The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1968 PCP Planning Commission Agenda January 4, 1968 Application No. In Roll Call: 2. Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting of December 7, 1967 Special Meetings of November 30 and December 28, 1967. 3. William G. Gallien 67068 Variance to permit metes and bounds subdivision into two .,ubstandard lots. 4. Brooklyn Center Evangelical Free Church 67069 Plan approval for an addition to the existing church. 5. Gordon Christiansen 67070 Variance to permit a gara;e and porch addition 30 feet from the front lot line and 4' feet from tLe side lot line. 7. American Construction Co. 67071 Plot plan and building plcn approval for a 40 ' x 80` building for retail sales and service of powor tools. 7. Miles Construction Comprny 67072 Approval of plot plan, pa -king layout, floor plan and building design. `3. Resolution Minimum size of a tow!ihou v�e development. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SKEET Application No. 67068 Applicant: William. G. Gallien Description of Request: Variance to permit su`)division of existing lot into two sub- standard residential bvi.lding sites. Property Address: 5320 Colfax Avenue North BACKGROUND: 1) The existing lot is 126 feet wide and about 110 feet in depth. Mr. Gallien wishes to subdivide into two 63 by 110 foot lots. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Most all of the lots in the Bellvue Acres Addition, of which the subject property is a part, were originally 126 feet wide. More than 80% of the original lots have been subdivided into substandard lots with many having 63 feet,, or less,. frontage. 2) The requirements set forth in Section 35-601 entitled "Substandard Lots" would be carried out in principle. AP PLANNING COMMISSION INFOR14ATION SHEET Application No. 67069 Applicant: Rev. Merle E. Christensen Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an addition to an existing church. Property Address: 6830 Quail Avenue North Owner: Brooklyn Center Evangelical Free Church POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1; Sufficient parking is provided but screening, surfacing, drainage, etc. , is not indicated on the plot layout. • i PLANNING COMMISSION INFORM-ATION SHEET Application No. 67070 Applicant: Gordon Christiansen Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-402 to permit an attached garage to be 30 feet from the front and 4� feet from the side lot line. Property Address: 3019 Nash Road Owner of Property: Same BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The curve street and the shape of the lot makes it very difficult to build a garage on this property. COMMENTS: 1) The standards for variances as set forth in Section 35-221 would apply to this application. 2) Attention is called to the Council action of October 1.6r 1967, on application #67053 which reads in part "no further variances shoald be granted to the setback requirements of the zoning ordinance until the Planning Commission has time to review the ordinance requirements". r► ` IR" A D !, "�'` `fit h''� .�•�•� � r +,�� 1 NO w r ` ILI til ra,� JW N I � 1 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67071 Applicant: American Construction Co. Description of Request: Approval of plot plan, parking layout and building plans. Property Address: 6535 Lyndale Avenue North BACKGROUND: 1) The platting of Shell' s Brooklyn Center Addition and the approval of a service station left an irregular shaped lot with 75 feet of frontage on Lyndale Avenue. The land is zoned B-3 and the proposed use follows the development guide plan. PAINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The owner proposes to subdivide the lot in such a manner that access could be had from the service drive and from 66th Avenue. 2) Subdivision approval should be a contingency which should apply to plot and building plan approval r ' • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67072 Applicant: Miles Construction Co. Description of Request: Approval of plot plan, parking layout, floor plan and building design. Property Address: 70th and Humboldt Avenues Owner of Property: John Horbal BACKGROUND: 1) Rezoning of subject property was completed by the action of the Council May 2, 1966. 2) For further information, refer to Application No. 66011. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) A land deficiency amounting to slightly over kW is indicated. 2) Screening of the parking area and planting schedule should be detailed. 3) Subdivision plans have not been submitted for review. • Planning Commission Agenda • February 1. 1968 Application No. 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes: Regular. Meetings of December 7, 1967 and January 4, 1968 Special Meetings of November 30 and December 28, 2967, and January 25, 1968 3. Gordon Christensen 67070 Variance from Section 35-401 to permit the construction of an attached garage with less than the required front (359 and side (5') setbacks required. The property involved is at 3019 Nash Road (Lot 7, Block 2, Garden City 3rd Addition). 4. St. Alphonsus Church 68001 Approval of site and building plans of an addition to the existing church building. • The property involved is at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of 70th & Halifax Avenues North. 