,n, ;-:.,nd has been so *,'ecomend for by the Plzaining Cc_,iarission. 2) The --ritersection of France Avenue and niginway 0100 has in "c.he pci.st been a serious accident problem. The intar- section was signalized in Nove-n0ber and Decexiber of 1966 to mi-'Cigate thist probleem.. ----- \ 1 4� •�f ti.. , T it PLANNING COMMSSION INFORMATION SHEMP Application No. 67006 Applicant-. Rome Federal Savings and Locui Association Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial building. Variance from Section 35-33O to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Variance to permit a lesser building setback than is required by the Zoning Ordinance. i Property: Located. approximately one block L east of Xerxes Avenue on the north Bide ide of County Road -#-10. 0. ,vier of Proporty: I-Yome Federal Savings & Loan Association BACKGROUND: • None PUT-ISMS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) A letter from the arehitect-3 on the project (Baker-Lange) dated Pebruary 20, 1967, stating 1.hat drawings for the proposed freestanding sign on the Hame Federal site will not be ready for consideration at this tune. This consideration can be taken up at a. J.ti-ter dv.tc. 2) A second letter ft-"rorn the architects, dated T?ebYruary 1.6, 1967, discussing two items-. a) set-b'ack requirements from t1he sotthea.st property line of lthe.� site; b) the cmrb cuts for driveway purposes along th4 north property line of is e site. Regarding point "all alDove, a problem, has arisen due to the county's method of acquiring right-of-way. Our zoning ordinance states chat "Setbacks along major. tlhoroughfa.,,es :hall in no event be less than 30 Feet, measured from the street right-of-way line. " . in 11--his case, tlfie coun1my acquired land for tu.-n-ing lanes off wid o*,.'Ito • County Road 010, and apparently for, ease of descriDtion, made Vnis acquisition witIn straiOt- diaao-snal 1-LY-les" rather -than by curved), line ecluidis•C.ant the used portion of the roadway. The basis for the Variance requesting i � �� ! ' • 1) Single family dwellings to the southlof this property on the west side of France Avenue are sepaiated from it by an existing multiple dwelling. 4) The present and proposed zoning of property to the east (across France Avenue) and to the north (across Highway 0100) is industrial. STAFF CORKENTS: 1) if the property is to be rezoned, and the special use permission approved for this use, a replat of the property into a single parcel and submission of detailed plans of the station should be required. • 1 59th AVEWJE NORTH 1 �! O ell, N I PROPOSED APARTMENT SITE (15. 22 acres) Tract R, R .S.#1186 N7 ! 0 I N � FUTURE _ _. _-.. __.__-. __.- _..-... _..Pt#lniiYfaRiM7. ` ,11 _ _ COMMERC L % USE HOME METRO FE1yERAL FUTURE C014MERCIAL USES I BR0OlWl,%fX- INSUR. FOR J f PLANNING COM USSION IN-VORMATION SHEET Application No. 67007 Applicant: Wesley Reavely (Operator# Standard Oil Station) Description of Request: Special use permission to allow the storage and rental of trailers. Property: 6044 Osseo Road (Part of Lot 37, Auditor's Subdivision # 216) Owner of Property: American oil Company BACKGROUND: 1) This request arises out of the desire of Mr. Reavely and a Air. Herbert Olin of 6231 Regent Avenue North to enter into an agreement whereby Mr. Reavely would lease space on the service station property to Mr. Olin to allow him to rent camping trailers at the service • station, although the permission to rent trailers would allow enough flexibility so that the premises could be used for other types of trailers as well. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The property on which the service station is built could have a variety of parking layouts which would be acceptable for a service station use. The one set out on the attached sketch shows space for 16 vehicles' stalls; a station of this size is required by the zoning ordinance to have 14 parking spaces. It appears that sufficient space remains to the rear of the station to allow for storage of rental trailers on the site. The Commission may wish to set a limit on the number of trailers to be permitted on this site. i �'i I 6037 16045 It app-rtment 6025 6331 J Cy Q OSSEO P?OAD -- HIGMAY #152 V � b C D r L%jobbil 0 d 6012 — 6044 30" Amer-oil Co. _r^ E�f�►;o ridgy d rr d �ILA � 1 ' Apggtm.nt 9 62Q1 gear d Ave- t i PLANNING COMISSION Mr,01MA1'101ST I SHEBM Application No. 67008 Applicants Dayton Development Company (for Goodyear retail st0rEl) Description of Request: Variance from :lSection 35--330 to pexinit erection of a freestanding sign on the pay*operty. Property: 5501 Xerxes PV:enuci 7.qorth (Part of Tract E, R.L.S. X936) Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company BACKGROWD: 1) On Septmiber 12, 1967, the Co-iancil appro .red the site and building plans for the Goodyear RelZa-il Store/Brookdale Sriparette, but specifically exempted any approval of freestanding signing for the two uses. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED; Applying the standards of the Con-mission's I-ecommended J m- tiary 5, 1.967, sign ordinance, the Goodyear Store would be entitled to the following freestand-Ing signery. Two -1--reestanding signs (assuminc 4. _I -that both 55th and Xerxes Ave. are "major -thoroughfares" , and also assuming the restriction relating to a 50 foot set-back for the )Juilding means, the required setback for major streets, v-hieh urar, 45 feet nor this building) . Each of the sians could be a max:Lnum of 170 square feet in area, and IS feet in height (using a flcx-,r area of 8, 234, 2% would - ield 165 square feet, x--,r-h!,Ch rounded to tI.-e nearest .�7 V1 011 gives the aLove dimensions) "Reference dimensions: a) 852 ft. - centerline elevatlon of Xerxes Avenue adjacent to corner of 55th Xen,.es. li) 856 ft. - finished floor elevation of -the Goodyear Building. c) 873 ft. -- roof line (17 fooi.-, walls) • III -2- buildling setback adjacent- to •ehe ma;or thoroughfare, thei i, is based oi,-i the 11--act that a hiardship exists in utilizing the property due to its shape. As can be seen from the site plan submitted (showing a 32.5 foot setback) , the variance to PC).-Mit the building's erection at the location indJcat%.-ed vrould not seam to compromise the intent underlying the grezate.r setback requirement. In reference to point "b" above, the City Engineer will be prepared to comment at thie hearing', on the site plan. 3) The building is proposed to be approximately 4,000 sqViare teat in area, Which would requixe 20 parking spaces according to the zoning ordinance. T'he applic;.-tnts propose to provicle atibstantially more than this, up to 52 apaces. • PLMINING COMISSIOW INFORMATION SPEET Application No. 67009 Ap-plicant-, Shoppers' City, Inc. Description of Request: Special use permission to erect -xid operate a "garden store" including relocation of the llgaArden store" building to the north side of the Shoppers' City property following the closing of the "garden store" July 15, 1967. Property: 3600 - 63rd Avenue North (Tract "A", R.L.S. -4807 and Tract tIBIT , R.L.S. #817) Owner of Property: Shoppers' City, Inc. BACKGROUM: 1) Shoppers ' City has operated a "garden store" operation such as the one proposed for several years with the Council's permission. Last year, a dispute arose following the closing of the garden store operation regarding whether or not Shoppers' City could relocate t1he garage used for such sales to the north side of the main building for use as an accessory buia"Aing or for use as a garden store in succeeding years. The dispute ended when the Council, on September 1.2, 1966, upheld the Administrator's and the Building Inspeclt-or ls rulings that the structure be removed from the property. To avoid misunderstanding which res-uAted in 1966, klr. Roth of S'hoppers' City has now asked in his special use request that Une garden store be pe3mAtted from, April Ist to July 151--h, thereafter to be removed to the north side of the property. (see attached skel.-ch by Mr. Roth) POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The garden store operation would occup-y an area approximately 401 x 1001 to the south of the primary building. 2) Shoppers' City has (by our estimate) parking space for 1100 caresl their floor space ranges from 120,000 square feet (requiring 902 parking spaces) to 140,000 square feet (requiring 1042 parking spaces) . The proposed usee 'would occupy approximately 20 spaces. .: , ...:.' r.... dalbrivnIq .. :'i.0 ,isNqgrl'yi '7 KIM a S s 4 - 4 , ors �aa�oae►sg 4t, -h T 4 I �`t!fe )2�Llalo ue of the Planning_ Coinmiss ion Meeting of March 2 1967 • N(r2E: This record does not propose to be a verbatim record n,,3r to include all comments made. ,Lap L 3.,catioa N . 6605"1 bar Macey m Sian Copany — — Lo - John Roll--er (Macey Sign Company) - The freestanding sign that presently exists at the Lynn Brook Shopping Center was put up with variance permission some time ago, and since that time my employer has been receiving comments from the tenants of the Center to the effect that the sign is not as effective as it should be due to the fact that the center is a small one and doesn' t carry with it any real identity as a center. The individuEl tenants have asked to be identified on this freestanding sign, due to the fact that individual shops are extremely difficult to notice as one drives along Osseo Road. Charles Yovak (Kroger Food Stores, Inc.) - Our Kroger Store at this location has not been receiving the budgeted amount of sales that we have expected. We feel this is due to the lack of identification of the store for traffic passing on Osseo Road, and we, along with the other tenants, wish individual identification on a. freestanding sign. We feel that the single freestanding sign is better than a • number of individual freestanding signs for each one of the establisImments within the Center. Holter - I have discussed the provisions of the sign ordinance proposed by the Planning Cornission with Mr. Cihoski and Mr. Murphey of the City Staff and. we found that the Lynn Brook Center doesn' t really fit in either category of "integrai-..ed development" or "individual detached establishments" . The sign we have designed for the center is much smaller -than some of the adjacent signs along Osseo Road and we feel it is adequate for the identification of the individual shops which the tenants feel is necessary. Ausen - When we were working on the proposed sign ordinance, we had into AL . �-nded that if a commercial development with many shops such as this one wanted a freestanding sign., they would put up a sign identifying the Center but not the individual establishments within the Center. I can see that -there is some problem here in that the Lynn 131rook Center considers itself to be an integrated ,Center, but of a small S4ze which, at approximately 20,000 square feet, is below tf?e square footage we set out for the definition of integrated developments in our sign ordinance. I personally can see no reason why we could not allow a group of shops to • identify -themselves on one freestanding sign in lieu of individual freestanding signs for each of the shops, but if vre do permit this type of signing, we should state it in the form of a resolution giving our reason for such approval. (FoIl.owing a tittle more discussion, the resolution was made: and • cad.:,cad.:, rJ,t ed.. A plication No. 66087 by Lecon Pro erties (The resolution on this application is relatively self-e'.mlanatory. ) aRRlication No- 67005 by Bruce Hasselbarg Mr, Bogucki brought up the question ofMr. Van Eeckhout' s memo, to the Planning Commission and showed the memo to Mr. Hasselbirg, asking him, whether he had any comment regarding the highway dcloart- rient Is plans for upgrading the intersection of France and High,iay #100 to a graae separation., Mr . Hasselberg noted that in the report he had submitted to the Co,-t=.-',_ssion members, he had pointed out that the interchange ar,pareiii:ly would not re installed for 5 to 15 years, whereupon Mr. Bogucki asked Mr. Van Eeckhout to elaborate on his memo tc the Coimiss ion. • Van Eeckhout - 'We have been in contact with the District office of the State Highway Department, which has been examining this Mtersection and have, been designing possible i.-aterchanges for .it., They explained to us that a preliminary layout would be forthcoming from Ithe Central Office shortly, which 'Ox)uld be approved on a, staff le-vel. They further explained that perhaps the interchaarige would be budgeted som,� time this summer, and placed on a building schedule. The actual purchase of the property for the interchange could ta7ll:e place any time after this summer up until several years from this time, dependent upon what funds are available. Hasselberg - As I understand the situation with the intersection, the highway department has been talking about upgrading it to a grade separation for a number of years as they discussed the installation of the semaphores but nothing has taken place. The highway department, of course, doesn' i-- wish to have property put to its"highast camd bent. use" if they are going to condezin the property in the -Euture for highway purposes. I have researched this intersection acid -was appalled at the number of accidents and the amount of Urxie 1--hat- it todit to ge-� the semaphores which are presently in place, but I feel that the installation of these semaphores has changed the character cf the intersection drastically • and that this, in itself, warrants a new exam3.ination of the rezoning and the request for a special use permit. Van Eeckhout - We were led to believe that the interchange would be • budgeted this sunuRer, but as I stated 'before, the actual acquisition of the land. for the interchange could be put off several years, depending upon the availability of funds. Hasselberg - It should be noted., ands state this in my rk�port that the property could be put to a use presently allowed in the RB zone such as an office building, which would raise the cost of acquisition of the property in any event. Further, a case in St.. Paul regarding a similar situalt-,ion resulted in the finding that it is unreasonable to prevent property from being devoted to its highest and best, use on the vague expectation or hope that the property would be devoted to some public use in the distant future. The matter of the proposed interchange is not really relevant to the question of the change in zoning classification. I would 'Uke to go through my presentation to the Commission and omit the dis�ussion of the proposed interchange for the time being. (The presentation of Mr. Hasselberg' s generally followed the format of the repo::t submitted by him, and in addition, consisted of pictures o -' the surrounding area, tables of accident studies in referencti! ;o service stations, and so on. He also noted that the soil conditions in -the area consisted of peat and fill materials and a use such as a service station could afford to utilize poorer type • soil than could another use.) Ditter - Did you say that if a service. station was not bui+t, that an office would be built? Hasselberg - It is Possible that an office building could 'he built up close to the highway and France Avenue right-of-way with -Attle piling, but to build further back would be quite expensive, Ditter - If the highway interchange were built, would it take -:he whole station or go around it or what? Van Eeckhout - The designs I have seen are in conflict with the proposed station site. Hassalberg -- It should be noted that the people in the industrial area presently use the service station further south along France Avenue in Robbinsdale and this creates traffic along France, whereas if there were a service station at this site, the industrial area ,,7c)v.ld use it for most of its needs., .Mr,,. Jens(--.-n complimented Mx. Hasselberg on his presentation and • preparation for the meeting, and then asked the people who had been notified of the hearing for comments. -4- • Ostrom (4645 France', - I don't care to have a- service station that close to our homes because of the traffic it would generate and because it is incompatible with the residential uses. 'Weiler (4639 France) - The access is bad now at France and Highway #100, and it would be a thousand banes worse with people congregating around the service station. We don' t need a service station any more than oie need a pain in the neck. L W. Gillis (4 29 France) - We residents in the area don't want a gas station whether the highway interchange goes in there or not. It is a dangerous intersection and the service station would change the intersection to commercial, -v.rhich wouldn' t fit with the residential. Chazin - Service stations are definitely a service to thecommunity. The industrial area would use the station if it were built. The encroachment that has been discussed on the west side of France is there already in the frbrm of Mrs. Gillis' apartment house. The service station "rounds off" the area and is good planning. I don' t feel that the drawing of traffic from Highway #100 to the service station 'would affect the people in the homes at all. The soil is bad on this property and other properties are -more suited to multiple • dwellings than is this property, so that the proposed multiple dwelling zoning is not appropriate here. This property hasn't been a productive piece of property for the City and installation of a camnercial activity would make it productive. (T-he motion to close the hearing took place at this time. ) Bogucki - The station seeins to me to be a moot point if the property is going to be taken as a ?art of the highway. The City Engineer has stated that by July we would know what is going to go in the area in the way of an interchange and further discussion should probably put off until then. Jensen - I feel we should examine the appropriateness of the land use and zoning propo-sed by the applicant rather than getting into the "gray area" of f-ature highway use. Are we in agreement that a service station is proper at this location or not? It was turned do',en in the past because., we felt the present. and proposed zoning is adequate fo-- the area. Dorenfeld - I ar, against a service station at this location unless it is proved to be compatible with the area and performs a service • to the community. Jensen - The owner, of Course, has a right to ask for a zoning change and we should exanine the appropriateness of the requested zoning. Bogucki - I can't, agree; the information as to the future needs for Highwaj,,, 0100 is pertinent to the discussion. Ausen - I tend to agree %A75-th Mr., Jensen. if you pin a denial on the possibility of an interchange, and the applicant litigated this decision in court, our denial -would be under-mined by such reasoning.. in the absence of an interchange, we should ask ourselves whether we would recommend rezoning the property to a ccamnercial use, .P-;ck J (To 11asselberg and Chazin) - Would yo u people pursue the rezoning if the interchange were definitely going in? Chazin - This would depe-nd on the tim-ang; we have heard rumors that an interchange would be going in for several years, and before that we had heard that semaphores would be going in at this intersection. The semaphores have finally gone in, but the interchange still seems quite nebulous, Jensen -- -1 suggest we confine our discussion to the appropriateness of the proposed use of the "Land for a service station/commercial use Fitter - In our comprehensive rezoning, we have proposed R5 multiple • dowelling zoning; is the D3 zoning requested out of line? Eng.,trom - Speaking in defense of the station use, it would seem to be properly buffered from the single family residential area to the sou-Eh, Ausen - The intent of placing service stations in the cowmiercial zon1-1ng districts was not to have isolated "spot" stations, but rather to have -these stations developed in conjunction with other commercial uses. This is not and cannot be part of a commercial area., as this is the only vacant property available here with proper access. If the logic beliind having a station at this location is to serve the industrial area, it would seem more reasonable that it should be in the industrial area away from the residential uses. Jensen - is what we have pro i posed in the way of R5 multiple dwelling zoning adequate zoning for the property? Dit-It-er - Zoning t1his one corner to me would 'be spat zoning. Dorenfeld - The semaphores at -the intersect'-ion haven't changed the intensity of the -,C-A-aflffic, which in fact will increase in the future. Although the number of accidents will be less, it seems • reasonable to assume there will be more congestion at the inter- section, and if someone ran a red light, we wo-uld still have terrible accidents. The only thing that will take care of the • bad situation at France and Highway #100 is a grade separation. We should probably table the action on the application to see whit additional information in the form of plans for the interchange we can acquire, although we probably 7ouldn't use the interchange as a reason for denial. If we take a,�tion on the application, however, the Council has the option to table it if they wish. Jensen - I again suggest that we act on the proposed use itself aside from the question of the interchange. (The motion for denial took place at this time. ) �3_a cation No. 670,06 by Home Federal Savinas and Loan Association Mr. Van Beckhout commented on the easternmost of the two driveways onto the Home Federal site, noting that although the turning radius from this driveway was probably adequate for the normal driver, his suggestion would be that no part of the driveway be more than five feet east of the beginning of the radius which turns into County Road #10. He stated that he CA.L'%A- 1"-.-,k that there was a. definite hardship to the property owner in altering -the driveways, • as he had an excess of parking spaces, and the change would probably be a benefit to the applicant and his future customers. Edward Baker (Architect for Home Federal) - We have discussed this driveway situation with Mr. Van Eeck-hout, and I had decided that the radius was not so sharp that it would tend to be a traffic hazard. We. of course, would be happy to accept suggestions frOM the City Engineer, although again,, we feel the driveways are properly located at this time. Regarding the application for variance from the setback requirements, we have maintained the proper 50 foot setback from County Road #10 along our south property line, but due to the diagonal acquisition of property by the County on the southeast side of our property, we have designed the building closer to a major thoroughfare than the ordinance technically would require, slightly over 30 feet from the property line. in acGUality, there would be a great excess of grass area between the actual road surface leading onto County Road #10 and our property line beyond what is normally the case. (The action approving the variance and plans took place at this time.) AMlication No. o'7007__b-,,r Wesley Reavelv • Mr. Jensen read the letter from Mr. Boyer Palmer, property owner at 6101 Beard Avenue North. -7- Reanvely - Mr. Palmer owns a fenced area between my station and the service station to the north, but I don' t think what we are planning to do in -the way of trailer rental would be detrimental to his property-, as we police our station quite well and keep it 'Looking clean. We want to rent only camping trailers and most of these uould be off the station premises the majority of the tine. We have a concrete pad along our south property line which was constructed to hold an outdoor tire rack but which was never xi.,ted .for that purpose. We would plan to put at least one of these traiLers on it for display and would have plenty of room elsewhere on the Iroperty to place the others. Regarding the fenced area owned by the apartment, we have installed stop black; along otx property line to prohibit cars on our property from rolling into his fence. The camping trailers we would be renting are the fold-down type and we would probably have about three of them for three to five months in the suim-ner, and they would probably be parked out of the City during the off-season by Mr. Olin, who would actually be operating the trailer rentals. (Mot-ion to approve the special use permit took place at this lime. ) ApElication No,, 67009 by Shoppers ' City, Inc. • jensen - There is only one question or.. this application that is especially relevant this year as I see it, as we Nave pc=..it�ed the garden store in past years, and that is whether the garden s,- ore building shall be stored on the property for re-use in succeodin(., yea.-s. Mel Roth fShoppers ' City) - The tenant. who operates the garden store,, Mr. Fritz, %%,ill be moving the garage to the rear of the st.oie following the closing of his operation. The structure will be built according to code so that it can be moved without damage. (The motion approving the special use took place it this time.) • Plarininq Commission Agenda March 30, 1967 ARplication No. 1, Roll Call: 2. Red Owi Stores inc. 67003 Tabled at the February 1-nd meeting; contirtuaC.'l- at they meeting of February 23rd. Va.riance J-Erorrt Sec. 35-330 to nermit erection of a freestarAding sign on the Red O-v;l p.--operty at 5425 Xerx.'es Avenue North 3y Rayt�qn C y 67008 Table•'I at tb- -:, March 2nd meeting; Vw:iance from Sec, 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign at the Goodyear retail store-/auto service cent-er, 55IGI Xerxes Avepue Nlortb- 4. Sears Roehu,:�r. & Co. 67010 Spec47-1 use pe.-nfission to allow ;,:). .retail salez operation(garden store and sporting goods) f-rom April let to July t on the Sears parking lot at Brook&=.le Certter� 5, Lecon Propert ies 67011 r. Proval of the preliminary plat of zTor Plaza Secand AC d-Ition" . (soutliviest of 69th and Osseo Road) .10TING COMMISSION INFORMATION SIMET 2kpplication No. 67003 Applicant: Red Owl Stores, Inc. Description of Request-z Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign on. the property. Property; 5425 Xerxes Avenue Worth (Part of Tract E, R.L.S. #936) Owner of Porperty: Red Owl Stores, Inc. AAC�K'G'ROUND-. 1) This application was lirst conside-ed by the Commission on February 2nd, where, following discrussion, the application was ta":-)Ied at the request of the applicant. The discussion resuxaed at-, the Corwaission Is February 23rd meeting, at which time the Commission detenriined that a field trip to the site would be in order before acting on the application, Veer :upon t*he t-riip was set for March leth, with action to be taken at the. Cormfiiss.-ILon' s meeting of March 30-th. POINTS TO BE CONSIDEMD: 1) The Coymiission,, during its field trip, found that the view of the Red Owl site from the southwest on Highway #100 (which tbe application had stated was extzcixtely JA..'Mportant) would permit any sign over 16. 5 feet above grade on the red Owl site to Sae seen easily. 2) Usivg the Conuaission's January 5, 1967, Draft Sign Ordinance. as �I �mide, Red Owl' s 30,000 Plus square feet of floor area would be permitted a freestanding sign 20 feet in height and 250 ^7xjpaare feet in area on each collector or arterial street the establishment abuts. (assuming treatment as an '0individual detached establishment or enterprise") 3) You wil.1 recall. that, at the Connission's previous meetings on this miatter, the applicant raised the point that the Red 0%,T]. facil-ity Y.-eally fit neither the "I ntegra-ted dievelopment"' or "s-ingle detached establishment" def'1nittjons, as it will consist of two establishments (Red Owl. anrd Snyder Drug) within a single buj_lding,� :E w(i sure you -ofill wish to discuss -t-h1s Point further. Deference dimensions: a) 856 ft.-finished floor elevation of the Red Ovwl Building; b) 377 ft.-roof line (21 foot walls) i I� i� PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHUT Application No. 67008 Applicant.