5� Darrel Farr 68002 Approval of the site and building plans of an apartment development. The property involved lies to the north of Co. Rd. #10 and south of Kylawn Park, generally west of Major Avenue NorthV(lrot 1, Block 1, Twin Lake North Addition). r • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68001 Applicant: St. Alphonsus Church Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an addition to the existing church building. Property: Northwest Quadrant of the inter- section of 70th and Halifax Avenues North (Parcel 803 -- part of Lots 3, 4, and 5, Auditor' s Subdivision No. 57) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) A landscaping plan has not yet been developed, as the architect feels that this should be worked out jointly with representatives of the client. He has stated that there is a substantial sum allocated for this purpose, however, and will be open to recommendations by the .City. The Commission and Council may wish to examine the question of screening of these large parking areas with some type of screening devices. 2) The expanded parking lots delineated on the site plan are capable of holding in the vicinity of 350 cars. Using the figure of 1500 seating capacity in the Nave of the church, the ordinance would require 500 car parking capacity. Additional space is available on church property to the west of the present south parking lot which could be used for parking, which leaves to the Commission and Council the question of requiring that sufficient space for 500 vehicles be paved at this tinte or deferred until a later date. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68002 Applicant: Darrel Farr Description of Request: Approval of the site and building plans of an apartment development. Property: North of County Road #10 and south of Kylawn Park, generally west of Major Avenue North. (Lot 1, Block 1, Twin Lake North Addition) . Owner of Property: Darrel Farr, et.al. BACKGROUND: 1) Mr. Farr previously submitted (under Application No. 67054) site and building plans for an apartment development on this property, in addition to plans for a Townhouse development on property to the east of this parcel. The Commission reviewed those plans on November 2, 1967, making the following recommendation to the Council; "Motion by Ditter, seconded by Doren£eld, to recommend to the City Council that the site and building plans sub- mitted by Darrel Farr under Application #67054 be approved, but with the following conditions: 1. the building plans are subject to the final approval of the Building Inspector; 2. utilities and drainage plans are subject to the final approval of the City Enginner; 3. a performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted by the applicant to the City to guarantee the installation of the site improvements shown on the site plan; 4. no signery is being approved for the development; 5. a minimum of 2 parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit; 6. a walkway easement across the northeast corner of -2- the property between 59�i Avenue and Kyle Avenue with the walkway to be Constructed. by the develaper. Voting in favor of the motion were Ditter, Grosshan.s, Bogucki, Jensen, Engstrom, and Dorenfeld; riot voting wa: Ausen, who stated that he objected to the provision of only tw�7) accesses from the entire project to public roadways. Motion carcied. " The plans thus recommended for approval were dropped b� Mr. Farr prior to their review by the Council due to pract .cal difficulties in their implementation. The present application does not involve the Townhouse portion of the development. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED 1) The plans submitted have been reviewed for conformance with ordinance requirements and with the previous plan concepts developer? by Mr. Farr during the Commission's and Cou::^il' s review of zoning for the property. Although the layout of the buildings has changed from that originally proposed, end the shape of the "lake" has changed also, the plans do co.iform to both ordinance requirements and the plans given previous approval by the City. 2) During the review of the previous Flans submitted. uncar Appli- cation No. 67054, Mr. . Van Eeckhout recommended the use of poured.- in-place curbing throughout the development, and Mr. -arr has agreed to install the same. Assuming agreement t1 the Commission, this should be included in the approval. I • Planning Commission Agenda Match 7,, 1968 A lication No. i. Roll Call: 2. Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting February 1, 1968 Special Meeting February 29, 1968 3. Gordon Christensen 67070 Variance from Section 35-401 to permit. the construction of an attached garage wit-a less than the required front (351 ) and side (5E ) setbacks required. The property involved is at 3019 Nash Road. 4,. Sears Roebuck - Brookdale 68003 Special use permission to allow a retail sales operation (garden store and sporting goods) from April 1, 1968 to July 1, 1968, involving outside storage within a fenced • area on the west side of the Sears stored 5. Shell Oil (63rd and Osseo Road) 68004 Special use permission for the operation of a service station use. Approval of site and building plans for a service station use. Both for the property at 6245 Osseo Road., 6. P.B.C. Medical Clinic 68005 Approval of site and building plans involving an addition to a commercial building. The property involved is at 6120 Osseo Road. 7., Lowry Realty 68006 Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to 8--2 (Regional Business) . The property involved is generally described as being bounded by France Avenue, 65� Avenues, T. H. #152, and interstate No. 94; also the first two properties lying south of 65� Avenue on the east siege of T.H. Nom 1.52. -2- 8. Phillil2s Oil (69th and Osseo Road 68007 • Variance from Section 35-340 to permit erection of a freestanding sign, The property involved is at 6850 Osseo Road. 9. Federal Lumber Company 68008 Approval of site and building plans for an addition to a commercial-industrial building. The property involved is at 4810 Lilac Drive. 