- Dayton Development Company (for Goodyear retail store) Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign on the property. Property: 550). Xerxes Avenue North (Part of Tract E, R.L. S. #936) Owner of Property: Dayton Development 'Company BACKGR0M1M-,- 1) On September 12, 1966, the Council. approved the site and building plans for the Goodyear Retail Store/Brookcdale Superette, but specifically exempted any approval proval of freeStaLnding signing for the two uses. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Applying the standazds of the Conmiission' s recommended January 5, 1,967, Sign Ordinance, the Goodyear Store woul.6 be entitled to the following freestanding signery. Two freestanding signs(assuming that bath 55th and Xerxes Avenue are "major thoroughFares" , and also assuraing the restriction relatiAg to a 50 foot setback for the building means the required setl'-,ack for major streets, Which was 45 feet for this building) . Each of the signs could be a irtax:Umcua ot' 170 square feet in area, and .18 feet in height (Using a floor area of 8,234, 2% would yield 165 square feet, which rounded to the nearest 111011 gives the above djaAensions) . Reference dimensions: a) 852 feet - centerline elevation of Xerxes Avenue adjacent to corner of 55tb. and 'Xerxes. b) 856 feet - flinished floor elevation of the Goodyear Building. c) 873 feet. - roof line (17 foot walls) . PLY'"INING C-014XTSSION 1170MATIOP SHEET ?,,pplication No., 67010 Applicant: Sears Roebuck - Brookda.le Description of Request: Special use permission to allow a retail sales operation (garden store and sporting goods) from April 2, 1967 to July 1, 1967, involving outside storage witl-,-in a 68' x 7P fenced area on the west side of Sears store. Property; 1297 Brookdale Center 0 ,,mer of Proper-ICV: Sears Roebuck BACjVrGROTJX,'.D.- 1) This application is a repeat of one -made in past years for permi-sslon to have this type of outdoor sales. We have had no enforcement problents with Sears in -Velation to these previous parmissions, • PLANNING COMMISSION: IINTORMATION SHEET Application No. 67011 Applicant: Lecon Properties (by A.S.. Wessin) Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of "Northtown Plaza 2nd Addition" Property: Generally bounded by the following: 69th Ave. on the north; Osseo Road on the east; F.A.I. No. 94 on the south; and Lee Ave. and Lee Ave. extended on the west. (Legal description on file) Owner of Property: Mr. and Mrs. George E. Hanson BACKGROUND: 1) You will recall that Mr. Wessin, in Application No. 66087, requested certain rezoning for future commercial uses for a portion of the property contained in this plat. The Commission recommended approval of this • rezoning, and the Council, on March 6th of this year, tabled action on the rezoning until after a plat of the area was recorded with Hennepin County. The Council did, however, declare its intent to rezone Lot 1 of Block I of this plat to B3, in accordance with a preliminary drawing of the plat submitted at that time. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The adequacy of the plat. The preliminary design submitted is in accordance with the Enganeering Department' s layout of 68th Avenue North. The proper setback (30 feet) has been provided between this proposed street and the existing Servomation building (formerly National Tea and Buyer's Market) , and the dimensions set out for the Servomation lot are adequate to provide for required parking on that site. • 1 Planning Commission Agenda • April 6, 1967 Application No. Roll Call 2- AppEovaI of 142nutes , Regular Meeting of March 2, 1967 Spec.lal Meetings of February 23rd and March 30th Center Dev!��o ment comrsany 67012 Approval of the site plan ot.' art apartment development. , Variance front Section 35-4•02 to permit a greater number of dwelling units on the property than is permatted by the zoning regulations, Both for the property lying north of County Road *10 bet.-We en X'erxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek (Tract B, R.L.S. 4., BrookIvn Cen4[--er industrial Park Inc. 67013 Approval of the preliminary plat of "Brooklyn Plaza Addition" . • The property involved in the plat lies northwest of the intersection of 65t'h and Humboldt Avenues lorth. 5 Dale Embertson 6701.4 Approval of site and blaildir.q plaris, for an apartment development. The property involved in this application is at the northeast axid southeast corners of the intersection, of 67th and Humtholdt. Avenues North. 6. Eamer F. Langren 67015 Special use permission I.--o store and rent trailers on the premises of a service station, The property involved is the Spur Station at 6830 Osseo Road. 7, Jernr Harrinqton 6701.6 Ap,proval of site and building plans for, an apartraent develcplytent.. The property- involved. lies in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Cwnden and • 65t)n Avenues North. i • PLANNING C012USSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67012 Applicant: Center Development Company Description of Recpiest: Approval of the site plan of an apartment development. Variance. from Sec. 35-402 to permit a greater number of dwelling units on the property than is permitted by zoning regulations. propertY3 The property lies north of County Road #10 between Xerxes Avenue and Shingle Creek. (Tract B, R.L.S. No. 1186) owner of Property: Center Development Co. BACKGROUIZ: 1) An application very similar to this one was submitted in May of 1966, also requesting approval of plans and a variance on density. The requests were denied by the • Council on August 15, 1,966. Since that *.--me, the site plans have been --evised, but the site plan still contains 276 apartment units on 15.22 acres of land, approximately 30 units over the 245.55 unit ma,ximum permissable using the figure of 2700 square feet of land per dwelling unit in an R5 multiple dwelling zone. 3:-0INTS TO BE CONSIDEIWD-. 1) The Connission will recall that in its proposed zoning ordinance and in the denial of the previous variance request on this property, the only alteration in the density requir(--ment of 2700 square feet: of land per dwelling unit was based on the inst-allation of parking space underground or under buildings. 2) The sito plan suttmitted is in accord with the standards of the zoning ordinance in all respects but density and the dimensions of parking areas. STAFF CONYIENTS : • 1) There are reasonable arguments both for and against a set density figure for residential uses, and for and against the recfaired area figure for aparbnents, 2700 square feet. per unit. it is quite possible in the future, as Brooklvn Center becomes more cosmop . olitan in in its attitudes, that greater densities for dwelling units will be permitted. Tllis change is an evolutionary process, however, and I do not feel. that the City at present is prepared to lower -these density requirements. Rather, I suggest the deletion of the three 12 unit buildings shown on the site plan to bring the total numbex of units under the 245 units permitted by the present ordinance; then, in the future, if the density standards do become more liberal, the developer will have those spaces remaining into which be may insert those deleted buildings. The deletion of one twelve unit building would leave the development "balanced" in design, but still at an excessive density; the deletion of two twelve un.it buildings would throw the design out of "balance" , and still leave an excess of approximately 6 units in the development; the deletion of all three 12 unit buildings would put the design back in "balance" but would put the number of units on the property at approximately 6 less -than are permitted by ordinance. I feel quite certain that the developer will use this argument and the example of Twin Realty to the northwest • of High-ways 4100 and 4152 where a variance of 2 . 5 units was grantcad to allow him a. -variance in this case. 2) The P,tand.card performance agreement and bond are reconanended. • E i �� 59th A'JFW-jE NOR I'll ti z E PROPOSED APARTMENT SITE ff (15 .22 acres) Tract B, R. L.S.41186 F L"r UR ROADWAYS COLF3RC�L USEEV HOME METRO. FEDERAL FUTURE COMMERCIAL USES B"OOKL IALE c^RD Ch CO. RD. #10 PLANNING COiv fj:t:S;310N INF'OMATION SHEB ApY�;,.I3.cati.on No. 630 Applicant: Brooklyn Canter industrial Park :inc. (By James Sheehan) Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat o' "Brooklyn Plaza Addition" Property: Than property lying northwest of the intersection of 65th and Humboldt Avecues North, e tend r_g approximately 980 'Pk,t north of the centerline of 65th Avenue and 350 feet west of Humboldt Avenue,. Ov,? er of Property: James and. Jahn Sheehan, Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Inc. h .CKGROi;;ND vonc- • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 3.) The plat set: out two lots, both yn accord with the standards of the Tjlatti..r-!g ordinance. The north half of -future 65th Avenue +.s set out as a 50 foot strip along the south edge of the plat. it should be noted that the 7.5/12 zoning line is not coterminus Faith the proposed .,vest property amine at this time, the Council could readjust -the zoning line to the property line at the time the new zoning ordinance is adopted. The present zoning of the majority of the property is R5 multiple residential. • , R5 -on ing #67013 t limits 4--4 o i 12 zoning t t j i R Brooklyn Center 19 Lot Two � t High School `. w ! Lot ! j One _ horth _65th 65.1-h Avenue North z zoning t ' [ i � j > i • Fi°.a}�• -,IF10: F.A , .l o #94 Interchange PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67014 Applicant: Lawrence Embertson Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans for an apartment development. Property: Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, Hi Crest Square Addition (Northeast and southeast corners of the intersection of 67th and Humboldt .Avenues North) Owner of Property: Edward Woody Lawrence Embertson B.AC'KGROIUND 1) Early in 1960, plan approvals were given for four apartment buildings to be built on this property by a Mr. Ranson. • Those proposals having fallen by the wayside, approvals of this plan: are necessary. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: : 1) The site plan submitted appears to be adequate in all respects, with the proper number of parking spaces on the site, proper 35 and 50 foot setbacks, density, and so on. STAFF COMMENTS.- 1) The standard performance agreement and bond are recommended, I • #67014 w , Station i . site 69th AVENUE NORTH to t z nni y Lod l well a, — 0 w Lot 2 z o � > OW z walkwa s i -`� 0 DA [+2 Lot Ln t 5 3 Lot 6 4 3 I `H ! 3LOCY Two 67th avenue ?aTOrth ``�-f Lot I Lc,t ! 2 .` f p • � i 9 PLANNING COMISSIO14 INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67015 Applicant: Elmer Langren Description of Request: Special use permission to store and rent trailers on the premises of a service station. Property: 6830 Osseo Road (Spur Station - R.L.S. #595, Tract C minus the south 15 feet thereof.) Owner of Property: Murphy Oil Company BACKGROUND: 1) On January 24, 1966, pursuant to a request made by the previous operator of this station, the following action was taken by the village Council: "Motion by Howard Heck and seconded by John Leary to approve Application No. 65094 submitted by Harley • Preitz requesting a special use permit to rent trailers at 6830 Osseo Road, subject. to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit shall expire January 24, 1968. 2. i�> maximum of 3 trailers are to be stored or rented from the property. Motion carried unanimously. " 2) The new operator of this station, Mr. Langren, wishes to expand the number of trailers which he allowed to store and rent beyond the limitation of three set out previously by the Council, hence this application. The Building Inspector advised the present operator of the station of the prior limitation, and advised him to apply to the Commission and Council if he desired a change. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) It appears that the primary reason for making such activities as trailer rentals a special use on service station properties is to insure that they shall not cause congestion or dangerous conditions to develop. To this end, it should be noted that the Spur property includes a good deal of land to • the rear of the station's wall/fence which would be utilized for such an activity as trailer rentals. Further, as I recall, the previous limitation to three trailers was based on the previous applicant's statement that that would be all he would ever desire; the new operator disagrees with this forecast. * 7015 i r CLEANS -17 P � e f�' S A.R +TRI.NNE BLDG. • ( A A�,n v s rt C Co. PLAMING COMIUSSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67016 Applicant: Jernr Harrington Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans for an apartment development. Property: The property lies in the southeast- quadrant of the intersection of 65th and Camden Avenues North (Parcel 210, plat 89036) Owner of Property: Russell Gilbertson BACKGROUND,- Bone POINTS TO BE CONS WERED: 1) This property is a portion of the area east of Camden • Avenue which has been designated fox, commercial uses in the Comprehensive Plan, and in fact is presently zoned for comer-cial (B3) uses. Due to the nature of our present zoning regulations, however, the E3 zone includes the uses which are permitted in the less intensive zoning classifications, including P,3; therefore, multiple dwellings are a. permitted used in the B3 zone. 2) As to the sufficiency of the plans submitted, such plans conform to setback, paek.-Lng, and density regulations of the zoning ordinance, STAFF COMMMS: 1) The standard performance agreement and bond are reconmended. if the Commission feels strongly about preserving the integrity of the proposals contained in the Comprehensive Plan in relation to this area, and feels that this use should not be allowed on this property even though the present zoning regulations permit it, it should be so recomiend6d to the City Council. I think it is honest to • say that the development of this property for residential purposes will at the very least complicate development and redevelopment of the area. This is not to say that at some tinie ir. the future the concept of this area cannot change, but that at least at this time, the development would be imprudent, i vacant Commercial 1 1 Texaco Townhouse Development f 4 #67016 Shell J0 Oil Vacant Commercial Beacon Howl t� f ` O � 65th Avenue North $ Property rt involved 0 in Appl. #67016 0, 1 � Put-u a Multiple � - Re idential U Vacant Commercial Future Multiple - -- -� l Residential � j 1 Y^ , Dialogue of the 'Planning Commission meeting of April 6, 1967. • Notem This record does not propose.,to be a verbatim record nor to include all comments made. ARPlication No. 67012 by Center Development Cow y Mr. Chazi.n (Center Development) In August of 1966, I preaented an application similar to this one, requesting approval of the site plan of the proposed apartment development and a variance on density for the development. The application was denied by the Council, and it was suggested to us by the Council that we submit information on the "planned unit development" concept for the Council' s and Planning Commission' s consideration for possible inclusion in the new zoning ordinance for Brooklyn Center. We were led to understand that we would be notified when this had been considered and whether or not it had been included in the proposed zoning ordinance. We have not been so notified, and as we are anxious to begin development of the project, we have resubmitted the application for plan approval., and for the density variance. Although we have asked for an alteration of the density as a variance request, in our ovrn minds, we consider this to be a planned unit development, and wish it could be considered in that • way. We have used the variance vehicle, as it is the only device available to us to get this type of review from the Planning CormTIi ssi on and Council.. Litter - I recall very well the information you submitted to the Commission and Council on your project, and on the planned unit development concept. We had studied the idea of planned develop- ments and greater densities at length when preparing our zoning ordinance draft for the Council,, and after we had received the information from you regarding this development. The final conclusion reached by the Commission was that 2700 square feet per unit in an apartment development was a proper density. Chazin - We have always felt that the 2700 square foot density requirement was a "quideline" rather than a. figure to be adhered to strictly in all apartment developments. it is difficult for me to understand why 16 units per acre is the proper density in Brooklyn Center, and, for example, 22 units per acre is the proper density in Lichfield or other communities. The question that should be asked when exc-opining a development such as this is vbether the design accomplishes the purposes for which the zoning densities were established. if these results are accomplished, then the advantages of the denser development are that it has • a greater tax base, is has a greater benefit to the merchants of the community, and of course, the living environment is adequate for the persons living in the development. -2- • Dorenfeld - As far as I am aware, we in this country are not allowed to legislate good design as are governments in certain European countries and elsewhere. We are then forced to set out certain criteria as to density as we have in our present and proposed zoning ordinances. Chazin - Other communities in this area have adopted planned develop- ment zoning and 2 can't see why they can do it and Brooklyn Center cannot. Dorenfeld - Even in these planned development districts, isn't it true that they set up a basic density? For example, if they set up a minimum of 2200square feet, would you then provide 2700 square feet? We in Brooklyn Center have no dearth of population, and no lack of construction of apartments. In our previous recommendation for denial of your variance request, we suggested to you a type of "credit" for the good design you state you have, to more efficient use of land by the placement of part' of the required parking underground or under buildings. Chazin -- The placement of the parking underground was originally considered by us, but it appears that economically it cannot be • done. Enough land is not reclaimed by doing this to offset the cost of the underground parking. In designing the development, we were advised by Dayton Development Company that the winner of the architectural competition for this site would be the best design combined with the greatest density possible. As I recall, this property was originally considered by the Planning Commission and Council as being a high-rise apartment site which would have put about 750 units on this same area, so we don' t feel that we are out of line in requesting approximately 30 extra dwelling units. Fishman - I would have to agree with Mr. Chazin that the use of a fixed figure such as 2700 square feet per unit is wrong. Bocucki - The 2700 square feet is a minimum; you can go to 3000 square feet or more if you wish. Fishman - My question to you would be, "What detriment is this development to the community?". I don' t believe any one of you can say this development would be detrimental. When I was designing this project, I was aware of the 2700 square foot requirement, but felt that the density I had designed was much better. Someone must be able to judge design, and I feel I am quite well trained to do so. When you discuss "planned developments", one must judge • the density of each development on its own merits. One could say, "pluck three buildings out of this project and meet the density, what does it hurt?" . But on the other hand, the question should be, "What is there about the project the way it stands that is detri- mental to the community?" . Dorenfeld - Assume we agreed with you. Another person could then • come in with a different plan, and how would we judge it? Fishman - I never did say that "planned development" was easy; each project must be judged on its own merits. We are involved in designing a project which is both pleasing and economically feasible, and we feel that we have accomplished both. Bogucki - As was stated earlier, we have reviewed the literature you have submitted to us, ordinances of Bloomington, New Brighton, Edina and other communities, and we have not as yet seen a reason to change our density requirements. Dorenfeld - I see nothing at all wrong with holding the line on the present densities and keeping Brooklyn Center a surburban area with low density living. Brooklyn Center shouldn' t have to be a downtown; most people moved out here to gain this feeling of openness and I think they like the open environment they have found here. We must think of the people both within and without the development. Fishman - Again, I would have to ask, "Where is the detriment to the community, or to the people who live in the development, by • this multiple dwelling design?" . Dorenfeld - The nibbling away at the density requirements begins, first 2400, then 2100, and so on down the line. Each person would ask the same question regarding the detriment of his development in increments, ever increasing the densities. We cannot govern by saying, "this is lovely and this isn't" . We can govern by set densities. 1, for one, have brought up the subject of an architectural review board such as is used in certain other countries and discussed it with the Commission, but we can' t do it that way. The end result of such a board would be an architectural prize contest. We have tried honestly to find a solution to this "planned unit development" concept, but have found it legally unworkable. Grosshans - Have you tried something more intense, such as a 5 or 6 story building. In that way, you could get a greater density. Chazin - That would mean concrete construction and we want to build frame construction. Ausen - A few minutes earlier you were talking about the advantages to the City of this development; if you were really concerned, it seems to me that you would wish to build fireproof buildings as would be required in caller struc4ures. if we were to adopt an ordinance which would give density credits for certain characteristics of a development which are in the interest of -4- • the City, I would be more inclined to give credit for fireproof construction. Chazin - You might try that type of criteria;. you might get some of that type of construction. In addition to the variance I have requested, I asked also for site plan approval so I could get going on the project. I understand also that the building plans must be reviewed, and I would like this accomplished as well. Perhaps we could have a final action tonight on the application. Regardless of what the outcome is on the variance request, we are going ahead with the project. Dorenfel.d - Is it possible for you to arrange the buildings on the site so that you could meet these ordinance requirements as to density and also have flexibility to meet a ,future ordinance if the rules changed and permitted a greater density? Fishman - The buildings are in 12s and 24s it is difficult to cut out the proper number of units without being slightly above or slightly below the number permitted by the zoning ordinance. If buildings were to be cut out, the 12 unit buildings would be deleted easiest, leaving space for future construction, if permitted. • Ausen - It would seem to me that near Brookdale, you would be capable of attracting persons (perhaps without autos) who would prefer a higher type building with elevators. Foslien (5900 Upton) Could these people still have the 2 76 units they want if they put some of the garage spaces underground by this credit system you are talking about? (Chazin notes that in theory it is possible, but economically impractical.) It is about time that someone built a good apartment development in Brooklyn Center that people of moderate means could afford, something with perhaps garaging or underground parking, good construction,, concrete instead of frame if possible, and so on. It is my opinion that apartments can be built with better construction and amenities such as underground parking with reasonable rents and it is about time something like this was built in Brooklyn Center. I -think the Commission Is right to stick to the density standards of the zoning ordinance unless the developer builds some underground garaging to gain this credit you were talking about. Grosshans - I do agree with you that this area to the north of • Brookdale Center warrants something better than 2' story apartments. Harris (5836 Upton) - We have a lot of people going by the back of our property now along the creek, and it would seem to me that there would be a lot more in the future. (Mr. Cihoski explained that the strip of land adjacent to the Creek behind the properties on Upton Avenue us presently owned by the City and would, in fact, be a part of the community park in the future, hence it could be expected that there would be more foot traffic in the future.) Johnson (5843 Upton) - We moved to Brooklyn Center from idinneapolis and Robbinsdale to get away from congestion. There will be more congestion, more pollution from cars and incinerators and so on, with all this development out here. Walstrom (5836 Washburn) - in the first place, I am glad the Planning Commission has been firm with the 2700 square foot density figure; secondly, although the intent was to make this apartment development a transition between the commercial property to the south and homes to the north, the development still presents what appears to me to be a "back side" to the homes on the north. I am, of course, interested in protecting my property value and I don' t feel that the view of the back of a long garage would help at all. Kruger (5842 Washburn) - I am against the density change by variance. Ackerson (Northport Citizen' s Association) •- I would like to make a few comments on behalf of the Association and Brooklyn Center residents in general. I have an objection to the beautiful pictures and models which are constantly brought in by developers and architects to impress the people concerned. 'ghat we have here is approximately a 12% variance being requested. I believe 2700 square feet per dwelling unit is a very good figure and that this is a minimum figure. I cannot see any hardship as a result of having to adhere to this ordinance requirement in this case, and I feel the Planning Commission_ should stand firm. I agree with one of the previous gentlemen and some members of the Commission that Brooklyn Center does in fact need some quality apartments. Mr. Grosshans, you stated earlier that you felt the property warranted something better than 2'k story apartments. Could you elaborate on that? Grosshans - I meant that in my opinion the property should have been put to 4, 5 or 6 story apartment use which would have required steel and concrete fireproof construction to have been used rather than frame construction as is proposed. The Commission has always thought 'chat this area to the north of .Brookdale • could support a more dense, higher quality construction. Mr. Chazin, would there be incineration on the property as was alluded to by one of the residents? -5- Mr. Chazin - We would propose no incineration on the property; all waste would be hauled away. Graf (Nor-Uiport Ascociation) - now many efficiency units would there be in this development? (Chazin _ two or three units) I am not for a change in density. Why couldn't the parking area on the north side be placed on the souifa side so that the residents to the north could look at lawn and treas instead of parking areas? Fishman - I am glad you asked this question about the parking. If you will look at the model and the drawings, you can see that we already have parking on the south side as well as on the north side. In addition, one of the other gentlemen mentioned that he felt the people to the north were looking to the "back side" of the apartment development; this is not true. Both north and south elevations of the buildings are the same so that a person looking at it from the south would see the same thing as he would from the north. The buildings have no "front" per se. Ditter - Screening is required by the zoning ordinance. What type is proposed? I don' t believe it is shown on the drawings. • Chazin - At the last meeting on the matter, I believe it was the consensus that garages were the proper buffer; I really don't think it is the total answer. I think that a combination of types of screening as set out in the ordinance requirements, such as hedging, fencing, garaging and so on would be better than just one type or another of screening, and we really haven't decided which we will use although we would adhere to the ordinance requirements. Grosshans - Any further comments or questions? If not, I will call for a motion on the application. Ausen - I would rather not make a motion, but rather have the Commission act through a resolution since the developer has really asked us to consider this as a "planned development" even though the only method available to have this considered is the variance. Dorenfeld - If he is asking for consideration of the planned development, then we would have to say that we don' t have a "planned development" district in our zoning ordinance and therefore can' t consider it as one. Ausen - I can see that point of view. We discussed many types of • possible credits to make up a planned development, but we only agreed on the credit for underground parking. The motion approving the plans and denying the variance was made at this time. -7- 40 Application No. 67016 submitted by Jerry Harrington Ausen - It would seem that the development of the area would be enhanced by not having this apartment development built. As I recall, the allowing of apartments in the B3 zoning classification is a fluke. We probably overlooked the fact that all of the lesser uses were permitted in the higher zones when we revised these ordinances several years ago. What was intended by the reference to the lesser zones was that only the business uses of the lower zones would be permitted in the business zones. (The rest of the Commission discussed the proposed planning and zoning for the area with the applicant and made him aware of the intention of the City with regard to the area, following which the motion approving tiie plans was taken.) Additional Memo to Corincil Re: Application No. 67012: The consensus of the Commission remains as it was at the time it recommended a comprehensive rezoning to the Council, that the • (Homedale or Cente•� Development Company) multiple residential property to -the north of County Road 10 between Xerxes Avenue and Shingle Creek shculd be put to R7 (high-rise) uses or at least R6 (low-rise) uses. This higher zoning would generate Type I (steel and conc_ete) construction which the Commission feels is much perferablf. to the R5 frame construction. The very proximity to Brookdale Canter would seem to the Commission to demand such higher use of the land. Additional ►demo to Council Re: No. 67016: The consensus of the Commission, although the plans for an apartment develoPmeat were approved this evening, continues to be that the property east of Camden Avenue and south of 66th Avenue should be reserve! for future commercial uses. The present applicant had appliee to the Commission for the apartment uses which are apparr-ntly allowed in the B3 classification. The granting of approval to the plans should not be construed by the Council as appr-jval of the use itself, but only as the only apparent legal act:.on the Commission could take on the matter. The Commission urgws the Council to do anything within its power which will • dir;courage an apartment development in this area. Planning C ommission Agenda May 4, 1967 .ppl3,2a 4 on No. Roll Call-, ,2yal of Minutes. ,Rr Regular Meeting April 6, 1.967 Special. maet--Iogs of .March 30 and April 27 , 1967 , ,3 Robert Anderson 67017 Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of an attached garage less than the required five feet from the west property line of the property at 3207 - 63rd Avenue North (Lot -10, Block 2, Garden City 2nd Addition) 4 Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. 67018 Approval of the preliminary plat of "Brooklyn Plaza First Addi'Cion" . • T'he property in-,;,olved is f:he former Earle Brown Farm. 5 Benuel'-Smabv Re�al.ty, nc. 6701.9 Rezoning of the property at 6:500 Osseo Road frm, RI (single family residential to FB (residential- business) ., Tracts B and C, Brook- lane Addition Dayton Development Companv (for Brookdale Fortis 67020 Approval of the site and building plans of a commercial building, to be used as a used car sales office at 2500 County Road 10. (Lot 1, Block 1, Brookdale First Pddition) T, Arkay Cons.truc,tlon rompanv (for Northbrook Clinic) 67022 Approval of the site and building plans of an addition to a commercial building (Ilorthbrook Clinic) at 5840 Lilac Drive (Parcel 7930,, Aud , Sub. #218) � ` ® I'� PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67017 Applicant: Robert Anderson Description of Request: Variance from Sec. 35-401 to permit construction of an attached garage less than the required 5 feet from the west property line. Property: 3207 - 63rd Avenue North (Lot 10, Block 2, Garden City 2nd Addition) Owner of 'P*.-operty: Robert Anderson BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The request of Pair. Anderson, as contained in a letter of • approval from his neighbor to -the west submitted to the Commil.11sion, is to construct a garage 22 feet in width attached to his house. The construction of this garage would leave two feet remaining between the garage and the west property lire. As the attached garage of the neighbor to the west is 5?-2 feet from the property line, 7' feet of clear space would remain between the two attached garages„ 2) Although the angle at •�, nich the lot lines meet is largely irrelevant in this cane given the amount of variance the applicant will be requesting, it may be useful if he requests a somewhat lesser variance. The interior angle of the northwest corner of the property is approximately 860561 , which would make the front of 'the garage (assuming a 24 foot depth, and the garage front parallel to the street) 1. 29 feet further from the tot line than the rear of the garage STAFF CMINIENTS: 1) in two recent applications for variances to construct attached garages, I made the following comments, which seem to be pertinent here as well. • --2- • "it is questionable that the problem here evidencelis one which is'unique to the parcel of land' , as many other lots in the vicinity, and elsewhere in the City, have been platter in non--recta.ngirlar shapes. in fact, the problem exists as a result of the original. developer constructing the house either without foresight to providing a garage, or with the view that a future garage would be detached, to the rear of the property. in fact, the present and future owners do or may have different concepts of site development than those of the original developer . . . . . A question one should ask, them, is to what extent is the resolution of these differences of opinion a public matter? By actions on variances such as this one, a zoning ordinance allowing construction close to property lines is being evolved; if leas restrictive Limits are desired., perhaps they should be stated explicitly in the text of the written ordinance. " ,,,kith a previous application. . . , I made comments regarding possible lacit of foresight on the part of the original developers regarding garaging space, and on other occasions have made similar comments on such variances. 2t is obvious to everyone involved, I am sure, that the variance standards • are not proper for such determinations, becauae they are based on hardship . . . rather than ' reasonableness' or design preferences. obviously, however, there must be locational requirements for buildings or there would be no open space to -the sides of homes. The Planning Commission proposed a change to the zoning setbacks following a recent discussion of such a variance. Essentially, this proposed change would allow garages construction on lots whose side property lines are not at 90 degree angles to the front line to be three facet at one corner if the other corner of the same side of the garage is a minimum of five feet from. the line. Although it was not stated, i assume: this would also apply to the ten foot setback of houses on the same type of lot, with perhaps a. seven foot setback allowed at one corner. M11 2) Assuming the house to be parallel with the street, the addition of a 21 foot wide garage to the 44 foot wide house would leave 2 feet to the west property line at the front of the garage, and approximately .71 foot at its rear. The greatest variances of this type which I can recall were to permit construction no closer than 3 feet to the side lot. line,. PLAI&ING col%U,11SSION' INFORKATION SHEET • Application No. G7018 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. (by James Lushine) Description of Request: Approval. of the preliminary plat of "Brooklyn Plaza First Addition" . Property: The former Earle Brown Farm (See description on file) Owner of Property: Brooklyn Center industrial Park, Inc. BACKGROUND: 1) The Commission will recall. that at its April 6th meeting, Application No. 67013 requesting approval of the preliminary plat of "Brooklyn Plaza Addition" was submitted, and the preliminary plat recommended for approval by the Commission. That plat involved a tract of land at the northwest corner of 65th and Humboldt Avenues ,".north; the plat being presented under Applicat.-Lon No. 67018 includes the property contained • in the Brooklyn Plaza Addition" , but also the rest of the Brown Farm as well. The design of the two plats coincide, and it is likely that only the larger plat will be filed as a final plat. P0114TS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The developers of' the industrial park have met with the City Staff and have arrived at a method whereby they can retain flexibility as far as design of the industrial area goes, ufr,.ile still comiitting certain rights-of-way to the public and providing workable legal descriptions for use in zoning and assessment in-atters. This process involved. leaving "gaps" between platted portions of roadways within the "Farm" , and putting most of the area into outlots which will quite likely be resubdivided at a later adate. 2) The roadways proposed for dedication are wider tham those usually platted, but roadways have been conceived as being constnicted with center islands or mall. areas, hence the greater width. it should be noted that James Avenue between 65t]h and 67th Avenues us proposed. to be vacated at some • tirae in the 'Euture, as the developers are including it as one of their outlots rather than retaining it as a street- A portion of James 11,venue abuts the western property of Berean Church, and it is not certain at this time whether the Church is in favor of this vacation or not. Mr. Van Beckhout, is ineeting with representatives of the • Church on May 3rd, and may have an indication of their wishes in the matter to pass on to -the CommUssion. 3) It is possible that Lot 1, Block 1, lying in the northwest qua.drant of the intersection of 65th and Humboldt Avenues North may have its western boundary extended to the west priox to the submission of a final plat to aaccmanodate a greater number of apartment units, but this expansion should not exceed approximately 20 feet.. • • PLANNING CUMAISSION INFOR► ATTUR SHEET • Application No. 67019 Applicant; Bermel Smaby Realty, tnc. Description of Request: Rezoning from Rl (single favily residential) to RZ (residential business) . Property: 6500 Osseo Road (extending through to 65th Avenue North) - (Tracts B and C, Brooklane Addition) Owner of Property: Bermel Smaby Realty, Inc. SACNIGROUND: 1) This application is a repetition of one 067001) sub- mitted earlier this year by Bermel-Smaby. The former application came before the Commission on Mbruary 1. 1967r and following the holding of a public hearing on the matter, the applicant requested that he be allowed to • withdraw his application to see if the property owners to the north of his property would care to enter into a joint development of their properties along with his, more in line with the concept of a "planned development area" as suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. 2) The two properties involved abut "old" 65th Avenue North as that street was platted in Brooklane Addition. Since the time of this platting, 65th Avenue has been relocated south of its 6rigina► position, across the northwest corner of the Garden City School playground. This relocation of the street has left the "old" 30 foot segment of 65th Avenue and a small piece of the school' s property to the north of the present 65th Avenue North. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The Comprehensive Plan suggest that the parcels on the northeast corner of the intersection of 65th and Osseo Road should be redeveloped as a "planned development area." ,, No rezoning of the properties involved has yet been suggested by the Commission or Council, however. The appli-- • cant has stated an interest in these two properties, as well as a portion of old 65th Avenue and a remnant of property owned by the Osseo School District north of new 65th Avenue as a site for its northern real estate office. -2_ • 2) The present use of the property across Osseo Road arom this property is for multiple dwellings; the property to the south across 65th Avenue is the playground for Carden City Elementary School 3) Although there are covenants on most of Brooklane Addition restricting the properties therein to single family dwelling use, the applicant has stated that the properties involved in this application are not covered by such restrictions, and it is the -Staff' s understanding that the properties at 6507 Ewing Avenue and 6510 and 6520 Osseo Road are also free of restrictions. • • v home f home 1 ogre i home hol4e hfline °fie home � � °'nR y - e coo -r ua ' � n SC. . vacant I � �� ;B .zoned I , property I ` 1 • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SIEE7.; Application No. 67020 Applicant: Dayton Development Company (for Brookdale .Ford) Description of Request: Approval of the site and building plans of a commercial building. Property: 2500 County Road #10 (Lot 1, Block 1, Brookdale First Addition) Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company BACKGROUND: None • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The structure proposed to be built is a used car saxes office in the used vehicle sales area to the west of the main building on the Brookdale Ford property. The building is proposed to be approximately 30 feet by 45 feet, with a loss of about sic parking spaces where the building will be located, but a gain of 10 parking :spaces by removal of ax?"island" flow existing in the parking lot. PLAIMNG C(3MISSION INFOMMATION SIMET Application No. 67022 Applicant: Arkay Construction Company Description of .Request: Approval of site and building plans of an addition to a commercial building (Northbrook Clinic) . Property: 5840 North Lilac Drive (Parcel. 7930, Aud. Sub. #218) Owner of Property: Northbrook Clinic BACKGROUND; l) The present Northbrook Clinic property (zoned RB) consists of the clinic building itself facing onto Lilac Drive, and a double garage facing onto Knox. Avenue. The proposed alterations to the property teould include the removal of the garage from the property, and the addition of a 28' x 28' area to the main building, • POINTS TO BE CONSIDEF-D: l) The floor area of the Clinic following the proposed construction will be approximately 3500 square feet, which by ordinance requires 17 to 18 parking spaces. The plans submitted by the applicants have indicated more than this number to the xront of the building along Lilac Drive. In addition, they indicated that they would continue to park in the driveway which leads to the garage to be removed. It was suggested to the applicants that although they had already satisfied the legal parking requirements, it was common knowledge that the Clinic could use more parking than they presently have, especially during peak periods, and that it might be advisable to cease using the driveway on Knox: to park doctors' cars, instead enlarging the employees parking lot to the east side of the building. The applicants agreed that this was perhaps a. better solution, and have :incorporated it in their final plans. 2) The ordinance requires the screening of off--street parking areas of C or more spaces from adjacent residential pro-- • perties, in this case the property to the south. s � I VI jj i \4 1 819 i ;o i 1 i i 0 � 72. 8' . 79. 3' ! 225 ' I _ de IN 70 , � � 88.75' � 255.75' `wT1 5 81,34 5840 5850 co p p N ! y w ' I i • '� Dialoquc-, -.-)f the Planii-Ing Commission, meetii---g of 4, 1967. Note: This record does not propose to be a verbatim record nor • to include all comments made. Ap lication No. 67019 submitted bL Bermel-Smarm,Real Inc. I.r. Bermel We are presently attempting to acquire the school property to the north of nevi 65th Avenue North. We have, b(!tween our last application for this rezoning which we withdrew, and this present application, discussed price with the adjacent property owners to the north (Dudley F s and Plunwer I s) , bu-, the prices they were talking about were very high, and since ve really have no interest in extra property other than atteinDt..ng to satisfy the Planning Coirimission and Council by getting together a large piece of property, we were not prepared tc• 9D ahead at their prices. We have examined the following COU13ev of action: 1. If the rezoning is denied us, we will accept it a.-jd keep the house an the property as rental property, 2. We could irtiprove the property as is, using the house as a real estate office. • 3. we could remove the present home from the property and build a new office building which would serve as our north real estate office, in addition to providing office space for other prof-assional people. As I say, if you say no to the rezoning, that would be it. If you say yes to the rezoning, we would be happy to take the present home off the property in expectation that a new building would be built. we have not said. that sometime in the future -vie may wish to accraire more property adjacent to the north, but not at the present price the o-,.a.ners ad,_e asking. Jensen - Yon say this would. be primar-Lly a real estate office, but also a rental office? Berfael - It would be built as an office building of two to -three thousand square feet of which vie would not need the total, so of course, we would be willing to rent it to other office users such as attorneys, finance people, and so on. Plummer (6520 Osseo Road) - Hias the Planning Commission given up the idea of development of the whole area? Dzidley's and our- selves have always thought of the use of our properties together -Titn the property to the south. How would their plans affect out future sale? �I • -2- Dudley (6510 Osseo Road) - The last master plan I saw about • two years ago was that all the property in this area was making a planned development with all the property going together. Bocpicki - On the advise of our Planning Consultant we indicated that these areas should be planned development areas developed as a whole, but our attorney has told us that we can' t force people to work together, only suggest it. it appears from the conunents this evening that you people have been unable to get together either on price or other forms of cooperation. Dudley - Why don't you zone ours commercial too? Jensen - Before we zone property, we like to have an indication of what is going to go on the property, even though we acknowledge that any use permitted within the zone can be put on property properly zoned. We prefer not to just zone the lots as you suggest, Mr. Dudley. The type of office activity proposed by Bermel-Smaby is what we consider to be IICIII in the proposed zoning ordinance, which is an office zoning classification. We feel that this office type zoning ' s as compatible with residential homes as are apartments. • Bogucki - Mr. Bermel, you mentioned that you have perhaps ten to fifteen salesmen and professional people working out of this office, plus about three clerical? Bermel - That is correct; we would expect to rent that portion of the building which would not be used by our real estate agency. Jensen - All we are talking about at this point is the rezoning, however.® as the detailed plans and related items pertaining to construction of the office building would come later. Dorenfeld - This would be RB zoning at this time? Jensen - Yes, we presently don't have the C1 classification so we would have to zone to RB. We are talking of the zoning change navy. There t1w3.Z b-z- a pla" !:Qviewal of, any construction on the proper 4y. w%j&h -,7cnl-,I screeninq the adjacent residential uses, We do, however, loolk, on this type of use as a transitional use between the Osseo Road and the residential property to the emst. Hig'h-er conmere ial uses would not-- be app? op:.Iate here, -h�,-.7ever, (Motion recommending approval of the rezoning took place at. r iPlanning Commission Agenda May 18, 1967 Application No. 1. Roll Call: 2. Roland L. Erickson 67024 Approval of a preliminary plat of property generally bounded by the following: Lyndale Avenue(".r.'.H.#169) on the east; 69th Avenue on the south; Aldrich Avenue on the west; and 71st Avenue on the north. 3. James Wiensch (Wiensch Construction Co.) 67025 Approval of the preliminary plat of 'Viensch Addition" Approval of site and building plans of a townhouse development. The property involved in these requests is • generally bounded by the following: Camden Avenue (extended) on the east:; 65th Avenue on the south; the east property lines of the properties on the east side of Bryant Avenue on the west; and 67th Avenue (extended) on the north. 4. Darrel Farr 67026 Approval of the preliminary plat of "Twin Lake North Addition" . The property involved in this proposed plat is generally bounded by tie :ca110 °ing: 60th Avenue (extended) ; the west lot lines of the properties on the west side of June Avenue; 5vt111 :,venue (Co. Rd. No. 10) ; and the west C:�'4y limits. 5. Darrel_Farr 67027 Rezoning from R1 (single family residential) to R3 (Townhouse) and R5 (Walkup - 2*� story) . The property involved is as stated in Application No. 67026 above. • PLAN14ING COMMISSION IEFORMATION Application No. 67024 Applicant: Roland L. Erickson Description of Request: Approval of a preliminary plat of Parcels 2410, 2515, 2630, 2700, and 5325, Auditor's Subdivision No. 309. Property: As above Owner of property: ►toland Erickson, et al EACKGROUbTD: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The plat conforms to the standards for residential plats set out in the City's ordinances. Three outlots • have been left for future platting due to the fact that they would involve the use of half-streets if platted now, and also because they are difficult to serve economically with utilities. STAFF COMMENTS: 1) It is recommended that a strip of land at least 30 feet in width be required for roadway purposes along Lyndale Avenue to provide for the possible future development of a service road. • 1 J w �INOOKLY" PARK LA 1p so AVE W• +I '^ -...s......�.�. l� 'r Y ��f I-A CAU i PLAi16UING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application vqo. 67025 Applicant: James Wiensch (Wiensch Construction Co.) Description of Request.. Approval of the preliminary plat of "Wiensch Addition" . Approval of site and building plans of a townhouse development. Property: Parcels 500, 1100 and 1500 of Mendenhall' s Outlots. (The properties within the plat are generally bounded by the following: Camden Avenue (extended) on the east; 65th Avenue on the south; the east property lines of the properties on the east side of Bryant Avenue on the west; and 67th Avenue (extended) on the north. Owner of Property: Wiensch Construction Company • B.t1{:S{�ROUND: 1) In May of 1066, application was made and approved for rezoning of this property to R3 (Townhouse - Garden Apartments) zoning, as per Council Resolution 66-104 attached. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The plat being submitted sets out the proper rights-of--way `or 65th, 66th, and 67th Avenues North. The property on which the actual Townhouse development is to take place is being platted into a single lot- land remaining to the south of future 66th Avenue has been left with a designation as outlots, to be recombined or sold in the future 2) The plans being submitted appear to be sufficient with regard to setbacks, parking, and so on. In accordance %,7ith Resolution 66--104, fencing has been designated along the east property lines of lots fronting on Bryant :Avenue. The area of the large lot on which the Townhouse develop-ment is to rake place has been calculated by the I I I -2- surveyor as being 495,070 square feet. The development plans presented contain 92 townhouse units, with a total required land area (using 5,400 square fleet per unit) of 496,800 square feet, or a deficiency of 1,730 square feel: for this number of units. STAFF COMMEMOS 1) Assuming approval of the plans submitted, it is suggestec that approval of building plans be conditioned upon the Building Inspector's final approval, and that a Performance agreement and bond also be required. • member H#-Taa.rd Hack introdeced the foilow�ng resolution and • mo•slet! its adoption: RY,50LUTIOP: NO. 66-104 S0LTj_rTON REGARDING APPLICATION NO. 66025 CI-! (CONSTRUCTION COM NY '14T,PE , wien.swh Construction Company has made application for rezoning from Rl to k3, and approval of plans for a Townhouse develop- ment on the property which is legally described as follows: "The, Last 1/2 of Lot 2, West 1/2 of "Lot 1, and the North 4/5 of the Last 1/2 of Lox 1, all of Mendenhands outlots, Hennepin County, Minnesota" ,%&r,ERLAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the applicant's request, taking int.o account the Cam.prehensive Plan adopted by th Co-,r. fission, potential development of adjacent properties, proposed street cevelopment, and principles of sound planning, and eeoommereded after a duly called hearing r=+ April 21, 1966, that the "Village Council approve the rezoning as requested; and W,,.-?LRrEM,.THS Village Council has considered the recommendation o the Planning commission and the reasoning upon which it is founded, Including these factors noted above: 1140W, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the property legally described as: "The East 1/2 of Jot 2, 1,'liest 1/2 of Lot 1, and the North 4/5 of the Last 1/2 of Lot 1 , all of Mendenhall's 0t3tlots, Hennepin County, Minnesota" be rczoned from R-1 to R--3. Fie IT P UFITN Ii LS0L1yTD that the Village COUZICil, prior t4 aori.yjg on the requested appwva.l of plans finds that the following conditions are basic to a subsequent approval of plaaas for a townhouse development oil thas property by the Plan,-Ang Commission and Village Council: 1, That the proposed 66th Avenue North be dedicated to L That an opa qua: fence be constructed or, the west property lane of wild property to prohibit pedestrian traffic Sxc;ept at 65th lrjew 67.111 Avenues. i J. 7, Z*.3L*-tktM Resolution, No. 66-104 May 9, 19 6 6 Date Mayor Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing, resolution was duly seconded by m e rq b e r Earl Simons and upon vote being taken thereon, the followning voted In favor thereof-. Philip Cohen, Earl Simons, Howard Fleck, T ;,c)hn Leary and Theodore Willard, and the following voted against the same: none-, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and a6apted. • Igo _ -T-T- t U -- Xv AVR W� < : o ..194) �_~ wt:,:;. :.t;.,,;m. ..K.