10. Taco Towne 68009 Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. The property involved is in the Lynn Brook Shopping Center at 6219 Osseo Road. 11. Velie Oldsmobile 68010 Approval of site and building plans of a commercial development. The property involved is at approximately 6700 Osseo Road. i 12. Shell Oil (69th and Humboldt) 68011 • Special use permission to store and rent trailers and truc7;s on a service station property. The property involved is at 1505 - 69th Avenue No. 13. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. - Brookdale 66091 _ Approval of final site and building plans of a retail store/service center. The property involved is at 5445 Xerxes Avenue North. 14., Firestone Tire &_Rubber Co. - Brookdale 68012 Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. The property involved is at 5445 Xerxes Avenue North. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67070 • Applicant: Gordon Christiansen Description of Request: Variance from 'ection 35401 to permit the construction of an attached garage with less than the required front (351) and side (51 ) setbacks required. Property: 3019 Nash Road (Lot 7, Block 2, Garden City 3rd Addition) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. The front setback vartanee requested is 30 feet rather than the 35 feet normally required on a mid-block lot. This is to permit the proposed construction of a 22 foot • long garage to the front of the side exit of the home. The roof of the garage would then extend to the rear of the home, providing a cover for the side exit, and also a roofed-over patio area. 2. The sideyard setback variance being requested is to a distance of 4' feet (property line to wall, with a 2 foot cornice) to permit the garage and roofed-over patio area to be 16 feet in width. 3. Nash Road, as you can see by the attached sketch, is a curving roadway, with this house probably set back further than any other house on the street, as the setback was taken from the nearest point to the street, the corners. The center of the front of the house is in the vicinity of 43 feet from the street, while its corners are about 36 feet back. The house immediately south, at 3018 Mumford Road, being a corner lot, has a 25 foot setback from trash Road. Page 2 Application No. 67070 STAFF COMMENTS: 1. The Commission had a lengthy discussion of these residential setbacks at its February 29th meeting, and apparently resolved in its mind the question of sideyard setbacks to the effect that what is being requested by Mr. Christiansen for a sideyard setback is acceptable, and in fact the Commission would probably recommend a closer setback if it was .requested. With regard to the front setback, however, the Commission wished to have further discussion, and if there is insufficient time to do so at this meeting, the application could be tabled with the approval of the applicant. • • PLANNING COMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68003 Applicant: Sears Roebuck - Brookdale (by Ed Schlicting) Description of Request: Special use permission to allow a retail sales operation (garden store and sporting goods) from April 1, 1968 to July 1, 1968, involving • outside storage within a fenced area on the west side of the Sears store. Property: 1297 Brookdale Center (Tract A, R.L.S. #936) Owner of Property: Sears Roebuck BACKGROUND: 1. This application is a repeat of one made in past years for permission to have this type of outdoor sales. We have had no enforcement problem with Sears in relation to these previous approvals. PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68004 Applicant: Shell Oil Company Description of Request: Special use permission for the operation of a service station use. ,approval of site and building plans for : service station use. Property: 6245 Osseo Road (parcel 5510, A•,d. Sub. No. 25) Owner of Property: Shell Oil Company BACKGROUND 1. The existing Shell Oil station on this property was approved in the late 1950s. Since that time, special use permission was requested and approved (in 1964) to permit the rental of trailers on the property. Since the original establishment of the station in the late 1950s, a small corner of land at the corner of 63rd and • Osseo Road has been taken from the original site, and the land to the south has been developed as a shopping center, prohibiting expansion of the station site to the south. A strip of land owned by another party (about 11 feet in width) exists between the Shell property and Ewing Lane to the west, but we have been advised that this property also is unobtainable. The plans which have been submitted envision the addition o:- a third service bay on the north side of the present station, and a complete revamping of the station with this addition