�.' mow--•per ��.n�,:.�..�,.�'.. " CAMPE _ - t� ! PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67026 Applicant: Darrel Farr Description of Requests Approval of the preliminary plat of "Twin bake North Addition" . PROPERTY: Generally bounded by the following: 60th Avenue (extended) ; the west lot lines of the properties on the west side of June Avenue; 58th Avenue (Co. Rd. No. 10) ; and the west City limits. (Parcels 500, 645 and 1910, Aud. Sub. No. 216; and Outlots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, Dahlen Addition) Owner of Property: Darrel Farr, et. al. BACKGROUND: See background for Application No. 67027. i POINTS Ti7 BE CONSIDERED 1) The preliminary plat being submitted is admittedly a simple and generallized one. The reasons for this generalized concept are many, the prime one being that the exact property lines cannot be set until zoning limits have been determined. in the absence of these zoning lines, then, the applicant has proposed a plat of two outlots, dividing the property into (approximately) an east half and a west half. Depending upon the zoning granted under another application, certain streets will be platted into this property to serve the proposed apartment and town- :mouse development. 2) As may be seen on the attached sketch, two properties to the north of re-routed County Road #10 are nota part of this plat. On of these parcels will be unusable for purposes of construction in the future, while the other, on which exists an old farmhouse and outbuildings, will probably be put to a use similar to that within the proposed apart- ment development in the future. The applicant has stated that he has attempted to acquire these for inclusion in his project and plat, but was unable to do so. • 3) With the inclusion of a utilities easement along the north side of County Road. #10, and a walkway between Kylawn Park and 59=2 Avenue North, it appears that design features of the plat are as complet as they can be until the question of rezoning is resolved. rr la, �rrrrrr+� rrrrl as rrrr� ��lk C E� r■� �`��i�rrrr F, 'y J v PLA,NN:6NG COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67027 Applicant: Darrel Farr_ Description of Request: Rezoning from Rl (single family residential) to R3 (townhouse) and R5 walkup - 2� story) Property: (See application No. 67026) Owner of Property: Darrel Farr BACKGROUND: 1) During the Comprehensive planning program and the develop- ment of the Comprehensive zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission had envisioned this property as being developed as a combination townhouse-ITi.gh rise apartment development. As a.result of a good deal of controversy over this proposed type of use, the Commission recommended that the zoning on the property remain as R1 (single family residential) , • but retained the designation of townhouse and high rise in the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning being requested by this application envisages townhouse and apartment structures not exceeding 3 stories in height. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) No plans are being submitted at this time for approval, any being exhibited are for illustrative purposes only, although it is expected that they bear some close resemblance to what will be development. One major design feature which is definite is the fact that the (approx.) east half of the property will have no apartments on it, only townhouses. 2) A point which I am sure will be brought out during discussion of the application concerns access to 593-2 Avenue North. Arguments will be probably made that there should be no access to this street from the townhouse development. This argument ys strictly emotional, as other types of develop- ment would be permitted access to these adjoining streets, and the portion of the total development which will use this street for access will not .be large. r ; , _goitwission Me..tinq of 1967 NOTE: This record doea not propose to be a vex�batim- record • i nor to inc-Lude all coiLrxctents made, and 67027 SUIXn4tted by Darzel Farr I�Iarr (Develope,�7) airt involved with two other, -ersons in a pro- posed development of this property as a • owaahov � lr..I apartment project. 41 major feature of the project would e 1--he extension of Twin Lake on-to the property. This is a unique piece of property In relation to both its pIlysica.1 characteristics and i ;s location. it has a difficult topography -,vii-th soils ranging from crood to 17e-'-Y .JDOor, and 4the surrounding uses are a park on the north, I-Ior,jes oil t*!,te east, a proposed four lane roads-vay 01). the south, and an airport on the west. I think m,y A.landscape architect, Mr., Baldwin, is better equipped to give, a description of the proposed. project and I will let. him no so now. Baldwin (Landscape architect) - (He described the project generally including soute of the following statements. ) The project is "'turned -1_nto itself" around the cent-ral lake core. Tshe present tree cover is mostly decidlaous with poor soil. over much of the area, a great deal of peat in the center, hence the cons trUc tion • of the buildings will take place on Ole e-ast and u?est sides away from low areas. We envitiage the townhouses on the east side of the lake and apartments and some townhouses on the west side. we also envisage �n the east side a strong 1-c-m.dscape buffer between the s-ingle fairtily homes and the townhouse project. Since Mt. Farr' s discussion urith the PeOPIO in the area, we have developed a possible revised plan which has �hanged the access somewhat so that the former access to 59 ,j Avemie North and June Avenue has been switched t.o become a part of a long cul-de-oac street Jeading to County Igo :R NO. 10. Jensen - Hou, is the 1,�Cke that vou propose to -6,r kept full? Farr -- We hartre head the approval of the Conservation Depart lent i and their statements that ti-,(�,y are goil-Ig to imaintairi the level of Twin Lake at a fix.,ed elevation. We ex-pect. storm drainage from surrounding areas to help keep tho water level up. 0 ',e Eoqucki _. Do I ascume. then that drawing number 12 is t2l Ae n which yort want: to develop? Baldiviin - We have developed dirawing nu fiber 12 to sat.isfy the • desires of the people)eopla j_a the area~ We have moved a. portion of the tovilihouse sty.-uctures into the bad soil. in doing so by pulling aw-canr frola the sing"Ir.- fw):Uly dwell_ings,, family.Pa:Lr -- 169(.-i did "this, as Mr. Baldwin said, at the request o-f the adjacent residents; +Lhiv- gives a wider greenstr.ip �rid landscape buffer separating the homes and. the project. Dorenfeld - Tie were originally after high rise apart-ments in this area. to qziin the benefit of better cpxality- ccinstruct..ion-, are we still after this? Jensen - We did, in 'Che past, suggest that high rise should go into this area but we have had other hea�rings on the Catniprehensive Plan which more or less resolved tl-ie question of high rise in this and other areas,, Grosshans - 'Would the. townhousas be sold. or rental units? Farr - We expecl: that we will probably have both salas and rentals. 'Ale plar. to have an, association which will mrairitain the project through, a Board of Directors. We expect the finish-ad. project to be worth in excess of 7 million dollars, (Mr . Jensen at this time called for corrients frow those notified of the hearing. ) Miller (6019 June) -- How many more families would go into this open -area with this type of development rather than single family home? (Jensen - it would be slightly over twice as many families or dwelling units . ) We were told by Mr,, Weiss who sold us our house that nothing but single family homes would be 'built in the area-, are they going to build right up to us? Saldwln (Landscarte, architect) - To answer Rrs,. miller' s question, there would be approximately 95 feet frort, the property line of t ,e single family homes plus, of course, the rear yard setback o-Iff the hoates 11--hemselves which -�-,Yould a,,I..d more distance between her sti-,)cture and any tovanbouse structure. Miller - I believe I- am oppased; I think it should be s-Ingle VIAte (6018 Junp.) -- Opposed. Cahlander (6007 June) - I-Iiat sort oIE' storm sewers will there be on the north side of i-his Project? There i.,,:; a swap area -west of my property �uid also in the park. Van Eeckhout - The developer has agread, 'Ito help us provide drainage for t2ie low areas from the par"K. into his lak.e. -3-- Almen (5925 June) - t also am concerned with, storm sewers; there is a great deal of water drainage off. 591� Avenue: North. The park isn' t developed as well as it should be. We are opposed to traffic on 59-� Avenue Nor-U,. because it would mean June Avenue would have to be widened., and we'd have to pay for it. Van Beckhout - This is probably beside the paint since the developer has indicated that he doesn' t need access to 59� Avenue North, but in any event, to answer your question, in the original plan submitted by the developer, no more traffic would have to exit onto 59 Avenue North then would a comparable single family platting to the west of you. As far as the storm sewers go, if the Farr project is developed, we hope to be able to work a good storm sewer system into the area to alleviate the problems you mentioned with the drainage waters on 59% Avenue :North, the park and lower areas to the rear of some of the homes., Almen - 'We were concerned previously with the setbacks of the buildings along the west property lines of the homes, but the developer has pulled the buildings back and a. green strip provided. How about incineration, garbage disposal and so on? (Farr answers that it is his intention that there should be hauling of these items except for incinerators within the • apartme nt buildings.) (Mr. Almen proceed to read the old petition of January 8, 1966, relating to the request that the Planning Cantu ission and Council not zone the vacant property to high rise and townhouse zoning.) I do not believe that I have changed my opinion since this petition was submitted to the Con=ission and I propose that the property be kept Rl. Burlingame (5919 June) - If the zoning goes through, could he build apartments east of his lake? Jensen - If we rezoned the property to the east of the lake to F3 toumhou.se zoni nq, the developer could not build anything more intensive than townhouses on the property. Burlingame -- Could the developer change his plans from what he has shown here? Jensen -- The plans could be changed, but I would assume he would not change them substantially since he has already done a great deal of study to indicate that the ones he has prepared are proper. Burlingame I am opposed to the project. • Parham (5913 Jun,�-I) - I '.have no objection to the tOw"I"OUses if the townhouses are on the ea.st and -the apc-�rtljej-it are on the west. rhaneuf (5912 June) - Against. Buade ("900 june)-- i have a question on the access to this townhouse/ apartment project. on this plan number 12, I-le shows two long deadenled streets up into the project; isnt that ;.rA lots of traffic for tfio roads? Jen-ien - The cleveloper changed from the previous proposal. which ha,(A three roads to the design number 12 with two streets, apparently al.- the request of the adjacent residents vilho didn' t want that -!.hird street exiting onto June Avenue.. Budde - Just a few minutes ago, didn' t the erigineer say that this we-)uIdn' t put anymore traffic on June Avenue then other residential? (Van Eeckhout givos a brief explanation of various types of roads within the City, a-rid their traffic potential.) A.I.nien - My not open 11cyle Avenue into this project, so they could go straight up to 63rd? Hysel (Ardhitect) - Vle didn- t want to put in Kyle Avenue because i.t wotild create a physical barrier that wouldn' t fit in with the character of the development. in addition, the Peat in that area is practically 60 feet deep. Putting ill leyie seera to me would be the same as installing exiting on 593� Avenue though, which was apparently o'bjected to by the residents., Budde - I am opposed. Xunz (5843 Jvne) - xil am strongly opposed. it wao zoned RI when vre moved in and it -would lower our property values if this thing Wel-e bijilt. it should remain RI. Jensen - I can' t necessarily agree with you that because you have a toi-nihouse or apartment development adjacent. to your property that your property would thereby be lowered. in addition, Vnen there is R1 undeveloped land, tbere is always the dhance of a chenge in. the future to sortie more intensive -use. An example of something of a change in a neighborhood which was thought by many people to be a, disruptive force is the freeway system that is being built-, many people ,-1,noli.gh that this vmuld auto- OU4- maticall-y- lower the,.Jr property values, but �t has turned that .,Iis is not the case and in many instances, the freeways have enhanced ,:tie value of the property by makin9L the homes more secluded and so on. Bogucki - I would like to ask w1th regard to the comment made previously about Twin Lake. There is a. joint project with Robbinsdale-Brooklyn Center-Crystal woexing on the development of Twin Lake for recreational purposes and -for maintaining the laRe as a usable facility. Dorenfeld - T would like to add with relation to the lake that, .in. general, lakes in this area are dying by a natural process due to the increasing use of fertilizer on lawns whic"411 drains into 11-hese lakes which produces greater weed growths which in turn fill up the lakes. If we are to save these lakes in the future, -41-t -�,,7ill probably be necessary to dredge them. Sutter (5842 June) - By the townhouse side of the project, �.-lill t1he additional parking be in addition to the townhouse garage. Farr - There is a garage plus additional space in qpen parking areas on the townhouse side of -the project wid primarily open parking on the west in the apartzent area except: that there will be some garaging and some underground garaging. Sutter - Is there adequate parking being provided? Will single J C. people lile stewardesses end several men get together and live t-here? I am opposed to the project. Farr - There probably would be single people living together within -the project, although 1, of course, as a property owner, would screen these people and wouldn' t care to have people who would be disruptive to the living environment tbere. I do have -teachers in other rental properties that I have and have found them quite satisfactory even though they are single people. Buehler (58-�7 t_Tunel- em viOlently o,�,Nposed and have a numbeK of po4ntZ- to CoVer. J_ I was told by bon Bermel Smal,;,y and A-r.t Lee when I bought the house I live in about a year and a 'half a90 that R1. zoni-na was .,in th.is rN-r0Tprt,, Pnd th]��t itl-c�-nld - .1 - � stay that way; 2) On the Comprelhensive Plan that was passed 01,_,t over almost a Year and a half ago, June Avenue ivas. shown as upgrade. Is it going to be upgraded? Who is going 4-0 pav for J.t.? 3) TVhat if the. developer or cFj,.,� j4ro, ge '_ - rioney " I '1 1, t any to build this praject� 4) I zm; concerned about the 9Ua,litY Of this. lake and the water Ln it� 5) 1 Who pays for the streets and utilit.-ALes for this project_; 6) INIhO will keOP t-1-19 property nice? (other similar questions also) Bogucki - I would like to comment with regard to the statement made by Mr, Buehler that Mr. Lee told him that there would be no other zoning but Rl on this property. Mr. ee was very much involved in the plannirm,- program, and was aware of the proposed designat3l-on of R7 and R3 1high rise and townhouse) which the Planning coramission was proposing for this propertY. I suggest that you misunderstood his rentarks whan you guec.;tioned him as to the future use of this vacant land. As a r.,.ak.ter of interest, when t7he !Planning commission has not -,ianLed to com"At to a higher zone a certain piece of property, it s auite often le-ft in single family residential P.1 and it is left -up to a future developer to apply for rezoning, suc!-, as is the case here, for we ha�,,ie `Lndicated a higher use of t1tis Property in the Comprehensive Plan. Jensen - Eighteen mon'ths 2190, a Village Officia.1 sxl.cll as, Mr. Lee, could have stated to you what-t- the present zoning war�_4 and that there was, in 1�4js no collstruction going to take place in the near future, ).>u, I am sure lie would not have said �Vhat you attribute to hiM. Van Beckhout - with regard to the questions Mr. nmdhler has raised, qith the quality .z would like to sa,, ti-lat we are concered of the lake and the water in it that Mr. Parr is proposing and have had Mr. Farr confer with the Conservation Department and take soil borinqs to prove that the concept of a small la3ce addition to 911win Lakes is workable. The Conservation Department and the city have agreed to the development of the lake if it_ c is feasible and proves to be a good idea. Bogucki - With regard to t1i.e several comments made about the fact that the park north Of this project is not developed -the -way people woulz.d like It to be in that Twin Lake itself is not developed for immediate use. I would like -to saay -that we. Ilave had a program of developing our parks slowly altd we have had to be cautious in -this respect due to the fact ti-lat we don' t. have a great deal. of money to spend on it. I for one would be quilte willing to join with anyone here to go out and get petitions asking -the Couricil to r-cj; se raore money for the improve- inents of parks 1.mmediately but I t1hink the program of development has beer, cj.u3i.te good. H.umble (5831 June) - opposed. Is Norten (5830 June) - opposed. Zurl,i_ay- (5824 June) - opposed. Henry (5S19 June) - oppo.,."�ed. Sandberg (5818 June) opposed. Pea-rson (5813 June) Opposed. Kaiser (581.2 June) Opposed Allanli.eto (5807 June) - Opposed. Hint---man (4018 - -58th Avenue) - Here we are proposing to move 375 families with five kids each which will require that we have to build. a new school for them. I am opposed to the project. Jensen - Ocr studies have indicated that the tax base of apartament. projects usually over-coRpens at es for the niinber of children produced by the apartment units. (Proceeds to elabo�---ta-te on t1ds apois.,.L.) Dorenfeld - As far as the tax question goes, and. burdens placcd upon school districts is concerned, single fzaaily homes are the burden in that they produce more children than apart-vients and tovinhouses and. yet do not pay taxes in proportion to the nimiber of children, Mrs. Edling (5737 Halifax) - We ovin property to t1ae soiath side of this FaiTproperty, south of County Road 10, abutting Twin LELke. How will -the water be brouqht from Twin Lakes - we haven'ts given an easement to anyone fo--, this. How wouLl the Commission feel about rezoning my property as well? Jensen - There has been. x-to application for, yckur property for rezoning, Mrs. Edling, and as far as the easemen't of connection between Twin Lake and the proposed lake of Mr. Farr, I can' t ans-,,!er that question. M�rs. Edling - I am opposetc, to the project. Planning Co-rmnission Agenda June 1. 1967 jj�?.21ication No. Roll Call: A roval of Mis,iulles Regular Meeting of May 4, 1967 Special Meetings May l8th aqd 25th, 1967 3. Xnter Citv Builders 67028 Variance from Sec. 35-401 to permit construction of an attt-ached -.iarage less than the �required five fe.et -Crom the West side property line at 1306 -- 72nd Avenue North. 4, William J. HeidOLI�t.Cger 67029 Special use permission to con.-itruct a duplex dwelling at 5350 - 531.4 Dupont Avenue North. PLANNING C014ISSION INFORKATION SHETT Application No. 67028 Applicant: Inter City Builders (for Thomas Kotten) Description of Request; Variance from Sec. 33-401 to permit construction of an attached garage less than the required 5 feet from the side property line. propertyt 1306 - 72nd Avenue North (Lot 3, Blodk 1. Northland Estates 2nd Addition) Owner of Property: Thomas Kotten BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO AR CONSIDERED: 1) The applicant wishes to add a 22 foot wide garage to his home. This addition would be 5 feet from the side lot line at its rear, and 3.9 to 4 feet at its front. STAFF CUMMERTS: 1) As I have mentioned in previous agendas, most recently In the agenda of May 4th, the garage variances being reqyested, although apparently not detrlmental, are not in accord with the standards for variances. in fact, the Commission has acknowledged this in the past, suggesting that (at least for non-rectangular lots) perhaps the pennitted setback should became 3 feet (minimum) on are ond, and 5 feet (minimum) on the other. This is a matter for discussion, but it seems apparent from the number of variances being granted that the 5 foot setbadK is not agreeable to the Commission and Council. • _...�- NORTH FREMONT AVENUE M E _35 '- a 0 M 4� /-- 17,.5' x � x r z en ea o � 14 0+ CT P., C4 �+ —35'— M i AVENUE • PIAINNING CCNMISSION lNr7ORIVIATIOIT SHMET Application NO. 67029 Applicant: William J. Heidelberger Description of Request: Special use permission to construct a duplex dwelling. Property: 5350-5354 Dupont Avenue (the west 110 feet of Lot 1.5, Block 4, Bellvue Acres Addition) owner of Property: William Beach BAC5<GROUND: 1) In May of 1966, mr. Beach received permissioxi to sub- divide his large lot (extending between Colfax. and Dupont) in'to two lots facing Colfax, and one lot 126 feet in widtI, and 110 feet in depth fronting on Dupont. As the property was not being sold immediately, the legal subdivision of the property did not occur at that time, but is being accomplished presently, with the lot facing Dupont being sold to Mr. Heidelberger.. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) As I recall. the Commission's and Council' s discussion of the subdivision, aiid the intent of Mr. Beach in providing a 13,860 square foot lot an DuPont, it was understood by all parties that the lot was designed for a duplex dwelling. This thinIlking was underscored by the proposed zoning of this area to an "R2 -- duplex" zoning classification. 2) The 13,860 square foot lot exceeds the 12,400 required for a duplex dwelling. 10 a Fi H H plex H 4 R F H 55th AVENUE H P. H H Church g H H H Fi H H H H Ri H H H �H V. Ei H H _ __H fi ._ ki H H fi S — H H • --�----•-� � � H� H H _. - _ 1 H--- a H H H H H C°° H v H H lu H Ii � � H It H H H fl -- H H H H H H Fi H H H GU H Iw Stab-o l H H 53rd. .'AVENUE • 7/ i' • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 22, 1967 Application No. 1. Roll Call: 2. Harry DeZiel (for United Land Inc.) 67030 Rezoning from Rl (Single family Residence) to B2 (Regional Business) of the property at 6236 Osseo Road (Parcel 5050, Plat 89100) . 3. Richard Cameron 67031 Variance from See. 35-601 to permit use • of a lot of a size less than 70% of the size of the normally required lot size. Variance from Sec. 35-401 to permit a lesser sideyard setback for a dwelling than required by the zoning ordinance. Both for the property at 5444 Humboldt Avenue. 4. Sine Bros. , Inc. 67032 Approval of the site and building plans of alterations and additions to the TEXACO Service Station at 6810 Osseo Road. I t I� ' • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67030 Applicant: Harry DeZiel (for United Land Inc.) Description of Request: Rezoning of the property from its present R-1 (Single Family Residence) classification to B-2 (Regional Business) Property: 6236 Osseo Road (Parcel 5050, Plat 59300 -- see legal description on file) Owner of Property: The Heinen Estate BACKGROUND x None i POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: • 1) This property '. ies directly south of the municipal liquor store at 63rd and Osseo Road, and is presently occupied by a single family home. To the west, across Osseo Road, are commercial properties zoned B-2 (Regional Business) and B--3 (General Business) . No commercial activity (other than a beauty shop home occupation at 62nd and Osseo Road) exists between the liquor store and the P.B.C. Clinic more than a. block to the south. 2) The Comprehensive Plan map contains the designation "Planned Development ?area" for properties along Osseo Road between the liquor store and P.B.C. Clinic, including this property. This designation is the indication of the community's desire that these properties be redeveloped into uses more compatible with the character of the Osseo Road than are the present single family homes. Although the future change of use of these properties was envisaged in the Plan, neither the Planning Commission or Council has yet proposed immediate zoning of these properties as part of the rezoning. 3) The approximate dimensions of the property are as follows: east line - 107 feet north line - 235 feet west line - 116 feet south line - 115 feet i I I SHOPPBRIS I CITY ` gas stati0 63rd Avenue ""^°--- `�-'' 6 3 rct � -- Avenue gas _ istation B-3 Liquor S t_0r r Fire PAP HOuseL—_-_ Go) , Lynn 3rook `I ci I shopping \� 6 2 3 E �'------ _ • I Center Cent � •�--- (B-2) __ � � .�. \ \ - -� r >+ ` ;6234 d �� W \ O 6206 CE ' Briogeman 5200 62nd Ave. © 62nd Avenue 6142 6136 Brookdale - ' Ch r s PI � ! �Br3Ymvuth `� P-B.0 Clinic (R-B) • Xing ----_- • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SKEET Application No. 67033 Applicant: Richard Cameron Description of Request: Variance from Sec. 35-601 to permit use of a lot os a size less than 70% of the size of the normally required lot size. Variance from Section 35-401 to permit a lesser sideyard setback for a house than required by the zoning ordinance. Property: 5444 Humboldt Avenue North (Lot 26, Block 2, Fairhaven Park Addition) Owner of Property: James R. Bateman • BACKGROUND: 1) The zoning ordinance permits the use of lots which are substandard in width, depth, or area without special exception if the lot is within 70% or more of the presently required. size. The lot in question is 40 feet in width, 126.77 feet in depth and 5,070 square feet in area. Thus, the lot' s width is 53.33% of the normal 75 feet required width, and 53.37% of the required 9500 square feet required area. The applicant asks a variance to use this substandard lot, and an additional variance for a 5 foot sideyard setback along the north property line. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The properties to the north and south are both occupied by dwellings. 2) Variances of a similar type have been granted in this general area to other lots in the older subdivisions. Most of these lots \>,7ere 50 feet or more in width, but a variance granted to Thomas Wilder in 1965 was for a 40 foot lot in the same subdivision as the lot involved in this application. In that • previous application, a variance was also granted to permit 7-� foot sideyards rather than the required 10 feet so that a 251 x 421 house could be built on the property. 3) It should be noted that the "reasonable" use of such a lot probably requires less than 10 foot sideyard setbacks, and in fact, a good many homes in the southeast area do have lesser setbacks because of the narrower planting of the old subdivisions. One factor which may relieve part of the need for the greater sideyard setback is the existence of an alleyway to provide access to the rear yard, rather than a driveway to the house. �I i '� i i 1.4 1 , { % i 1 { i Zi z a y E. f M.� i E 1 S s I i f � • PLANNING ('rt4KISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67032 Applicant.- William Sipe (for Sipe Bros. , Inc.) Description of Request: Approval of the site and building plans for alterations and additions to the TEXACO Service Station at 6810 Osseo Road Property: 6810 Osseo Road (Tract A, R.L.S. #456) Owner of Property: Sipe Bros. , Inc. , Osseo BACKGROUND: 1) This station (Texaco) has been in operation for a number of years. The proposed alterations to the station would include refurbishing the existing building, and the addition of a canopy to cover the relocated pump islands. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: • 1) You will recall that two previous plan approvals occurred in this vicnity in the last year and a half; for 0. B. Thompson Electric Company directly to the north; and for Center Sales Lased. Cars directly to the south. One of the requirements which was made for both of these properties was that a miniamum of 15 feet of property adjacent to the Osseo Road right-of-way be made into a greenstrip, irregardless of the existence of 20 to 25 feet of boulevard within the highway right-of-way. in the case of 0. B. Thompson, the entire front yard was grassed in; Center Sales has not yet accomplished its sodding, but a bond is on file to ensure its accomplishment. Wtih regard to the TEXACO plans being submitted, the building on the property is set back approxi- mately 60 feet from the Osseo Road right-of-way, and the installation of two pump islands between the building and Osseo Road with a canopy above seems to preclude the pro- vision of the 15 foot greenstrip ordinarily required, unless the outermost service Zane adjacent to a pump island is deleted. The applicatn has been advised of the usually required 15 foot greenstrip, and will be prepared to present his arguments for a lesser greenstrip width. • The determination the Conunission and Council will have to make, then, is whether the conditions on this property are sufficiently different from those on the O. B. Thompson and Center Sales properties where the 15 foot greenstrips were required. -2_ 2) The applicant had originally, wished to install a 40 foot high freestanding sign to the rear of the station, and another smaller freestanding sign adjacent to Osseo Road, to replace the present freestanding sign which overhangs the Osseo Road nigh-of-way. The Staff advised the applicant of the Commission' s usual limitation to a single freestanding sign for each service station, and I believe the applicant has since reprised his thinking to desiring a single sign atop the canopy proposed to be constructed over the pump islands. • �/ 4w Q��1�! E�' ° , ,; , � � � �� -,. 1 0 � � ��a� 1 • � � R � � �S -�� 1 x� �� 1 r `'`� ../ II ��. r� � . ., � �� 1 �' � � t,�� re Planning Commi-3sion Agenca ,July 6, 1967 Lp2 I.ication No. 1 . Roll Call: 2. �P.Rroval of Minutes: Requiar meeting of June 1, 1967 3jecial Meeting of June 22, 1967 .3. F�,duard & Lois Bergerion (for Lo�^,ry 67034 Rea I Variance from �ection 35-315 to permit the erection of Agns on the premises of an R-B zoned property in excess of the -,ize permitted.. rhe property in question is at 7006 Osseo Road, 4� Homedale Builders (Norman ChLIZ-L-ri, 67035 Approval Of 3ite and building plan3 of an apartment development on the property In the northwest quadrant of the inter section of 65th and Humboldt AvenueL4 North. 5 . Iten Chevrolet 67036 Approval. of site and buil�,ing plans of additions and alterations to a commercial establishment at 6701 Osseo Road. PLANNING COYMISSION iNFORKATION SHEET Ap-plication 67034 Applicant: Edward and Lois Bergerson (for Lowry Realty) Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-315 to pennit the erection of signs on the prentises of an R--B zoned property in excess of the size permitted. Property: 7006 Osseo Road (Parcel 1823, Plat S9101) Owner of Property: Edward and Lois Bergerson T 33MCKGROUND 1) The applicants are in the process of acquiring a business certificate of occupancy to utilize the house at this address for office purposes. Upon a reading of the present ordinance relating to signery, and being aware that proposed changes relating to signs are "in the worksll ,' this application is being made. POIVTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The present R-B zone permits only two types of signs, both of which are permitted be reference to the signs pennitted in the R-1 zone. They are (siz-narized) : 1) unlighted "for sale" or " 'for rent.11 signs not over 2 sq. ft. in area; 2) unlighted nameplates not over 3. sq. ft.. in area. 2) It was contemp]-ated in the proposed sign ordinance that office uses such as this would be permitted more signing than is available to them under the present ordinance. Reference should be made to t'Ae Januanr 5, 1967, draft of this proposed ordinance. Sketches of the signs proposed by the applicant will be avaiiable at the hearing. The building is 35 to 40 feet from the highway right-of-way, approximately 80 feet frora the centerline of -the highway. Is PLANNING COPU41SSION INFORMATION SHEET. • Application No. 67035 Applicants Homedale Builders (Norman Chazin) Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an apartment development. Property: Lying in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 65th and Humboldt Avenues North (Part of Parcels 6000, 7500, and 8600, Section 35) . Owner. of Property: Homedale Builders BACKGROUND- 1) Two preliminary plats, including within them the property contained in this application, have been given approval by both the Commission and the Council. Neither of .;hese plats has been submitted to the Council for final plat approval. The dimensions of the property being used • in this apartment site use those of the approved preliminary plats POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The area of the property is 6.26 acres (272,686 sq.ft.) , which will support the following number and type units, as indicated on the plans: 2 bedroom units -- 37 = 99,900 sq. ft. 1 bedroom units - 62 = 167,400 sq. ft. Efficiency units _ 3 - 4,800 sq. ft. 272,100 sq.ft. required 2) Setbacks, parking and other zoning requirements appear to have been met, with the exception of certain dimensional revisions to be made in the parking and driving areas. STAFF COM�SENTS: 1) Approval of building plans should be subject to the Building inspector's approval. • 2) Usual performance agreement and bond? Berens► Church property TI - i R5 zoning limits o Z 12 zoning m {� Lot Two Brooklyn Canter 1 Nigh School o-4 Lot I One 11no th 65th Avenue North 12 zoning --- v ro i Tay. #100 F.A.1. #94 Interc`hanae PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION MEET Application No. 67036 Applicant: Iten Chevrolet Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of additions and alterations to a commercial establishment Prope.,rlty: 6701 03seo Road (Lot 1, Block 1, Automotive Acres; Portions of Parcels 3000, 9000, and 9020, R.L.S. #761) Owner of Property: Iten Chevrolet WkaWROUND: 1) The plans being submitted contemplates an expansion of the Iten Chevrolet site by over 3 acres of land and approximately 25,000 square feet of building. The land to be acquired is contained in the future "Northtown Plaza Second Addition" , the preliminary plat of which has be�:-n approved by the Commission and Council. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED; 1) The site plan does not designate any area along Interstate #94 (south property line) as landscaped area, wh*,.ch is in line with past actions of the Commission and Council not requiring such areas along the freeway (varianoe granted for this in December of 1964 - Brookdale and Red OW. as other examples) . 2) The plan contemplates the relocation of the fence/wall to the west of the used car area further to the west, alon,-v the new property line. 3) Approximately 3 acres of new vehicle storage would be adde,.11 to the west of the building complex. Security fencing is being installed around this area to discourage theft. 4) The original concept of a "service road" would be achieved by Iten Chevrolet through its acqu�sition of property abutting new 68th Avenue North. The junction of the Iten "service road" will have to be revised slightly from that shown on their site plan, to conform with the 68th Avenue street design prepared by the Engineering Department. Al_�plicaticn go. 6703G -- -[ten Chle',irrolet - Continued. 5) It is contemplated by the owners that the additional land will eliminate the need for much space near Osseo Road for new vehicle storage, thereby releasing -this space for customer parking. The matter of halting the parking on the landscaped strip adjacent to Osseo Road has been accomplished by the installations of concrete curbing along the perimeter driveway, and it is felt that the additional parking space in this front area will eliminate the congestion which presently exists on certain occasions. 6-) The new vehicle storage area is being oiled at this time, rather than paved. The ordLiance states that open off- street parking areas shall be improved with a "minimum of durable, oil stabUized surface" . It is the Staff' s understanding that Iten Chevrolet used the oil as an interim treatment., and is planning to pave these areas in the future. 7) The property being added to the Iten Chevrolet property has not been subdivided as yet, but such subdivision is expected shortly. When it is subdivided by the present owner, Lecon Properties (George Hanson) , it is expected that the additional property will be platted into a single parcel with the existing Iten property. STAFF COMMENTS: Approval of building plans should be subject to the Building inspector' s approval. 2) Usual performance agreement and bond? f W : � aK )u nn f.�''L'i ,. NORIM mob; I r r + to y tJ � Y BR ; � , , {A ct re or ina th AVE — - c;th dWIR future nursincr NJrthern States home Power Co. Addition to V 3 I*_en Iten Chevrolet sire y � I s Planning Commission Agenda August 3, 1967 Application No. 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting of July 6, 1967 afb_uch & L. H. Haug 67033 3. Mrs. �7er i1 Bch Rezoning from the present R-1 (Single Family Residence) and R-B (Residence- Business) to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) for the properties at 7015 and 7019 Osseo Road (Parcels 2800 and 3000, Aud. Sub. #57) . 4. Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc./ Twin Cities Interchange Park 67037 Rezoning from R-5 (Multiple Residence) to B-2 (Regional Business) for the property at 6501 Humboldt Avenue North (Lot 2, Block 1, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addition) . 5. Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc./ Twin Cities interchaa e Park 67038 Special use permission (including plan approval) for an automotive service station on the property at 6501 Humboldt Avenue North (Lot 2, Block 1, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addition) . 6. Lawrence Si n Co. for Northern states Power 67039 variance from Section 35-340 to permit erection_ of a freestanding sign on the property at 4501 - 68th Avenue North (Lot 6, Block 2, Northtown Plaza lst Addition) . 7. Twila Donley 67041 Variance from Section 35-315 to permit erection of a freestanding sign on the property at 6045 • Osseo Road (Parcel 8120, Plat 90090) . PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67033 Applicant: Mrs. Virgil Schafbuch and L.1I. Haug Description of Request: Rezoning from the present R-Ft (Residence-Business) and R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-5 (Multiple Residence) . Property: 7015 and 7019 Osseo Road (Parcels 2800 and 3000, Auditor's Subdivision No. 57) j Owner of Property: Same as above ii BACKGROUND: 1) Both of the properties in this application extend westward from Osseo Road several hundred feet, with only the easternmost (approx.) 100 feet zoned R-B. During June of 1963, the Schafbuch property at 7015 Osseo Road was • involved in a request that the portion of the property zoned R-1 be rezoned to R-B to permit the use of the property for relocation of the American Legion Post. The petition was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant, the American Legion Post x#630. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) As a par4 of the upgrading of the Osseo Road, the entrance of 70th Avenue on the west side of Osseo Road was closed, making Lee, 70th, and Major essentially a "loop" street with access from 69th Avenue. The property in question (the parcel at 7015 Osseo Road) abuts onto 70th Avenue along its total length. The closing of this street is in accord with one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, that the number of local residential streets having direct access to Osseo Road be reduced. 211 The Commission has recommended to the Council, and I believe the Council has agreed, that the proposed zoning to the north of 70th Avenue along the Osseo Road be multiple dwelling on the east side of the Road, and office uses on the west side. Through conversation with property owners on both sides of the Road, and as evidenced by this rezoning request, the owners of these properties to the north of 70th believe that the proposed rezoning should be 0 • �� Page 2 Application No. 67033 • reversed from that proposed, to allow the multiples on the west and the offices on the east. it appears that either one of these views could be justified by reference to the Comprehensive Plan, depending on whether one refers to the text or map portions of the Plan. 3) Two properties of the six (essentially) vacant parcels between 70th and 71st Avenues are included in this petition. Depending upon the disposition of this request by the Commission and Council, and upon the market - for the properties, it is quite possible that a coherent development of the whole could take place, although the development of the southern- most parcel owned by Mrs. Schafbuch is possible without any additional land being necessary. The parcel to the north of the Schafbuch property is too narrow to be developed alone. STAFF COWX.NTS 1) 1 am certain that one of the immediate questions which will be raised with regard to the proposed zoning to multiple • dwelling will be as to where the traffic from the apart- ments go when they are built-. It is quite obvious to any- one familiar with this area that the use of the "loop" road of Lee to Major is extremely light, apparently the only traffic using these roads besides the residents in the one-block area being persons who may park adjacent to the park where sports activities are being carried on. It is questionable whether there was ever any great amount of traffic on these streets before the Osseo Road upgrading, and the closing of 70th Avenue eliminated any through traffic which may have used these streets. The argument which will be raised then, will not be based on an objection to any fixed numerical amount of traffic which could be added by multiple development, but rather to any change in the status quo. It seems unreasonable, then, to refuse the right of access of a multiple development to 70th Avenue, for which the property muv-t pay half the cost of improvements. Irregardless of whether this development or any other develop- ment (including single family) took place on the property, access to 70th Avenue should be allowed, in line with the principal of decreasing the amount of traffic conflict on the Osseo Road due to access from abutting properties. . if the entire area on the west side of Osseo Road from 70th to 71st were to be developed into multiple dwellings, the most reasonable approach to development would be to provide one or, at the most, two curb cuts to the Osseo Road, one to 71st Avenue and one or two to 70th Avenue. �rA 0./'� 40 City Hall School Haug 019 -----------j sdhafbk%c�\ 7015 70,\n 7001 Avenda -- E FA tKI i W1.11OW Lane PaZIA va 69th Avenue North • PLANTING COMMISSION INFOR14ATION SHEET Application No. 67037 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park/ Twin Cities Interchange Park Description of Request: Rezoning from R--5 (Multiple Residence) to B-2 (Regional Business) . Property: 6501 Humboldt Avenue North (Lot 2, Block 1, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addition) Owner of Property Same as above BACKGROUND: 1) As you will recall, in September of 1966, the present applicants made application for a similar rezoning of this property to B-2 and a special use permit to erect and operate a. service station on the site. Subsequently, these requests were denied by the Planning Commission and the • Council. 2) During the "701" Study, the Planning Consultant proposed that this property, together with the property to its north, be put to multiple dwelling uses. Subsequently, this recommendation was effectuated by the zoning of this property to R-5, as a part of the rezoning of the Earle Brown Farm. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The reasonableness of the present zoning, based on previous planning; specifically, its relation to the Comprehensive Plan, which has recommended multiple residential use of the property. The Comprehensive Plan contemplated that 65th Avenue North would be one of the major accesses into the future industrial park to the west; with this in mind, the developers provided for a road width for 65th Avenue to the west of Humboldt of 100 feet, sufficient to install a substantial street with a landscaped median. if this in fact does develop into a • major access to the .industrial park, it would be reasonable to assume that a substantial amount of truck and other traffic into the area would pass through this intersection. -2- It is reasonable to assume further, that this type of traffic, with its attendant noises, would be detrimental to residential living on this corner site, with the exception that if it were to be combined with the residential (multiple dwelling) property to the north, this corner property could be designed as the open space area for the residential development, thereby mitigating the effect of this traffic on the living environment within the dwellings themselves. while it is true that this proposed commercial activity at the corner of 65th and Humboldt was not envisaged in the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan is by nature a general declar- ation of policy, this generality perhaps being at once both the best and worst feature of a Plan, in that it does not provide simple immutable answers, but must be continually re-examined in light of changing conditions. It would appear that the reasoning set out above could provide a proper basis for not adhering strictly to the use designation set out on the Comprehensive Plan map, but adhering to planning principles contained within the text of. the Plan (limitation of curb cuts, providing proper_ environments for residential uses, discouraging development of commercial strips, and so on) . 2) in considering the rezoning to a commercial classification as requested by this application, two questions arise: firstly, is this "spot" zoning without relation to comprehensive planning; and, second, would such a zoning appear to be in opposition to the concept of transitional or "step" zoning. With regard to the first question, some reasoning relating this application to planning concepts was noted in point #1 above; the attorney may have further remarks to address to this question. With regard to the second question, if the portion of Lot 1 to the north of this lot did not extend to 65th Avenue between the corner lot and industrial property to the west, there could be a natural and logical extension of industrial zoning eastward and northward to this corner lot on Humboldt (with service stations being included as uses permitted in an industrial zone) . Without such continuous zoning from the west to Humboldt Avenue, however, other reasoning would have to be put forth to explain why a single parcel should be zoned to a commercial classification which is found no other place in the area; this reason, if the Commission and Council so desire, could be based on the premise that while it is undesirable that the property immediately at i • -3- the intersection of 65th and Humboldt Avenues be put to residential use, it is extremely desirable to the Cite that the multiple dwelling area immediately to the north has direct vehicular access to 65th Avenue, in order to minimize the number of curb cuts along Humboldt Avenue, with this end being accomplished by permitting the subdivis .on of the property (and hence, the R-5 zoning) to extend between two properties zoned to more intensive uses. With this reasoning, then, the zoning of the corner to a more intense zone would be more understandable, although a commercial zone would still be found nowhere else in the area. If service stations are to be permitted in industrial zones, such zoning would be in conformance with the zoning to the west and south. it should be noted that this type of zoning arrangement (lesser zoning betweentwo higher zonings) would not be unique to this location; there are at least two other occurences of it in the City which come to mind. One exists in the vicinity of 61st and Beard where the property of an apartment building extends fingers of land between commercially zoned parcels along the Osseo Road; a. second exists in the southwest quadrant of 69th and • Humboldt, where a portion of property of an apartment development extends to 69th Avenue between commercial and industrial zoning. i • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67038 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park/ Twin Cities Interchange Park Description of Request: Special Use Permission (including plan approval) for an automotive service station. Property: 6501 Humboldt Avenue North (Lot 2, Block 1, Twin Cities Interchange Park Addition) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND: (See information sheet for Application 67037 POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) See Information Sheet for Application 67037 2) This application presupposes the approval of rezoning for this parcel in conjunction with Application 67037 STAFF COMMENTS.- 1) Although the Commission and Council have not advocated the adoption of ordinance requirements based on aesthetic considerations of the architecture of developments brought before them, they have on occasion, especially in the case of service station architecture, indicated to the appli- cants that an initially proposed station design be dispensed with in favor of something more pleasing. It appears that the station being submitted with respect to this special use request is of the old bos type, totally without regard to the important "first impression" effect a service station at this entrance to the industrial park will have. it is suggested that the applicants should be advised that this design is totally unacceptable, and that a design more in keeping with the quality of development expected in the industrial park be provided. 2) The Staff of the Engineering Department has not yet had an opportunity to design the intersection of 65th and -2- • Humboldt Avenues, but preliminary investigation of the design leads us to believe that the following will be necessary, assuming the construction of a right turn lane on Humboldt for southbound traffic, and a landscaped median on 65th Avenue; a) approximately 17 feet of land from the east property line of the station site will be needed by the City as an easement for roadway and sidewalk purposes; b) the southernmost of the two curb cuts along Humboldt Avenue onto the station site should be deleted so as not to interfere with traffic in the future right turn lane - this would leave a single curb cut from Humbolt; c) due to the elimination of one of the curb cuts for the station along Humboldt, and for access from the apart- ment complex (north of the station) along 65th, an opening will probably be made in the landscaped median on 65th opposite the entrance drives to the apartment complex; ed) the easternmost driveway onto the station site may have to be moved further westward than the usually permitted 40 feet from the corner in the interest of traffic safety for vehicles turning onto 65th from Humboldt. PLANNING COMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67039 Applicant: Lawrence Signs, Inc. (for Northern States Power, Inc. ) Description of Request: Variance from Section 35• 340 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 4501 - 68th Avenue North (Lot 6, Block 2, Northtown 11aza lst Addition) Owner of Property: Northern States Power Inc. BACKGROUND: 1) During the plan approvals which preceded the construction of the Northern States Power North Service Center, it was understood by the City that th,--, only signing for the Service Center was to consist of two wall signs, one facing north and one facing south toward the freeway, each con- sisting of the letters IINSPII . Sometime during the constructica apparently, the NSP offices determined that a freestanding sign would be more appropriate for the north side of the site along 68th Avenue, rather than the wall sign on the north side. Since the existing sign regulations of the zoning ordinance do not make provisions for this, this variance request is being submitted. POINTS TO ME CONSIDEMID: 1) The sign being re(Taested by Lawrence Signs for N.S.P. according to their drawings is to be installed toward the northeast corner of their property. It is 15'-,2 feet overall, with a sign area of 36 square feet. The presently proposed setback prerequisite for freestanding signs contained in the proposed sign ordinance is met by the N.S.P. building, being over 80 feet from the street. The sign is proposed to have interior lighting, non-rotating, and (I presume) not flashing. The size of the sign being pro-13osed is more akin to the type of signing to be used for office uses (in relation to the proposed sign ordinance) rather than a commercial use co.=' ination such as N.S..P. Is. • PINING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67041 Applicant: Twila Donley Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-315 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 6045 Osseo Road (Parcel 8120, 'Plat 90090) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND: ]) During October and November of 1966, Mrs. Donley (through her real estate agent) requested rezoning of the property at 6045 Osseo Road for the purpose of using the property as a beauty salon. in November, the rezoning was granted, and work began to prepare the building for business. To provide for identification of this business, Mrs. Donley is requesting that she be allowed permission to install • a freestanding sign larger than the one square foot permitted by the zoning ordinance. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The sign being proposed by Mrs. Donley (per the drawing she has submitted) has an area of just under 32 square feet, being approximately 4 feet by 8 feet lying horizontally. The last statement of the Commission and Council with relation to signing for professional office and service Establishments, was made during the approval of the sign for the funeral home. At that time, the standard of 36 square feet and 8 feet in height, set out in the proposed sign ordinance was, I believe, generally agreed upon (although the funeral home was permitted a slightly larger sign) but there was discussion about further requiring these low signs to be at least 10 feet back from right-of-way lines so as to preclude their being visual obstructions to drivers. f Chrysler Property P.H.C. Clinic a zpr�eti t33 ` RB -c>ne RB service =' • -t:cat.iCn ! F!?fit AV nun ,d B C i�l ax,. _ __ ___ 53 Apart. t ff s� spec. j Drive 1 Y ........ R B E � i I Planning Commission Agenda August 31, 1967 Application No. L Roll Call: n Robert Brennan 67043 Variance from Section 35-310 to allow construction of an accessory building in excess of 660 square feet. The Property in question is at 3718 Woodbine Lane. ;a Robert Eidem, Community Planner with the State Planning Agency, will be present to discuss with the Commission the effectiveness of the "701" • federal planning program, and the activities of the Commission since the completion of the program in August of 1965. PLANNINGG COMMISSION INFORMATION Application No. 69043 Applicant: Robert Brennan Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-310 (lf) to allow construction of an accessory building in excess of 660 square feet. Property: 3718 Woodbine Lane (Lot 16, Block 1, Palmer Lake Terrace 2nd Addition) BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The applicant has secured a building permit to construct a concrete slab 22 feet by 34 feet, with a 22` x 24` garage (wall to wail measurement) built thereon, leaving a 10° x 22` concrete • floor unenclosed; the permit specifies that the 10` x 22' area shall be open patio. The applicant in this Application wishes to be permitted to "roof over" this patio with a common roof over both the patio and garage, which roofed-over area would then exceed the 660 square foot maximum permitted. It has been the interpretation of the City Administration with regard to this type of situation that if an accessory building is built with a single roof extending over an attached adjacent foundation, the floor area of the building will be calculated on the basis of distances between the extreme outside walls or columns supporting the roof. Thus, even though the additional slab area may ` have no walls, it is assumed that the roofed-over area is easily convertible to an enclosed type of structure by the installation of vertical walls between the supporting columns. The possible logical flaw in calculating floor areas in this manner is as follows. The normal manner of constructing an attached, roofed-over patio is to build the four walls of the garage, and then erect two or more supporting columns for the roof overhang beyond the vertical wall of the garage, very near or at the extreme outside edge of the roof; the measurement of the garage/patio then extends • from the outside of this row of columns to the most distant garage wall opposite the columns. The "loophole" which can be utilized to circumvent the principle of the area maximum is to install the row of supporting columns in the patio not at the edge of the roof, • but several feet closer to the g.,rage wall, thereby creating a large roof overhang beyond the columns. The original plan submitted by the applicant to the Building Inspec- tor indicated that the supporting columns for the patio roof would be at the edge of the concrete slab, thereby yielding a floor area of 748 square feet. e HISTORY OF THE 1965 - 1966 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE • ZONING ORDINANCE, August 12, 1965 - The Planning Commission was presented with copies of PLAN EFFECTUATION DEVICES by Thomas Hodne Associates. The contract period with Hodne Associates ended this evening, with miscellaneous items yet to be submitted to the Commission, including the Compre- hensive Plan books; the Plan Books arrived shortly thereafter. August 16, 1965 - A substantial portion of the new zoning ordinance %one of the planning study's effectuation devices) is adopted by the Council, crea.ti.na cPrta to new zonef-. The primary reason for the edoption of this pordon of the total ordinance at this time was the forthzoming sale of the Earle B,own Farm by the University of Minnesota to land developers. November, 1965 - In early November, the Comprehensive Plan map plus an explanatory letter were sent as an information item in a general mailing to persons listed on our utility accounts. December 16, 1965 - The Planning Commission set January 4th and 6th, 1966, as the dates of public hearings to be held on the Comprehensive Plan and comprehensive rezoning. The Comprehensive Plan is transmitted to the Village Council as is required by state law before the hearings; the proposed zoning information is also transmitted, although not required by law. December 20, 1965 - The Village Council acknowledges the transmittal of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan and draft zoning ordinance from the Planning Commission. December 22, 1965 - In addition to the mailed notice of the zoning hearings to persons on our utilities list and those determined from available records as owners of vacant lands, a notice was published in the Brooklyn Center Press listing the names of persons owning affected property for whom addresses could not be found. December 22, 1965 - The published legal notice of the hearings to be held on the Comprehensive Plan was published in the Brooklyn Center Press. December 23, 1965 - Two zoning maps, a capital improvements brochure, a zoning brochure, and an explanatory letter were sent to persons on the utilities list, and to persons on a 2- list of owners of vacant land derived from the Village's records. January 4th and 6th, 1966 - Public Hearings held on the proposed Plan and zoning. Oral and written comments solicited from the audience. January 6th to February 17, 1966 - Letters received from interested parties, and the public hearings discussed by the Commission. February 17, 1966 - The Planning Commission adopts Planning Commission Rasoluti.on 66-2 recommending a Comprehensive Plan to the Village Council, and transmitting it to the Council. February 28, 1966 - The Village Council acknowledges receipt of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan wi th correction sheets from the Planning Commission. March 31, 1966 - The Planning Commission adopts Resolution 66-3 recommending a zoning ordinance for the Village and transmits the proposed ordinance to the Council. • November 7, 1966 - The Village Council adopts the Comprehensive Plan recommended by the Planning Commission (with a few revisions) as the Official Plan for the Village. During the period August 12, 1965 (the end of the "701" study) and February 17, 1966 (date of Planning Commission adoption of the Plan), very little change was made in the Plan documents prepared by the planning consultant in conjunction with the Commission. Substantial changes, however, were made in the draft zoning ordinance (one of the Plan's effectuation devices) prior to adoption of the zoning ordinance by the Commission on March 31, 1966. Changes continued in the draft sign ordinance (another effectuation device of the planning study) until the date of its adoption by the Commission on January 5, 1967. The Council, following receipt of the Zoning Ordinance from the Planning Commission in April of 1966, and the Sign Ordinance in January of 1967, began review and revisions of these two proposed ordinances which continued until late spring of 1967. At that time, both of these ordinances were put in the hands of the Staff for supposed final drafting; partial drafting of them has taken place thus far. • Prepared: August 31, 1967 Planning Conn scion Agenda S S eptember 7, ."967 ARPlication No. J_ Roll Ccail.Y 2 - bppr2yal of Minutes�- '7 Regular meeting of August 3, 1967 Special meetings of August 10 and 31, 1967 3 , Bwi ht Sundeen and Walter Y.ukich 67044 Rezoning from the present R-1 Single Family Residence to B-2 Regional Business of the property at 6451 Osseo Road. 4 , B & C Rea l�:X_for Bice BoV Restaurants 67045 Approval of site and building plans of a I'Bia! Boy" restaurant. Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection • of a freestanding sign,. Both for the property at 5440 Osseo Road, S ., Walter J, Smith 67046 Variance from Section 35-401 to peinitt- construction of ap, addition to an existing attached garage to be closer to the side property line than the five feet permitted by ordinance on the property at 3013-67th Avenue North, 6 Beim Construction Co . 67047 Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of an industrial building five feet. from the side property line rat-her than the 10 feet required by ordinance. Approval of site and building plans of an industrial building, Both for the property at 3500 - 48th Avenue North. • Planning Commission Agenda - Page 2 7.. Mr. and Mrs, Joseph_Clark 67048 Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of an addition to an existing attached garage to be closer to the side property line than the five feet permitted by ordinance, on the property at 6043 Ewing Avenue North. 8, Mr,. and Mrs. Fred ELno�n 67049 Variance from Section 35-33.0 to permit construction of an addition to an existing garage, which would cause the total square footage of accessory buildings on the property to exceed the 660 square feet permitted, on the property at 516 - 62nd Avenue North, • • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application Not 67044 Applicant, Dwight. H. Sundeen and Walter Kukich Description of R.egaest: Rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to B-2 (Regional Business) Location of Property: 6451 Gsseo Road (Tract A, R.L.S. #970) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND 1) The present use of the property is as a duplex dwelling, lying north of a 4-plex, and south of a row of five single family dwellings, all facing onto Osseo Road. To the north of the row of homes lies a vacant tract • of several acres, adjacent to interstate #94. The applicant has indicated that he wishes to have a B-2 Regional Business Zoning to accommodate a rental equipment business which he is presently operating in theCity of Robbinsdale. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED s 1) The property in question is part of the area south of Interstate #94 and on the west side of the Osseo Road which has been designated in the Comprehensive Flan as a "planned development area" . As far as I am aware, no official statement has been made as to whether this area shall be permitted to become a retail commercial area as stated in one of the Osseo Road Development Goals - "To prohibit further development of regional land uses and of retail shopping facilities along Osseo Road except in the immediate vicinity of its inter- change with Interstate Freeway #94 and with Highway #100. " Further, no positive statement has been made as to how far south of the freeway is considered "immediate vicinity and there still remains the question of whether or not a combination of the properties into a coherent whole will take place . ,•es h vagant property ome hose • borne � a ± home _�- home home v home home home home hoke \ � I home h047e 3 k� a- Ile • home h©m 1 proposes B-2 zoning '° t 6451 - duplex >4 p C1 Kbag 6� _..--x.,•- ;. .. a '\, °''�..••�., �•, ,Pr hood 4�e ► 65th AIVE. w o vacant scjioOZ RB zoned ! property e:. PLANNING COMKISSION INF'ORMATION' SHEET • Application No. 67045 Applicantr B & G Realty, Inc,, Description of Requests Approval of site and building plans of a "Big Boy" Restaurant. Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Location of Property: 5440 Osseo Road (Tract N, R.L.S. #1209) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND: 1) The property in question lies south of 55th Avenue, adjacent to Osseo Road, in the Brookdale peripheral development,, The Red owl site is immediately to the south, and a future Firestone Retail Store/Service Center is to be constructed to the east across a midblock service drive. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The proposed seating capacity of the restaurant is 126; using the standard of 1 car space for every two seats, 63 spaces are required, and more than this number are available on -the site. 2) if it is assumed that. the table of sizes for freestanding signs which has been accepted in principle by the Council is correct;: its application to this restaurant would be as follows- area cof the building is 4, 787 square feet; permitted sign to be a maximum of (approx.) 97.5 square feet in area ane; 18 feet in height above finished floor grade of building, with a minimum of 8 feet of clear space between tree sign and the ground, unless the sign is set back at least 10 feet from the street right-of-way. There was some question as to whether or not a sign adjacent to a corner should have a greater clearance, but I believe the concensus was that 8 feet would be sufficient. • r Center • Yew^ � f 1 `I kROO.V4MALE CENTER 1. 10 � IV 0 0 Super Otte odyeam • Brook- TBA dalegr;� Car Wash � ► T Big to° Boy r" Aestou s •••', y1 Y i Red Owl. ,yoa g • PLANNING COMP41SSION INFORMATION SKEET Application No. 67046 Applicant: Walter J. Smith Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of an addition to an existing attached garage closer to the side lot line than the five feet permitted by ordinance. Location of Property: 3013 - 67th Avenue North (Lot 3, Block 4, Elsen's City View 3rd) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND 1) Mr. Smith' s house presently has an attached garage 14 feet in width, which lies 7., 2 feet from his side property line. He proposes to add an additional 5 feet to this garage to transform it into a 2 stall structure, which . addition would bring him to a point just over 2 feet from the property line. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED 1) As I have stated in past applications of this type, a portion of the "blame" for -the need for such variances is the lack of foresight of the tract developers who constructed the homes, through poor placement of the homes on the property. In this case, although no placement of the home would have allowed a two car garage to be constructed without a variance, the magnitude of the variance would have been reduced to about a foot rather than the three feet being requested. 2) The home on the lot abutting this property is 10 feet distant. from their property line, so that a 12 foot space would remain between this garage and the home if the variance were to be granted. i PLANNING COMMISSION INFORYMION SHEET • Application No. 67047 Applicant: Beim Construction i Description of Request: 'Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of an industrial building five feet from the side property line rather than -the 10 feet required. Approval of site and building plans. Location of Property: 3500 - 48th Avenue North (Tract A, R.L.S. #1023) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND 1) None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: • 1) The Zoning Ordinance allows two options in calculating required parking in industrial areas; one based on potential employment, and one based on floor area of the building. Since it is impossible to estimate the number of persons who might be employed in this industrial building in the future, I have used floor area to calculate the number of spaces required. Since the area of the building is 11.0, 950 square feet, one space per 800 square feet of floor area yields 14 " spaces; the applicant has indicated 31 spaces on his plan. if the setback variance is not approved, this number may be reduced by 1 or 2 spaces, 2) It should be noted that parking i5 indicated up to or close to the west property lane of this property, adjacent to a tract of land which will. serve as a driveway to property to the north of this parcel. if this were a street, parking would be required to be set back 15 feet, and this "driveway" serves only that purpose and that of a utilities easement to the northerly parcel. 3) The owner of the industrial building 10 feet east of this • property° s east line has voiced opposition to this appli- cant' s setback variance, if the Commission and Council wish to grant the variance; however, the 5 root distance would not be in conflict with regulations of the building code. 49 th AIL All OL Foote t Y7�v J, /. d•v . •T v 'Cook Paints « a � propert • n !1 App l. M Rw c o.a1. + •rlJp ° V //• 67047 ,s � ,a + _ �ttc�---! _�to !�;��•�» r�• j �i�t �„ GS�� j '7 0 S3'�bQlli<. ° 4•s _ }��' 26+1 3 roo •i9 °r •ta.g° -t ^ 4!f M .. .24. :2G t 0 , � � ✓� l .`tea •� • � ~tom *a� ^� t54 c r .n •{•i i( gg,,�� a ° S17 t4'E. ! owl $ i o! ,aaa:t2 47w�w:�? htiist ►s9 G)" lwJt607 Q B[[ T9 SS 9 A � , YA CITY of xi is ,i �t Z� iv • PLANNING COMMISSION INFOXV1 RION ShMT Application No. 67048 Applicant. Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Clark Description of Request.; Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of an addition to an existing attached garage to Sze closer to the side property line I.;han • he five feet permitted by prdinance Location of Property: 6043 ;wing Avenue North (Lot 13, Block 4, Wangstad° s Brooklyn Terrace Addition) Owner of Property: $ame as above BACKGROUND 1) The Clark' s house presently has an attached garage • 13 feet in width (3.5 feet of which is taken up by the stairway to a side door) 14 feet from the south side property line. They propose to add an additional 10 feet of garage to result in a usable garaging area 19.,5 feet in width, with a 16 foot wide door. The sideyard setback remaining if this addition were to be permitted would be slightly less than 4 feet from the Property line. POINTS TO 33E CONSIDERED: 1) The question has arisen of whether a hazardous fire situation would exist in this case if the variance was to be granted, due to the existence of a hedge and fence along the property line next to the garage, The City Ordinances provide no regulation relating to minimum distances between hedges or fences and adjacent structures, so that con- ceivably, a situation could exist where a building was set back the required distance from a property line, and the entire intervening area could be filled with flammable items such as hedges and fences. With regard to buildings, however, the City's building code • dues provide for the use of certain fare resistive materials in buildings closer than 3 feet from a property line. • Application No. 6'7048 (Continued) POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: (Continued) 2) The home adjacent to the Clark property along the south property line is 10 feet distant, which would leave slightly less than 14 feet between the two buildings if this garage addition were permitted. • • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67049 Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Fred Strong Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-310 to permit construction of an addition to an existing garages which would cause the total square footage of accessory buildings on the property to exceed the 660 sq. ft. permitted. Location of Property: 516 - 62nd Avenue North (plat 89036, Parcel 5400) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND: 1) The following buildings presently exist on the property: a. house - 905 square feet b. garage (including lean-to) - 400 square feet c. summer house - 96 square feet d. play house - 48 square feet e. tool house - 64 square feet f. concrete block structure - 148 square feet ( to be replaced by garage addition) g. dog house - 27 square feet POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The R-1 zoning regulations list the following as a permitted use: "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. ". 2) The applicant proposes to add a roofed-over structure to the side of his existing garage, and a 2 foot extension to the front of it, bringing the total square footage of the garage structure to 620 square feet. Although this area in itself is not in excess of 660 square feet, the Staff considered that the interpretation of this area maximum left room for doubt as to whether the square footage should include the total area of all • the outbuildings on the property, especially in light of previous concerns stated by the Commission and Council relating to limiting the number of accessory buildings to be permitted on residential properties. The Commission, in fact, had examined a related question with a previous Application for an oversized garage/patio, and had reached a concensus that "no accessory building shall Sexceed 75/ of the area of the pr--,nary building, and the total area of accessory buildings shall not exceed 100% of the floor area of the primary building" . Fallowing this statement of intent, and expanding upon it in accord with the Commission' s later comments relating to the proliferation of outbuildings in residential areas, the Staff elaborated on the concept for possible inclusion in the Zoning Ordinance, resulting in the following provision: "One accessory building up to 660 square feet in area where the primary building ground coverage area does not exceed 880 square feet. In the event that ground coverage area of the primary building exceeds 880 square feet, two accessory buildings will be permitted, provided that no one accessory building shall exceed 75% of the ground coverage area of the primary building, and provided that the total area of both accessory buildings shall not exceed 100% of the ground coverage area of the primary buildings" . Thus, to reiterate, the Staff had not to this time encountered a situation such as this one with a proliferation of accessory buildings on a single • family residential property, and in view of past pronouncements by the Commission and Council on this subject, felt the only proper way to handle the situation was by review of the Commission and Council in the form of a variance request. 2) If the variance is to be granted to Mr. Strong, it should be made clear that the present garage structure has been inspected and found to be nonconforming in respect to applicable building codes, and that the entire structure will have to conform to building codes upon completion. The matter of the building being nonconforming as to setback from the property line is probably not material in this application, as the setback from the east property line will be unchanged by the proposed construction. • a s {'s E Drawing apprMimately to scale ocher outbuilding a not located or, drawing H 3 ZI ZI north a a ' —TV ti. fy s � 1 20 � 1011 Dialogue of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 7, 1967. • Note: This record does not propose to be a verbatim record nor to include all comments made. Application No. 67047 submitted by Walter J. Smith Mr Smith - (He noted that he had only recently purchased th(, property, in July of this year, and that he had immediately desired to rebuild his present one car garage of 14 feet in width to one 19 feet in width. Upon his having the property survEyed, he found that he would only be able to add two feet to the rarage without violating the 5 foot setback requirement.) Boguaki - Mr. Chairman, I believe I have made known my feel'.ngs with regard to two stall garages in the past. in suburban areas such as Brooklyn Center, the two car garage is a necessity, for most if not all families have two cars, and many have three or more, Ausen - It seems to me that there was a good reason for adopting setback regulations in the first place, most likely based prL- marily on fire safety, but also based to a great extent on simply • providing open space between structures so -that air and light can get through. One of the prime reasons in my moving to Brooklyn Center Center was the type of development in Minneapolis where I could almost shake the hand of my next door neighbor: Brooklyn Center' s regulations precluded that by providing at the mininum. a 10 foot space between buildings, and most likely 20 or morn feet. You will recall that about a year ago, my abutting neighbor applied for, and received, a variance from the side-ard setback requirements, to which I stated I had no objection, due to the fact that I considered that there would be sufficient open space left on my side of the property line, and also because 15 feet would still be between the two structures. Recently, my abutting neighbor on the other side asked me if I would "aiNprove" his desire to add to his garage adjacent to my property line if he applied for a variance, in this instance, I felt that the alteration of the setbacks on both sides of me would be defeating the oricinal purpose of the requirements, and the situation would be similar to what I had left in Minneapolis. ,'his neighbor is now planning to add on to his garage to the rear, providing two spaces in tandem, which is more difficult in shifting cars around, but no more so than having them parking in a driveway. I disagree with Mr. Bogucki, and have in the past on these setback matters. I do not feel a two stall garage is a necessity, although it is surely an advantage. My family, in fact, has had three cars for several years, and we have been able to manage the situation. I expect that if I ever wish to have additional garage space, I will have to expand to the rear as any neighbor has planned. - 2- • Bogucki - We've allowed so many of these same variances in the past, I can see no reason why we should stop now - these two car garages are a necessity. Ditter - I think this is pant of the point; if we've allowed so many of these same variances when there is no real "hardship", maybe that indicates that our ordinance should be changed so that everybody can take advantage of the lesser setbacks instead of a select few who know of the variance procedure and have enough initiative to pursue one. Grosshans - There is a letter in the file from Mr. Smith's neigh- bor, Mr. and Mrs. Fore, stating no objection to his building a garage two feet from their common property line, for the Commissionbs information. Ausen - It has disturbed me for some time, that we and the Council seem to give so much weight to the applicant when, in a variance such as this, he brings a note from his neighbor saying the variance is all right with him. It seems as if the tables have been turned, and the decision to grant the variances lies in the hands of the landowner and his neighbor. what would we do if the abutting owner objected? if we refuse the variance, the refused person could • point to numerous situations we had approved in the past with the only difference being the fact that the previous applications had had neighbor' s approval. Bogucki - I haven' t viewed the letters of approval from the neighbors' as being the final word on granting a variance, but rather to give us something for the file indicating that the neighbor was fully informed as to what was going on. Then, if he camp in a few years later and objected or wanted a variance himself, we could tell him that he had more or less waived his right to a variance along the same side of the property as he had approved his neighbor's variance. Ausen - How about the successive owners of the property next to a varied setback? Just because a present land--owner approves of his neighbor having a variance, this doesn't mean that all other owners will like it. They may purchase the property without being told that there was a variance granted next door. Purchasers have to be able to depend on some standards being adhered to in the development of property. I 'd like the Staff to check with other municipalities to see what they use for setbacks, and what their experiences are with the granting of this type of variance. • Bogucki .. (makes motion to grant variance, which fails for lack of majority) -3- Ausen - Mr. Smith, were you planning to begin immediately to build this garage? (Mr. Smith replied that he would like to begin as soon as possible if the City will permit it.) The reason I ask is that we could either table or deny the Application; if you would prefer to have it go to the Council for final action, I011 make a motion foe denial; if the Council disagrees with our reasoning, they can overturn our recommendation. I do feel quite strongly as Mr. Ditter does, that if our ordinance requirements are not correct, they should be changed; if they are correct, they should not be varied for every person who makes the effort to apply. (Ausen makes the motion to deny, which carries..) Ag lication #67048 submittedjb y Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Clark Mr. Clark - (He notes that most of the discussion of the previous Smith Application applies to his request as well.) The garage we have now is attached to the house. The garage is 13 feet in width with an 8 foot door, and 3.5 feet of the 13 foot width taken up by the stairway into the house. What we want to do is add 10 feet more of width to the garage so that we have 19.5 feet of usuable usable garaging space in addition to the 3.5 feet of stairway, with • a 16 foot garage door. This addition would bring us to just under 4 feet from the property lane. Ausen - As you stated, your application is similar to the previous one in that it is a setback variance for a garage, but this case is in even less need of a variance than the other one, because he could build no addition to his garage without a variance whereas you could cut off a foot from your proposal and conform. Mr. Clark - It's true that we could conform to the 5 foot setback and still build, and if we don' t get the variance, I'm sure we will. The garage builder advised us thoughr that he would like to have a foot on either side of the door to provide reinforcement for a 16 foot door. Ditter - The one foot on each side of the door isn't necessary for reinforcement; that can be done in another manner during construction and still give you a 16 foot door. Engstrom - Joe, couldn't you switch your side step around to give you more room in your garage? (Mr. Clark answered that this would be very difficult, and might require elimination of the door itself.) You know, I have a double garage that is only 18 feet • in width, and I have learned how to drive in and get out of the cars. The one you could build without a variance would be about 18.5 feet in width 2lus the 3.5 feet behind the stairway which you could use for opening the car door when both cars are in the r .,.,q,_ • garage. I think it would work out all right for you. Bogucki - (makes motion to grant variance, which fails for lack of a majority) Ausen - 'W'ould you also like to have your request acted on by the Commission so that it might go directly to the Council? (Mr. Clark replies that he would like to have the situation resolved as soon as possible so that he might have work begun on the garage.) (A.usen makes the motion to deny, which carries.) • 'k 75- s. i J ` iv • Planning Commission Agenda September 21, 1967 Application No. ly Roll Call Davies Water EgRipment Co. 67050 Variance from Section 35-402 to permit construction of an industrial building with less than the required setback of 100 feet for the property at 4110 Lakebreeze Avenue North. 