so that the completed station will become one of the "ramble" type stations Shell Oil. has built on two other sites within Brook?vn Center. Given the extensive nature of this revision to the station, which in effect makes it a new station, the application is being submitted as a special use permit as well as a site and building plan approval. Page 2 Application No. 68004 POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. The present station does not have the green straps required of other stations built in the past several years, and the new plans submitted do not contain this feature. The present station does not have sufficient usable parking space in accordance with our ordinances, especially with the addition of the rental trailers, which have grown in number over the years. The present station does not have the best type of access to the adjacent streets, and the new dra*.*,ngs do not propose any changes in this feature. STA?F COMMENTS: 1. The Shell Oil people were advised almost a year ago (when they submitted these plans for Staff review; that certain changes to the existing site plan in line with the points mentioned above would be desirable, and further, that acquisition of the strip of land between' the station and Ewing Lane and demolition of the existing • station would probably be the best approach to best utilize the site. From that time t3 the present, no changes have been made to the site plan, and the Shell representatives have told us that acquisition of the adjacent land is impossible at the price being asked. The opinion of the Staff is that the additional land is not crucial to a better design for the station, although it would give more flexibility in design, but that a good deal more cooperation on the part of Shell Oil in attempting to conform to the City's codes and traffic principles is desirable. Up to this point such cooperation has not been forthcoming. Thus, unless the Commission is willing to aceeptthe deficiencies in the plans, we recommend the denial of this application. PLANNING CCTIMISSION INFORMATION SHEET •. Application No. 68006 Applicant: Lowry Realty Company Description of Request: Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to B-2 (Regional Business) . Property: Those properties bounded by France Avenue, 65� Avenue, T.H. No. 152, and Interstate No. 94 (Lots 1 and 2, Block 5; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 6; Brooklane Addition) . Also the first two properties lying south of 654 Avenue on the east side of T.H. 152 (Parcel 2310( (except the east 165 feet thereof) ) and 2330, Auditor' s Subdivision No. 25.) Owners of Property: Dudley, Plummer, Bottleson, Hanuska, Peterson, Peterson, Deboer BACKGROUND: • 1. A portion of the pro p ert y contained within this Appli- cation has been designated within the Comprehensive Plan as a future "planned development area" . Thus far, a proposal has been submitted and approved for office-type use on vacant property to the north of 65th Avenue just to the south of the properties in this Application. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. Note pages 42-44, 65, 72, and 73 of the Comprehensive Plan. Following review of these sections of the Plan, the deter urination must then be made if they are all still proper principles, or whether certain critical ones have been changed by events which have occurred during the past few years, and if so, to what extent. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68008 Applicant: Federal Lumber Company Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans for an addition to a commercial- industrial building. Property: 4810 Lilac Drive Owner of Property: Federal Lumber Company BACKGROU'_,W: 1. the property involved in this application is the former Foote Lumber Company. The plans are being submitted due to the fact that a small section of building is being added to that which existed under the former owner. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. This property is unique in several respects, as you will see upon reviewing the plans. First, it is located on ghat is essentially a private roadway (Lilac Drive) in that the roadway serves only this one property, and t3ruinates at the eastern and of the property. Secondly, it .s probably the only 30 foot roadway in existence in the Cit3,. Thirdly, a "lumber yard" is unlike any other type of use in an industrial area, with its extensive outdoor storage of merchandise. The Staff has had difficulty in determing what parking raquirements should apply to this use. There is sufficient and area so that any future use of the property would be Bell served by offstreet parking, but the requirement of substantial parking areas at this time would serve no purpose. we have thus thrown this use into the "uses not covered by this list" category with relation to the required parking, and suggest to the Commission that the 31 spaces shown on the plans be accepted in meeting the parking requirement. Further, given the unique access characteristics mentioned above, we suggest the site plan be accepted as its, with parking spaces immediately adjacent, and an extension • *)f, the paved portion of Lilac Drive. I PLANNING CC AU117ISSION 11-WOPMA`I'ION SHEET Application No. 68009 • Applicant: Taco Towne Restaurant (by Michael ,Mueller of Taco Towne of America) Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 6219 Osseo Road - Lynn Brook Shopping Center (Lot 1, Block 1, Ewing Lane Addition) Owner of Property: M & E Realty BACKGROUND: 1. The freestanding sign presently existing at the Lynn Brook Shopping Center has been the subject of three variance requests in the past. The most recent of these variance requests provide for revisions to the sign to its present status, such approval having been granted by the Council on March 6, 1967 (Resolution 67--61) . The • sign, which was designed with an area of approximately 125 square feet and a height of 20 feet, was approved as request. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. The request contained in this application consists of another change to the existing freestanding sign, involving the installation of a "Taco Towne" sign atop the present sign, which sign would be more or less of a mirror image of the present "Kroger" sign. The addition of this new identification would not change the overall height of the sign, but would increase the total sign area (by our perimeter measurement technique) to approximately 160 square feet. 2. Admittedly, there is a good deal of confusion at this point as to what sizes of signery will be permitted under the forthcoming sign ordinance. The Commission is generally adhering to the January 5, 1967 Draft Sign Ordinance, and the Council is utilizinc:, a variation of the provisions of that Draft. it should be noted that both of these standards being used would permit a larger • sign than the present 125 square feet. The Commission' s Page 2 ,Application No. 68009 "Integrated Commercial Dcvelopment: criteria would permit a 200 square foot sign not exceeding 32 feet in height (the sign being a function of the 20, 120 square foot gross floor area) , and the Council' s "Graph" would permit a 200 square foot sign not exceeding 27 feet in height. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. When first approached by a representative of Taco Towne with regard to this freestanding sign, it was suggested that he discuss the revisions with other tenants of the Center to determine if they might wish to develop the sign as a whole, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. He later stated that he had done this, and that the others would like revisions to the sign, but -aere rot prepared to put out any money to accomplish same. I mentioned to him, and also to M & E Realty (owners of the Center) that if disputes arose in the future regarding allocation of space on the sign, the resolution of such d_'.sputes would be left to -the lessor and lessees. • • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SEEET • Application No. 68010 Applicant: Velie N.otor Company Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial development. Property: 6700 Osseo Road (Parts of Blocks 2 and 3, Sunrise Manor Addition; Tract B, R.L.S. #370; Part of Tract A, R.L.S. #595) Owner of Property: Velie Motor Company BACKGROUND: 1) The rezoning of the property involved in this Application was approved by the Council on September 18, 1967„ Shortly thereafter, Halifax Avenue was vacated to the adjoining properties so zoned. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: • 1. The plans being submitted consist of a two stage develop- ment of the property, with the first stage consisting of a service building (26,000 sq. ft.) and a separate showroom building (main_ floor and mezzanine - 2,500 and 1,300 respectively, with a basement office area of 2,600 sq. ft.) . The second stage would consist of a 23,000 square foot addition to the service building, and possible a separate used car sales office. 2. Parking and driving areas seem to have adequate dimensional standards, with the exception that the City Engineer has discussed the entrance to the property from the Osseo Road, and although the entrance is not the most desirable situation as far as access is concerned, no other alternative is open to the developers at this time. This being the case, the Engineer has suggested revisions to this entrance which should be incorporated into the plans. The Engineer will have further comment with regard to this matter at the meeting. With regard to parking space, as with other auto dealerships, it is assumed that sufficient space is available on the paved portion of the property according to our • requirements for commercial buildings, and that the detrimental effects of filling these areas with new or used cars will be felt by the dealer. The guarantee to the City is that there is sufficient space for another retail use of this size should the property cease to be used as an auto dealership. • Page 2 Application No. 68010 3. The "protective strip" and "screening" required in Sections 35--410 and 35-710 have been designated adjacent to the four properties occupied by single family dwellings, with a combination of fencing, trees, and earth mounding. To the north of the single family properties is a large vacant area, presently zoned R-1, but proposed for multiple dwelling. A 25 foot landscaped area has been designated in this area, but no screening has been proposed, as it is not known yet what type and configuration of development will occur on the vacant property. 4. No freestanding signing has been proposed at this time for the site, although signing has been proposed for the separate office building which replaces the usual freestanding sign. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFOPHATION SKEET Application No. 68011 • Applicant: Shell Oil Company (By Howard Olson, Operator) Description of Request: Special use permission to store and rent trailers and trucks on a service station property. Property: 1505 -- 68th Avenue North (Lot 1, Block 1, Hellstad Addition) Owner: Shell Oil Company BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. There is (roughly) 5,000 square feet of usable vacant space to the rear of the station building which was to be put into grassed area, but which the operator would propose • to put into paved area for the storage of these rental. units, and also for ease of maintenance. 2. A recent request of this type for the Shell Oil Station at 66th and Lyndale Avenues was approved by the Council in the following manner: " . . .1. That a maximum of 14 rental units in any combination of trucks and trailers be per- mitted on the station property at any one time; 2. That there shall be no parking of the rental units in such a manner so as to block the entrances to the station site, and no parking of such units in front of the station building; 3. No signing is being approved at this time for advertising the availability of these rental units; 4 . The special use permission shall be reviewed in one year from the date of Council approval to consider the effect of this rental activity on the station site with the possibility at the time of reviewal of raising or lowering the • number of units permitted and to examine the question of whether the presently vacant rear portion of the station property should be paved or covered with crushed rock. . . " Page l Application No. 68011 • The only significant difference between this Shell Oil site and the 66th and Lyndale site is the fact that the 66th site is bounded on all sides by commercial zoning, while the 69th site is bounded on its rear by multiple dwellings. A 6 foot opaque fence exist: on the 69th site, but the visibility factor of rental units which will be visible over this screen should probably be discussed, perhaps with vegetative screening above the fence being considered. 3. It is my understanding from my discussion with Mr. Olscn that he would not intend immediately to have truck rental units, as a U-Haul operator must be in business at least 6 months before he is allowed any truck unit, but that it is his intention to have such units after his probationary period is completed. 4. The present 3-bay station is required to have at least 14 parking spaces on the site, and in fact has sufficient paved area for at least 18 vehicles. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68012 Applicant: Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 5445 Xerxes Avenue North (Tract O, R.L.S. #1209) Owner of Property: Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. BACKGROUND: 1. In plan reviews for the proposed commercial case of this site last year, approval of a freestanding sign was specifically exempted. As the developer wishes to include the sign in the contract for the construction of the building on the property, a variance for such a sign is being submitted at this time. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. The sign presently contained in plans submitted by the applicant is of the following dimensions: Height to bottom of sign - 20 feet Overall height - 26h feet Gross surface area of sign - 120 square feet As a ,point of reference, the freestanding sign permitted for the Goodyear dealership across the street from this site is 154 square feet in area and 22. 5 feet in height above the finished floor grade. (This was the sign size approved by the Council; the Commission had reconmended 170 square feet and 18 feet in height on March 30, 1967.) The floor area used in the case of Goodyear was approximately 8, 250, while the floor area of the Firestone building will be approximately 8, 350. Utilizing the Commission' s Draft Ordinance, this would again yield a sign 170 square feet and 18 feet in height; using the Council' s "Graph", a 154 square foot, 22.5 foot high sign would be permitted, as there is little differentiation from 100 square feet of floor area on the Graph. Planning Commission Agenda AprI.I. 4. 1968 1. 'Roll Call-. ApIL.Ij�.ioation No 2 - A�roval of Minutes-. Regular Meeting March 7, 1968 Special Meeting March 28, 1.968 I Shell Qjj Co, 68004 Special use permission for toe operatio.n of a service station use.- Approval of site and building plans for a service station use, Both for the property at 6245 Osseo Road, 4 : Center 68005 Approval of site and building plans of an add- ition to a commercial building. Variance from Section 35704 to permit a lesser number of parking spaces than required for the commercial use For the property at 6120 Osseo Road. • !Iji;llips. Oil Coz� 68007 Vartrrick� from Sectic,,ori 35-3140 to pt- mat elect ion of a Freestanding sigmi , For the property at 6850 Of;.qea 'Wad, S Oil-Co, - (Howard Olson, 68011 Special use permission to storo and rent trailers and tr-t)cks on a service station property. F(,,)r the property at 1505 - 69tti Avenw--,, r es�oxal-e--T-A r c 68012 Variance from Section 35-3.30 to permit erection (if a freestanding siqn,. For 'It'Ifte property at 15445 Xerxes Avenue.. 8 , F.irestone Tire & Rubber Ca, 66091 Aoproval of final s-ite ohd building plar,,-,% of a retail store/autonotive service center, For, the property at 5445 Xerx(i-!