3. Robert Siede 67051 Variance from Section 35-402 to permit construction of a detached garage 21 feet from the side property line of a corner lot rather than the 25 feet required by Ordinance on the property at 6138 Dupont Avenue North. 4. R. R. McChesney & Sons (for Thomas Geldert and Herbert Appelquist) 65104 Approval of the amended site plan for the Xerxes Court Apartments to permit construction of garages on the apartment properties at 5207 and 5209 Xerxes Avenue North. • I PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67050 Applicant: Davies Water Equipment Company Description of Request: Variance from Section 35--402 to permit construction of an industrial building with less than the required setback of 100 feet Property: 4110 Lakebreeze Avenue - northeast quadrant of the intersection of Azelia and Lakebreeze Avenue. Owner of Proporty: Isabel Silgjord BACKGROUND: 1) This property, consisting of approximately 3 acres, is presently zoned to an industrial (I-1) classification, and is presently occupied by two dwellings. The present applicant wishes to purchase the property and utilize it for an outlet for a combination office, storage, and jobber sales outlet, with ultimate development consisting of two buildings. The applicant was advised of the ordinance requirement of 100 feet of setback when industrial property is across the street from residential property, and he has questioned whether the purpose of this requirement, which to him seems to be excessive, cannot be satisfied in some other manner, with a lesser building setback. The property to the west of Azelia is zoned R-B, and is occupied by a 12 unit apartment, a house, and a 4--plea. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Do any of the standards for the issuance of variances exist in this situation? This would consist probably of the argument that the "taking of 100 feet of land of the property's (approx.) 300 foot width works a hardship recognizable in light of the O rdinance standards 2) A point that will also be raised is the necessity for distance versus some other form of transition between the residential and industrial uses. "C' .fit. •._ ___ --_ r i i w 14 i i ----�'•-._._a �--- .� � �� _ ._ .. — � i � ' � mot`y -.' .-.•e-.z'94 r--. ...:�:..i l.`. ..._... L. C::.....�..,.,j:JLrtT.....- `!i' •2+JL:_.......-...... ...X�L.»._+�...-,...._.__.. ............�.,. 1 .�/it ^t •S _. J - 'j (A car.'.w) X IV e7 jo 4c y. W �' �• i r (44-10,. e� g�j 1 b ,r w,.Jc• P �.r �. - a ` le ilk tea.. rr Ole +'' ,` ...Eliµ°`•"w.y 'C,`Yi )' E. �� , • PLANNING COMMISSION INPORBiATION SHEET Application No. 67051 Applicants Robert Siede Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of a detached garage 21 feet from the side property line of a corner lot rather than the 25 feet required by Ordinance. Property: 6135 Dupont Avenue North (Lot 12, Block 3, Cederberg Addition) Owner of Property: Robert Siede BACKGROUND: 1) The applicant' s contention in requesting this variance of 5 feet for his proposed garage is -t:- at he wants it to "me ch up" in a straight line with the garage of his neighbor to the east. The garage to the east, owned by a Mr. Madden, was installed after a variance had been granted to Mr. Madden in 1959, permitting him to • "Piatch up" his garage with his house, which had been built 21 feet from the property line. Although no reasoning for the Madden setback variances is stated in the records of either the Commission or Council, I would presume that the variance was due to the fact that the setbacks were changed in 1957; prior to that tame, when the house was built, 15 feet was the permitted setback, and 75 foot wide corner lots were permitted. After 1957, the requirements were changed to 25 feet and 90 feet, respectively. These lots are approximately 7$' x 134' in size. 2) The standards for variances set out in the Zoning Ordinance. STAPP Cth' RENTS: 1) The Commission and Council have, with this applications reached the point at which variances are being requested on the basis of previously granted variances. Presumably, the variances which have been granted in the past have been in accordance with the standards for variances set out in the zoning ordinance, although this may not have been the case in all instances. The reason advanced by I4r. Siede for wishing to have a variance on his garage setback is the fact that his neighbor to the east received one, rather than any hardship which exists on his property. PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 65104 Applicant: R. R. McChesney & Sons Description of Request: Approval of the amended site plan for the Xerxes Court Apartments to permit construction of garages on the apartment properties. Property: 5207, 5209, and 5211 Xerxes Ave. No. (Lots 3, 2, and 1, R. R. McChesney and Sons 2nd Addition) Owner of Property: Henry Lunacek - 5211 Thomas Geldert - 5209 Herbert Appelquist - 5207 BHCXGROUNDO 1) The Xerxes Court Apartments consist of three 12 - unit building in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Highway #100 and #152. The plans for these apart- ments were approved in final form by the Council on June 13, 1966. The present owners of the property, who have purchased the buildings from McChesney Construction Company, now desire to add garages to their properties, hence this request for approval of the site plan. For continuity in record-keeping, the Staff has considered this as an amendment to the previous plan approval under Application #65104. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Each of these gentlemen has indicated that the ultimate number of garage stalls he would like to build is 12, so that one stall would be available for each unit, although the actual construction of the total number of stalls may not occur this year. Utilizing the setbacks of five feet from the side and rear property lines, there should be no problems in installing this number on any of the properties. The installation of the 6 foot redwood fence for screening of the parking area is almost complete at this writing. is Planning Commission Agenda October 5, 1967 Application No. 1. Roll Calls 2. Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting September 7, 1967 Special Meeting September 21, 1967 3. Lecon Properties and Iten Chevrolet 66087 (revised) Rezoning to B3 (General Dusiness) The property involved is generally bounded by Interstate #94, Osseo Road, 69th Avenue, and Lee Avenue (Lot 1 of Block 1, and Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 2, Northtown Plaza. Second Addition) . 4. Ronald Grams 67053 Variance from Section 35-401 to permit construction of a detached garage 3 feet from the side property line rather than the 5 feet required by Ordinance. The property is at 7206 Newton Avenue (Lot 10, Block 6, Hipp' s East Palmer Lake Addition) . 5. Darrel Farr 67054 Approval of site and building plans for Mr. Farr' s Townhouse and Apartment project between County Road #10 and Kylawn Park (Twin Lake North Addition) . 6. Sipe Bros. Inc. - Osseo 67032 Revision of the approval of site and building plans previously granted by the Commission and Council to permit retention of a freestanding sign on the station property. 7. Robsrt Keller . 67055 Approval. of site and building plan^ for Mr. Keller' s Apartment project on the property bounded by 65th, Camden, 64th (extended) , and Bryant Avenues North 0 (Lot 6, Mendenhall' s Outlots) . M► PLANNING COMMISSION INFOR24ATION SHEET Application ho. 66087 (revised) Applicant; Lecon Properties and Iten Chevrolet Description of Request: Rezoning to B3 (General Business) . Property: Generally bounded by Interstate #94, Osseo Road, 69th Avenue, and Lee Avenue (Lot 1 of Block 1, and Lots 1,2, 3, and 4, Block 2, Northtown Plaza Second Addition) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND 1) Application #66087, of which this is a revision, was sub- mitted late last year, requesting a rezoning of certain properties to the southwest of the intersection of 69th and Osseo Road, primarily for the purpose of rezoning property north of future 68th Avenue to accommodate an automobile agency. The Commission, on March 2nd, recommended approval • of the rezoning, but tabled action on the request until the area had been replatted. During the preparation of the plat, the Staff suggested that since a portion of the of the property was to be sold. to Iten Chevrolet, the Iten property and other adjacent lands should also be incorporated into the plat to provide easily describable pieces. At the same time, the applicant determined that as long as the property was being divided into saleable portions, it should be zoned appropriately, so he requested that he be permitted to revise the application to include additional property; this was approved by the Council, and the application was remanded to the Planning Commission for proper notice and hearing procedures. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Assuming this application to be successful, the only parcel within the new plat, "Northtown Plaza Second Addition" , which would remain "unzoned" as R-1 (Single Family Residence) would be Lot 2 of Block 1, lying along the east side of Lee Avenue between 68th and 69th Avenues. The conformance of the other zoning would, I believe, be in accord with the Commission' s and the Council' s thinking. . PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67053 Applicant: Ronnie Grams Description of Request: Variance from section 35-401 to permit a detached garage to be built 3 feet from the south side property line rather than the 5 Feet required by Ordinance. Property: 7206 Newton Avenue North (Lot 10, Block 6, Kipp' s East Palmer Lake Addition) Owner of Property: Same BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: l) Standards for the issuance of variances - Section 35-221. 2) Mr. Grams has submitted the following written statement with his Application: "T wa:Zt to build a 22' wide garage and I would like it 8' behind the house for convenience. I would like your permission to build it 3 feet from my south lot line as it would improve the appearance of my home by keeping the north side of the garage in a straight Line with the south side of my house and also give me better accessibility to my garage door. . Thank you for considering this. " . PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67054 Applicants Darrel Farr Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an Apartment/Townhouse project Property. Between County Road. #10 and Kylawn Park (Twin Lake North Addition) Owner of Property Darrel Farr, et al BACKGROUND 1) In reviewing the plans being submitted, the Commission should review the Council' s action of August 28th and and also September 11th (Resolution 67- 287) relative to the rezoning of the property to R-3 Townhouse and R-5 Multiple Residence. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The Staff will reserve its comments for presentation at the Commission' s meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67032 Applicant: Sipe Bros. , Inc. - Osseo Description of Request: Revision of the approval of site and building plans previously granted by the Commission and Council to permit retention of a freestanding sign on the station property. Property: 6810 Osseo Road (Tract A, R.L.S.#456) Owner of Property: Sipe Bros. BACKGROUND: 1) Both the Commission (June 22nd) and the Council (June 26th) , specified that no freestanding signery was being approved for this station after the alterations to the station had been made. Further, the applicant was directed to remove the existing freestanding sign, as it overhangs the Osseo Road right-of-way. Since the date of approval of the plans, the applicant has devised a freestanding sign which can be installed on the existing concrete base without overhanging the public right-of-way, and wishes the Commission and Council to amend their previous approvals of the plans to permit him to have a freestanding sign. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) A3 I recall. the Commission's discussion of the freestanding sign for this station, the thought was that if a canopy over the pump islands was a freestanding structure, any sign on top of it would be a freestanding sign. This canopy is not freestanding, so the sign by this reasoning would not be freestanding, but a roof sign permissable under the existing regulations. The sign provisions of the new sign ordinance would permit one freestanding sign for a mid-block service station. As far as the size of the sign which would be permissble, the Commission recommended that 25 feet high and 250 square feet in area would be appropriate, while the Council has tentatively agreed that 18 feet of height and 90 square feet in area would be more appropriate. PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67055 Applicant: Robert Keller (Keller Investment Company) Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an apartment project. Property: Bounded by 65th, Camden, 64th (extended) , and Bryant Avenues North. (Lot 6, Mendenhall' s Outlots) Owner of Property: Sonnenberg, Hoffarth, and Anderson BACKGROUND: 1) In reviewing the plans being submitted, the Commission should review the Council' s action of September 18th .relative to the rezoning of the property to the R-5 (Multiple Residence classification] as contained in Resolution No. 67-289. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The Staff will reserve its comments for presentation at the Corimission' s meeting. �I • Planning Commission Agenda October 26, 1967 Agplication No. 1. !toll. Call; 2. Davies Water Equipment W� CQmpa y 67050 r r M. - r • 4 Approval of site and building plans of an industrial building at 4010 Lakebreeze Avenue 3. Other Items of Discussion i'A, PLANNING COMISSION INFORMATION STET • Application No. 67050 Applicant: Davies Water Equipment Company Description of Request3 Approval of site and building plans of an industrial building. (a variance request is also included in the Application, but this has been handled previously) Property: 4910 Lakebreeze Avenue (Parcel 1800, Plat 89010) owner of Property: Isabel Silgjord BACKGROMP : 1) This application, requesting a variance from Section 35-•402 to penait construction of an industrial building with less than the required setback of 100 feet, was heard by the Commission on September 21, 1967, and at that time, the variance was recommended for denial. The Council reviewed that request at its meeting of September 25, 1967, and • at that time took no action on the variance request, rather remanding the application back to the Commission for its comments on a site plan incorporating a 35 foot setback/buffer along Azelia Avenue rather than the 100 foot setback set out in the Zoning Ordinance. The action of the Council at that time was as follows3 "Whereas, the 100 foot setback requirement for industrial buildings where such industrial property faces residential properties across a street would permit vehicular parking and driving, (including trucks) along such boundary street; and Whereas, the use of this 100 foot setback for active vehicular usage would tend to negate the intent of the setback requirements, that of providing proper buffering for residential properties adjacent to the industrial use; Application #67050 submitted by Davies Water Equipment company is therefore referred back to the Planning Commission for consideration of site and building plans incorporating a 35 foot setback/buffer along the west side of the property, including a 6 foot high solid (opaque) fence or wall parallel to the • west property line and 35 feet from that line, with the setback/buffer to be landscaped in a manner appropriate to a residential environment and with no use of this 35 foot buffer area for any parking, 2- • vehicular access, or any other activity .related to the industrial business usage of the property in question along Azelia Avenue." POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Aside from the 100 foot setback question, the applx- cant, in the plans submitted, has complied with the requirements of applicable ordinances. The fifteen parking spaces have been provided, all access to the property is from the south (off Lakebreeze Avenue) , as opaque wall to screen activities has been delineated, vnd landscaping for the western buffer strip has also been shown. STAFF COMMENTS: 1) The usual performance agreement and bond would be applied to the development, and the building plans would be subject to the Building Inspector's approval. • • Ut.)veaLber 2, 1,967 • Application No. 1 Roll 2 L�ppL2yal of Minutes,- Regular Meeting Oct6ber 5, 1967 Regular Meeting October 26, 1967 3 ., Village Builders 67052 Rezoning from the present R-1 Single Family Residence classification to R-3 Mult-.ple Family Res idence-Toum,house,, The property, involved lies approximately 1/2 block east of Zenith Avenue and 1/2 block north of 68th Avenue, to the south of 69th Avenue, 4 , L, B.. Haug and Mrs. Vir il Schafbuch 67033 Rezoning from the present R-1 Single Family Residence and R-B Residence ,Business zoning classifications,, to R-5 Multiple Family Residence. The property involved is at 7015 and 7019 Osseo Road,, • 5., Darrel Parr 67054 Approval of the site and building plans of a Tcwnhouse/Apartment deve-lopment on the property 2-eLneEA1 1 , June Avenue,, X bounded by Kylawn Park 58th Avenue (Co,,, Rd. #10) , and the west City limits 6. Robert Keller 67055 Approval of the site and building plans of an apartment development on the property generally bounded L-jr 65th Avenue, Camden Avenue, 64th Avenue (extended) . and Bryant Avenue, 7, Rome Federal Svvings and Loan Association 67006 Varlance froir. Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign on the property at 2901 Northway Drive, 8. Loxvry Realty 67056 Variance from Section 35-315 to permit erection of a freestanding sign on the property at 7006 Osseo Road. 6-t and L, �7 Ireaway Shell-9- il (6 th ynda.la Avenues" G7057 Special use permission the storage, rental., and sale of trucks and trailers on the service station property at 6545 Lyndale Avenue North. P3 VI'll -ri,4 CoMmIss,iVin Aqenda WoveirLber 2,- .1-967 • 10' Kentucky Fried Cbicken 67057 Approval of site �ind building plans of a commercial establisbinent,, Varlance froot Section 35330 to permit erection of a. freestanding sign, Both for the property at 5512 Osseo Road, jjow Inc. 67059 Approval of site and bu-1.1ding plans of an addition to an existing industrial office building at 4821 Xerxes Avenue, • • PLANNING, COMMISSION INFO101ATION SHEET Application No. 67052 Applicant: Village Builders (by Richard Kau f fmann) Description of Request: Rezoning from the present R-1 Single Family Residence classification to R-3 Multiple Family Residence-Town- house. Property- The property involved lies approxi- mately if 3 block east of Zenith Avenue and 1/2 block north of 68th Avenue, to the south of 69th Avenue, (That part of Parcel 1015: Plat 89034r lying south of 69th Avenue) Owner of ,Property: Peter. Elsen BACKC ROU1,M: 1) This property lies immediately adjacent to the former Earle • Brown Farm, and formerly was occupied by a farmhouse, which was burned as a fire exercise approximately one year ago. POIAITS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) That portion of the Brooklyn_ Canter industrial 'Park (Earle Brown Farm) immediately to the west of this property was zoned to the R-3 Townhouse classification in August of 1965, along with the rezoning of the rest of the industrial Parka The proposed zoning of the property contained within this classification has also been designated by the Commission and Council are a :Future Townhouse property; this designation is in accord with the concept contained in the Comprehensive Plan,, that Townhouse uses be continuous in this area from 69th Avenue to Interstate #'94.,. 2) The property consists of approximately, 4.4 acres, of which about 5,O00 square feet (about .1 acre) will be required to be dedicated at its northeast tip for the extension of the Shingle Creek :parkway from the industrial Park through Palmer Lake Basin toward Brooklyn Park, The property • remaining will support approximately 35 `townhouse units (to be verified by survey) . PLANNING COINKISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No,. 67033 Applicant: L. H. Haug and. Mrs. Virgil Schafbuch. Description of Request: Rezoning from the present R-1 (Single Family Residence) and R--B (Residence Business) zoning classifications, to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) . Property: 7015 and 7019 Osseo Road (Parcels 2500 and 3000, Auditor' s Subdivision No. 57) Owner of Property: Same as above BA CKGROUND: 1) This application was heard previously by the Commission, at a public hearing held August 3, 1967. At that time, following the gathering of comments ,from those present and discussion by the Commission, the applicant asked that the Commission permit the application to be withdrawn, for re--submittal at a lager date. This was agreed to by the Commission„ and the present. review of the application is the re-submittal referred to at that time. 2) During dune of 1963, the Schafbuch property was involved in a rezoning request of the American Legion Club to locate their club facilities there, This request was subsequently withdrawn POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) At the time of the previous hearing on this matter, there was a good deal of discussion of the possibility of these two properties combining for future development with presently vacant properties to their north. The Staff is personally aware of the fact that the owner of two parcels immediately north of the Haag and Schafbuch parcels was contacted by the applicants, as the owner of the land, Mr, . Dorn, called for information on zoning in the area, but the outcome of these discussions has apparently been unsuccessful. . 2) Both of the properties in this application extend westward from Osseo Road for several. hundred feet; the Haug parcel contains approximately .3 acre; and the Schafbuch parcel approximately 1. 5 acre, only the easternmost (approx.) • 100 feet of the properties are zoned R-B, along with other properties to the north and south, which were strip zoned a good number of years ago. 3) As a part of the upgrading of the Osseo Road, the entrance of 70th Avenue on the west side of Osseo Road was closed, making Lee, 70th, and Major Avenues essentially a "loop" street with access from 69th Avenue. Part of the property in this application (the parcel at 7015 Osseo Road) abuts onto 70th Avenue along its total length. The closing of this street is in accord with one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; that of reducing the number of local residential streets having direct access to Osseo Road. The Commission has recommended to the Council, and the Council has tentatively agreed, that the proposed zoning to the north of 70th Avenue along the Osseo Road should be multiple dwelling on the east side of the Road, and office uses on the west side. Through conversation with the property owners on both sides of the Road, and as stated in the last hearing on this matter before the Cominission, the owners of these pro- perties to the north of 70th believe that the future zoning • should be reversed from that proposed, to allow the multiples on the west and the offices on the east, or perhaps that the zoning should be flexible enough to allow eit-aer on either side of the Road. it appears that either one of these views could be justified by reference to the Comprehensive Plan, depending on whether one refers to the text or map portions of the Plan. The Commission, at the first hearing on this matter, expressed to those present that, to the Commission, from a planning point of view, the office uses and multiple dwelling uses were practically interchangeable as far as intensity of use is concer&d. 5) Two properties of the seven essentially vacant parcels between 70th and 71st Avenue are included in this petition. The most coherent development of the west side of the Road would probably be the combination of all the vacant properties between 70th and 71st, but this is probably not likely due to the existence of several different. owners, one of which is the Osseo -,"Ichool District. It should be noted that the Schafbuc.h property could stand independently and support an apartment, but ' t is reasonable to expect that the property and the Haug property will develop together, as the Haud property is too narrow to support development by itself. • STAFF COMMENTS - 1) one of the Immediate questions which will be raised with regard to the continuation of apartment zoning on these properties relates to where the traffic from the future apartment &--velopment will go. It is quite obvious to anyone familiar with this area that the use of the "loop" road of Lee-70th-Major is extremely light, apparently the only traffic using this "loop" (besides residents of this one block) are the occassional persona who drive to 70th and Major to park to go to Willow Lane Park to view a sports activity. It is questionable whether there was ever any great amount of traffic on these streets before the Osseo .*oad upgrading, and the closing of 70•th Avenue eliminated any through taffic which may have used these streets. The argument which will be raised then, will not be based on an objection to any fixed numerical amount of traffic which could be added by multiple development, but rather to az.y change in the status quo. it would seem to be unreasonzble then, to refuse the -sight of access of a mul- tiple develet*3ment on this property to 70th Avenue, for which the property must pay half the cost of improvements. . Irregardless of whether this type or any other type of development tDok places access to 70th Avenue should be allowed, in 1.;.ne with the principle of decreasing the amount of tra:'fic conflict on the Osseo Road due to direct across from abutting properties. If the entire area on the wc3t side of tlieOsseo Road from 70th to 71st were to be dev:doped into multiple dwellings, the most reasonable app:.-oath to the development's access would be to provide one; or at the most, two curb--cuts to the Osseo Road, another c)nto 71st Avenue, and one or two onto 70th Avenue. • PLAWYNG COMMISSION :INFORMATION SHEET 67 0 54 Applicant -. Darrel Farr. Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an Apartment/Townhouse project< Property: Between County, Road 010 and Kylawn Park (Twin Lake North Addition) Owner of Property Darrel Farr, et al BACKGROUND- 1) The rezoning of this property was approved by the Council on September 11, 1967. with the eastern half of the property to be zoned R-3 Townhouse, and the western half to be zoned R-5 Multiple Dwelling. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: • 1 ) in reviewing the plans being submitted,, the Commission should review the Council' s action of August 28th and also September 11th (Resolution 67- 287) relative to the rezoning of the property to R- 3 Townhouse and R-5 Multiple Residence. ST A IWF COPUATE NT S -- 1) The Staff will reserve its conwents for presentation at the Commission' s meeting, • PLANNUNG 00MMISSION INFORWiTrON SHEET, • Application Wo. 67055 AppLicant,; Robert Keller (Keller Investment Company) Description of Request�� Approval of site and building plans of an apartment project. Property: Bounded by 65th, Camden., 64th (extended) , and Bryant Avenues North. (Lot 6, Mendenhall's Outlots) Owner of Property a. Sonnenberg, Hoffarth, and Anderson BACKGROUND: 1) The rezoning of this property was approved by the Council on September 18, 1967, with the entire property (exclusive of streets to be dedicated) to be zoned to the R-5 Multiple Dwelling classification, POJIWIS TO BE CONSIDERED,. 1) In reviewing the plans being submitted, the Commission should review the Council' s action of September 18th relative to the rezoning of the property to the R-5 (Multiple Residence classification) as contained in Resolution No. 67-289. STAFF COMMENTS % 1) The Staff will. reserve its conunents for presentation at the COIRMiSSiOWS meeting, • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67006 Applicant~ Home Federal Savings & Loan Description of Request. Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 2901 Northway Drive (Tract A, R,,L.Sq #1211) Owner of Property- Home Federal Savings and Loan BACKGROUND: 1) This application was submitted to the Commission on March 2nd of this year, requesting both this variance for a freestanding sign, and also approval of site and building plans for the new Home Federal office. At that time, the applicant advised that a final decision on the type and size of sign they would like to install had not been made, and asked the Commission to defer action until a future date when the matter of the sign had been resolved. The Commission agreed to this, and approved the site and building plans submitted only. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED,,, 1) The provisions of the January 5, 1967, Sign Ordinance draft, especially Section 3-1104A. . In that Section, a freestanding sign would be permitted, with the area and height of the sign being related to the floor area of the building on the property. Given the approximately 4,000 sq. ft. floor area of the building, a sign 80 sq. ft. in area and not exceeding 16 feet in height would be perninitted. As an additional bit of information, the graph of sign sizes which the Council has utilized since the receipt of the Commission' s draft would permit a similarly sized sign, one which could not exceed 90 sq, ft. in area and 18 feet in height, again based on the floor area of the building, but at a slightly different percentage. 2) As was stated elsewhere in this Agenda, no freestanding signs are explicitly permitted by the present zoning ordinance, except that in the B-3 classification, a freestanding sign not higher than 5 feet is permissable., 0 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SF".ET Application No. 67056 Applicant • Lowry Realty (by Richard Rockstad) Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-315 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 7006 Osseo Road (Parcel 1823, Plat 89101) Owner of Property: Lowry Realty BACKGROUND: 1) In July of this year, Lowry Realty applied fort and received, a variance to install wall signing in excess of the one square foot sign permitted. The actual signing permitted by the variance was two signs, neither of which were to exceed 10% of the wall. on which it was placed. At the time of that application, the Applicant commented that he would, at some time in the future, wash to install a freestanding sign in line with the proposed sign ordinance, but that he would likely be able to wait until such new sign regulations were in effect. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The provisions of the January 5, 1967 Sign Ordinance Draft, especially Section 3-1104B. . In that Section, a single .free- standing sign would be permitted, not exceeding 36 square feet in area and not over 8 feet in height. In a recent application of this rule to another application, Evans-Nordby Funeral Home, it was found by the Commission that freestanding signs of a. "monument" type (very little or no clear space beneath the sign) that such signs should be set back 10 feet from the street right--of-way for reasons of traffic safety; this same rule was applied in the case of Fantasia Salon of Beauty. With regard to the area of the sign, the applicant has proposed a. sign approximately 72 square feet in area, while the Evans- Nordby and Fantasia signs were approved at 42* and 36 square feet, respectively. *Further explanations The Planning Commission approved the Evans'Nordby sign at 36 square feet, 7 1/2 feet in height, and 10 feet from the Highway Night-of-way; the enlarge- ment to 42 square feet was accomplished by the Council. 2) No freestanding signs are explicitly permitted by the present zoning ordinance, except that in the B-3 classification, a freestanding sign not higher than 5 feet is permissable. PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67057 Applicant: Freeway Shell Oil Description of Request: Special use permission to allow the storage, rental and sale of trucks and trailers on the service station property. Property: 6545 Lyndale Avenue North (Lot 1, Block 1, Shell' s Brooklyn Center Addition) Owner of Property: Shell Oil Company BACKGROUND: 1) This station was established under a special use permit granted during 1966, but has only recently been occupied • by the prevent tenant, Mr. Richard Horstman. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The requirements of the zoning ordinance relating to parking on a service station site require (for this station) a minimum of 14 vehicle spaces; the site in question is a large site, and can easily accommodate 14 vehicles, with a great deal of space left over. This refers only to the presently paved area; if necessary, there is several thousand square feet of space to the rear of the station. 2) The applicant has indicated that he would like to have approximately 2 trucks and six trailers of various sizes for his U-Haul dealership at this station. Using the example of other stations whose operators have stated a low number of trailers on the outset and soon found themselves with many more, it would be wise (if a numerical limit is placed on the number of rental units) that a larger number be given approval. The operator of this station is affiliated with Douglas Drive Shell, another . U-Haul franchise, and it appears that this rental aspect will be a significant part of the business here as it is at the Douglas Drive location. STAFF COMMENTS: l) It would seem reasonable in this instance to require the operator to blacktop the station property to the rear of the station building for the storage of these rental units to avoid the type of situation which presnetly exists at the Shell Oil Station at 63rd and Osseo Road, with the rental units being stored to the front of the station propertyt rather than on available space to the rear. • i �i • • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67058 Applicant: Kentucky Fried Chicken Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial establishment. Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign„ Property: 5512 Osseo Road (Part of Tract G, R.L.S. #1209) Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company BACKGROUNDa None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED-. • 1) WS.ch regard to the plans submitted, the applicant has conformed with the various setback., greenstrip, and ?arking standards of the City's ordinances. 2) With regard to the request for a variance for a freestanding sign, no freestanding signs are explicitly permitted by the present zoning ordinance, except that in the B-2 classification, a freestanding sign not higher than 5 feet is permissible. In this instance, applying the provisions of the Commission's January 5, 1967, Sign Ordinance Draft, this business (with approximately 1,625 square feet of floor area) would be permitted a freestanding sign 33 square feet in area and not over 16 feet in height. Using the graph of sign sizes which the Council has utilized since the receipt of the Commission' s Draft, this establishment would be permitted a sign with a maximum area of 90 square feet and a height of 18 feet. Another point with regard to the freestanding sign is pertinent here. The applicant has indicated the location of the sign approximately 3 feet from the north property line. The Draft Sign Ordinance has stated a sideyard setback of 10 feet for such signs, but the present applicant would be able to comply with this requirement only by putting the sign into the 15 foot landscaped area adjacent to Osseo Road. The Commission may wish to make comments with regard to this location. It should be noted that the applicant has in mind a larger sign than has been described above, but the sign designs which have been submitted are made up of standard modules, and can be "mixed and matched" to snake ether sues. • P PLANNING ComEsSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67059 Applicant: Howe, Inc. Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an addition to an existing industrial office building. Property: 4821 Xerxes Avenue Owner of Property: Howe, Inc. BACKGROUNDS 1) The last construction of Howe, Inc. on this property consisted of a warehouse building in the early sixties. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: l) As I understand the history of the Howe property, the • "Village had a good deal of interaction with the Howe Company on various occasions, including a. lawsuit to declare the operation a nuisance, due to alleged pollution (which lawsuit the Village lost) . Apparently- at the time of the last addition to the plant for warehouse purposes, the consensus of the Council was that there would be no further expansion of the manufacturing portion of the operation, although it is not stated. how this restriction would be imposed. Part of this reliance may have been based on the floor area ratio requirements of the zoning ordinance, which limited the ratio to .4; this ratio was -revised to a higher figure in the fall of 1965, so than the proposed small expansion to the company's office is permissible. • Planning Commission Agenda November 30, 1967 1. Roll Call - 7:30 P.M. 2. Seminar Discussion - Service Stations The following Oil Industry representatives will be present: Pure Oil Company - Mr. Glenn Hubbard Clark Oil Company - Mr. Arnie Cox Western Oil Company - Mr. Lee McNulty These gentlemen hopefully represent the full range of marketing types for petroleum products in this area. ti w December 7, 1967 A„P 2lication Nom, 1. Poll Call 2. A]212roval of Minutes Regular Meetings of October 25th and November 2nd Special Meetings of October 26th, November 9th, and November 30th,. 3. Ferry Farrington 67061 Rezoning from the present R--1 (Single Family Residence) classification to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) The property consists of approximately 1' acres of land at the southwest corner of the inter- section of 69th Avenue and T.H. #169. 4. City of Brooklyn Center (for the property of Earl N. Dorn of Osseo) 67067 Rezoning from the present R-B (Residence- Business) and R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) . The property involved is at (approximately) 7025 Osseo Road, 5. :Leroy Berk (Lessee, Pure Oil C_ o InyLr 67064 Special use permission to permit the sale of snownt.obiles on the service station property. The property involved is the Pure Oil Station at 6901 Osseo Road_ 6. Pe'tsuch _Real_ty 67065 Variance from Section 35-340 to permit erection of a projecting sign. The property involved is at 6745 Osseo Road. 7. Dayton Development Company 67062 Rezoning fro: 1-2 (industrial park) to B2 (Regional Business) . The property involved is bounded by County Road ##10, highway #100, and Shingle Creek. S. Dayton Development Company 67063 Rezoning from R-B (Residence Business) and B-2 (Regional Business) to B2 (Regional. Business) . The property involved consists of (approximately) Planning Coam fission Agonda • December 7, 1167 Con tinuod 5 acres of property to the north and west of the intersection of Xerxes Pvenue and County Road # 10. 9. Bridgeem.an' s 67066 Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. The property involved is at '0201 Osseo Road. PLANNING COIMUSSIOW INFORYATION SHEET Application No. 67061 • Applicant: Jerry Harrington Description of Request: Rezone to R-5 (Mltiple Family Residence) Property: S.t'y. corner of 69th and Lyndale Avenue North (Parcels 3329 and 3343, Plat 89205) Owner of Property: American Oil Company BAMGROUND: 1) This property, owned by the American Oil Company, has been the subject of several proposed rezonings (at least twice) in the past to establish a service station on the property. The requests have included other commercial uses and/or multiple dwellings as "buffers" to adjacent properties. Obviously, the proposed commercial rezonings were denied. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: • 1) The applicant states the following reason for his rezoning request on his application: "The high cost of the land makes it prohibitive for single family dwellings. High traffic count on 4x169 makes it doubtful if one could sell single family dwellings on said property. Apartment dwellers have fewer children to play in, or adjacent to heavily traveled streets. ". 2) The Comprehensive Plan, and comprehensive rezoning proposals supporting the Plans have indicated that this and surrounding properties should remain in single family residential usage. Along this line, the Engineering staff in past years has developed possible development layouts for the areas along Lyndale Avenue, one of the primary development features being a service drive along the highway to eliminate curb cuts onto Lyndale Avenue, both for purposes of safety and to make the adjacent areas more desirable for residential purposes. Whether this concept of a service drive will ever come to pass is predicated to a great extent on whether Lyndale Avenue w4:ll ever be a four-lane roadway; with other roadway upgradings north of Brooklyn Center in the next few years and the • installation of another bridge across the nississippi, Lyndale Avenue may never be larger than a two lane roadway. i • • Planning Comri?iss?on Information Sheet Application No. 67061 - (Continued) 3) Mr. Harrington has indicated on his application that he intends to build a 24 unit building on the (approx.) acre and one-half contained in these two parcels; this would be predicated on a survey of the property indicating that he does in fact have sufficient area to meet the ordinance requirement of 2700 square feet of land per unit. r 1 PLAM71NG COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67067 Applicant: Hearing initiated by City Description of Request: Rezoning from the present R-B (Residence-Business) and R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) . Property: (approximately) 7025 Osseo Road Parcels 3400 and 5000, Plat 89101 Owner of Property: Earl N. Dorn of Osseo BACKGROUND: 1) This hearing has been established by the City Council at the request of the Planning Commission on November 2, 1967, for the purpose of gathering information related to a possible rezoning of the property to R-5 (Multiple Residence) . The Commission requested that such hearing be established with relation to a rezoning request, No. 67033, submitted . by T,. H. Haug and Mrs. Virgil Schafbuch, owners of adjacent properties to the south. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) As the Commission will recall, the initiation of this hearing was requested due to the apparent lack of interest by the present owner, Mr. Dorn, in attempting to secure a zoning similar to that being requested by Haug and Schafbuch. The Commission's feeling at that time was that if the Dorn property were zoned more appropriately, and in line with that attached to the properties to the south, that the goal of a "package" development of the three properties might more easily become a reality. (Please refer to the Agenda of November 2nd for information relating to both the Doren properties and those contained in Application #67033. ) The public hearing on Application ##67033 was closed at the meeting of November 2nd, as sufficient information had been gathered by the Commission at that time; notices of this hearing have been sent to the persons previously notified, as per the Commission® s direction. • a Planning Commission Information Sheet Application #67067 - Continued. • 2) As is true of the Schafbuch and Haug properties, approxi- mately 100 feet of land abutting the Osseo Road was strip zoned a number of years ago to the R-B (Residence-Business) classification. The parcel of land abutting Osseo Road contains about 1.5 acres, and the landlocked parcel to its west about . 38 acre. The Haug property contains about .3 acre, and the Schafbuch parcel about 1.5 acres. • • v PLANNXNG c©i�:r S.-111ON INFOWlATION s TEEl Application No. 67064 • Applicant: Brooklyn Pure Oil (LeRoy Berg, operator) Description of Request: Special Use permission to permit the sale of snowmobiles on the service station property. Property: 6901 Osseo Road (Lots 6 and 7, Block 1, Sunset Manor Addition) Owner of Property: Pure Oil Company BACKGROUND: 1) Mr. Berg' s intention is to become a dealer in snowmobi.l::s as an adjunct to his regular service station business, using his interior showroom and also with display of one or two units outside. He has further indicated that he might wish to also sell a comparable sports item during the summer months, but that if the business were to be successful, it could be relocated elsewhere at that time, • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The station, being three bay, would be required by the present ordinance to have a minimum of 14 parking spaces; this station has at least this number, and depending on the method of calculation, has as high as 17 spaces. 2) Space for the outside storage and/or display of snowmo- biles could be had in the ,.ehicular parking area at the northwest corner of the station site, which has limited access for cars, and also on the green area at the south- east corner of the site, out of the area which must be kept clear for corner visibility at the intersection of Osseo Road and 69th Avenue. 3) If the sale of snowmobiles is considered to be an acceptable auxiliary use on -lie station property, and the applicant is desirous of selling its summertime counterpart, this should be included in the approval so as to avoid the necessity of his returning for special approval of the summertime use as well. • 1 PLANNING COM.FUSSION INFOEU4ATION STREET Application No. 67065 Applicant: Petsuch Realty Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-3-10 to permit erection of a projecting sign. Property: 6748 Osseo Road (Tract A, R.L.S. #1020) Owner of Property: Forrest Bjork BACKGROUND: 1) Petsuch Realty is the occupant of office space in the Brooklyn Center Hardware/Brooklyn Industries building. Present signing on the building for Petsuch Fealty consists of an interior illuminated sign 4' x 61 , placed flat against the building; Mr. Petsuch's desire is to place this sign 90 degrees to the building, so that it would project from the building approximately 6 feet. The present zoning regulations prohibit signs from projecting more than 24 inches into the front: yard setback. • POINTS TO BED uONSIDERED: 1) The Commission' s January 7, 1967 Sign Ordinance draft would restrict projecting signs as follows: "One pro- jecting sign not more than 10 feet above ground levels with a maximum size of 2. 5 square feet. " . With regard to wall signing in generals the draft ordinance would restrict the area of the sign to 10% of the area of the wall on which the sign is placed ( provided tine wall is no higher than 15 feet as in this case.) 2) The front wall area of the portion of the building in which Mr. Petsuch has his office is approximately 261 square feet (18 wide; 14. 5 high) , which woul(! permit wall signing (by the 10/ rule) of 26 square feet. • P1JkkU.41NG CO.WI`41ISSION IK-1`J �ATION SIni',rT . Application No. 67062 Applicant: Dayton Development Company Description of Request: Rezoning from R-2 (Industrial Park) to 'B-2 (Regional Business) Property: Bounded by County Road #10, Highway #100, and Shingle Creek. Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company and Minnesota Amusement Company BACKGROUND: 1) This property, zoned I-1 (.Limited Industrial) for many years, was rezoned to the I-2 (Industrial Park) classification in the fall of 1965, along with the rezoning of theEarle Brown Farm. At that time, it was understood that the basic nature of the eventual zoning on the property would be probably to a commercial classification, although the specific future use of the • property was not finalized. Since that time,, Dayton Development Company has conveyed an interest in the property to the Minnesota. Amusement Company, with the intention that an indoor theater be constructed there. Since the City has not carried through the comprehensive rezoning of the City which would accomplish a rezoning for commercial usage of this property as contained in the Comprehensive Plan, Dayton Development Company is initiating the rezoning itself at this time. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, as mentioned above. • a' PLANNING Caa4MISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 67063 Applicant: Dayton Development Company Description of Request: Rezoning from R-B (Residence-Business) and B-2 (Regional Business) to B-2 (Regional Business) . Property: Approximately 5 acres of property to the north and west of the inter- section of Xerxes Avenue and County Road #10 (legal description on file) Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company BACKGROUND: 1) T':is property consist of about 5 acres of land, the r,outher l.y halt (approx.) of which is zoned to the B--2 classification, and the northerly half (approx.) being in the R-B classification. The proposal contained herein • would provide an extension of the existing B-2 zoning northward, to the future Northway Drive, which would be an extension of Northway Drive already existing to the east of Xerxes Avenue. During the development of a recommended zoning map, the Commission recommended that a commercial retail zoning be attached to this corner, as well as the property north of County Road #10 to the east of Xerxes, with the! final zoning line to be fixed when the final road alignments for Northway Drive were known. Since the City has not yet adopted the comprehensive zoning ordinance, Dayton Development Company is initiat,:ng the rezoning itself at this time. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and pre- viously proposed zoning under the comprehensive rezoning plan. STAFF COMMITS: 1) The applicant should be made aware that a future Registered Land Survey setting out this property and Northvj.ay Drive • will be expected in the near future. t • PLANNING COMKISSION INFORMATION SHEET ?application No. 67066 Applicant:pp Bridgeman' s Description of Request-. Variance from Section 35-330 to perm-t erection of a freestanding sign. Property; 6201 Osseo Road (Lot 2, Block 1, Ewing Lane Addition) Owner of Property: Land O"Lakes Creameries BACKGROUND 1) On March 16, 1964, the Council approved a freestanding sign for the Bridgeman establishment as follows: "Potion by Phil Cohen and seconded by John Leary to approve action of Planning Commission on Application #64011 submitted by Bridgeman Creamery for a special 'Use permit for a Drive-In Ice Cream Store and the approval granted February 17, 1964, by the Village Council be amended to permit one (1) freestanding • advertising sign 21 feet in height to be located 54 feet from Osseo Road. The approval of the sign shall become a part of the Special Use Permit and shall conform to the design on file. Motion curried unanimously. " 2) Ott October 25, 1965, the Council approved both an area and height increase for the freestanding sign on the Bridgeman property (which sign was found to be almost 25 feet in height rather than the 21 feet previously approved) , as follows: "Motion by Phil Cohen and seconded by John Leary to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission on Application Noy 65085 submitted by Bridgeman' s Inc. , and grant variances from Section 35-330 in regard to the height and area of the sign located at 6201 Osseo Road, with and for the following conditions and reasons: 1. The sign shall not exceed 26 feet in height measured from the blacktop surface at the edge of the concrete footing beneath the sign. 2. The area of each side of the sign shall not • exceed 250 square feet. 3. The sign is set back from the roadway the distance required for buildings and thus presents an unusual situation. Motion carried unanimously. " Planning Commission 'information Sheet. Application No. 67066 • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED; 1) The sign presently standing on the Bridgeman property was built according to the design submitted at the time of the last approval; according to the perimeter measurement technique, however, it is approximately 290 square feet in area. The intent of the applicant is to now move the present feestanding sign to a position on the east side of the service drive, immediately adjacent to the Osseo Road. 2) The Commission's draft sign ordinance (of January 5, 1967) would permit the erection of a freestanding sign for the Bridgeman property (as a "drive-in") up to 24 feet in height and 250 square feet in area measured by perimeter description. The graph of sign sizes which the Council has utilized, based on floor area of the Bridgeman establishment (4,674 square feet, exclusive of canopied area for drive-in customers) , would permit erection of a 93.5 square foot sign, 18 feet in height. This sign would be required to have clear space below the sign message from a point 8 feet above the base grade of the sign (finished floor elevation) and the ground below the sign. 3) It appears (from Minutes of past actions) that special consideration may have been given to the present sign because of its large setback from Osseo Road (over 50 feet ) , and also because of the absence of signs on the building itself. Planning CoGimission Agenda December 28, 1967 lication No. I. Roll Call 2. Jerry Harrington 67061 Rezoning from the present R-1 (Single Family Residence) classification to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) . Tabled by Commission at its meeting of December 7th. 3. Dayton Development Comvany 67063 Rezoning from R-B (Residence-Business) and B-2 "Regional Business) to B-2 (Regional Business) . Tabled by Commission at its meeting of December 7th. 4. Bridc4eman' s 67066 Variance from Section 35-330 to permit • erection of a freestanding sign. Tabled by Commission at its meeting of December 7th. 5. Discussion of the min:Lnuni size of a townhouse developfa,�nt as per the Council ls direction of December 11, 1967. 6. Continued discussion of Drivein establishments.