_, Avenue,, 9,. Homedale Builders 6801.3 Approval of the preliminary plat. of "Northland Estates 4th Addition" , For the property between 70th and 73rd on tl^,ke east side e-)f Huml.ioldt AvF-,fiu(-.. ,, • 10. Rodney Bernu and Darrel Parr 68014 Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-B (Residence-Business) . For the property on the west side of Osseo Road at 59th Avenue. 11. Shopper' s Citv 68015 Special use permission to erect; and operate a "garden store" on the Shopper' s City property,. including relocation of the "garden store" building to the north side of the Shoppers City property. The operation of the "garden btore" to extend until July 15, 1966. For the property at 3600 - 63rd Avenue:. 12.. Marana.tha Conservative Baptist Home for the Aged 68016 Approval of site and building plans of-an addition to the nursing home. For the property at 5401 - 69th Avenue. 13. B_& G Realty (.for Big Boy Restaurants) 67045 Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. For the property at 5,440 Osseo Road, 9 'T .'INC 'r r°r Tl. Application No., 68004 • Applicant: Shell Oil Company Description of Request- Special use permission for the operation of a service station use. Approval of site and building plans for a service station use. Property; 6245 Osseo Road (Parcel 5510, Aud. rub. No. 25) Owner of Property: Elvera Gatzke BACKGROUND: 1) The existing Shell. Oil Station on this property was approved in the late 1950s. Since that time, special use permission was requested and approved (in 1964) to permit the rental of trailers on the property. Since the original. establishment of the station, a small triangle of .lane at the corner of 63rd and Osseo Road has been taken from the original site, and the land to the south has been developed as a shopping center, • prohibiting expansion of the station site to the south. A strip of land owned by another party (about 11 feet in width) exists between the Shell property and Ewing Lane to the west, but we have been advised that this property is also unobtainable. The plans which have been submitted envision the addition of a service bay on the north side of the present station; and a complete revamping of the station with this addition so that the completed station will become one of the "ranch" type stations Shell Oil has built on two other sites within Brooklyn Center. Given the extensive nature of this revision to the station, which in effect :makes it a new station, the application is being submitted as a special use permit as well as a site and building plan approval. 2) This matter was heard at the Commission' s March 7th meeting and the applicant was directed to further refine his plans, which he has since done. • Page 2 Application No. 68004 • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The present station does not have the greenstrips required of other stations built in the past several years, and at the last meeting of the Commission at which this Appli- cation was discussed, there was no concensus as to whether these should be imposed on the station at this time. In discussions with the applicant since the last hearing, some landscaped area has been added to the 63rd Avenue side of the site, but not the Osseo Road side. 2) Usable parking spaces to satisfy the ordinance requirements, lacking on the previous plan, have been accommodated on the present plan with 14 and 15 spaces provied. The revision of this parking has limited the area remaining for rental trailer storage, and perhaps some limitation should be attached to this trailer use. 3) Access to the station is not proposed to be changed from that presently permitted, although an access from Ewing Lane will probably be added if the strip of land west of the station is acquired in the future. STAFF COMMENTS: 1) The Shell Oil people were advised almost a year ago (when they submitted these plans for Staff review) that certain changes to the existing site plan in line with the points mentioned above would be desirable, and further, that acquisition of the strip of land between the station and Ewing Lane and demolition of the existing station would probably be the best approach to best utilize the site. From that time to the present, no changes have been made to the site plan, and the Shell representatives have told us that acquisition of the adjacent land is impossible at the price being asked. The opinion of the Staff is that the additional land is not crucial to a better design for the station, although it would give more flexibility in design. 2) In reviewing the site plan, the Staff has noted that only (approx.) 4 feet will remain between the Offeo Road curbline and the service station' s paved driving areas. Given the fact that Shell Oil must maintain the landscaping • Page 3 Application No. 68004 i material on the highway boulevard, it may be that Shell would prefer to install a sidewalk in that area, which would probably be cheaper tar them to maintain, and would be one step further toward our walkway sustem. The subject has not been broached to Shell, and this might be the time to do so. 3) In addition to the normal requirements of a plan approval, if there are special conditions to be attached to the usage of the property as a service station, now is the time for such stipulations to be made. • I�� PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SWf',ET Application No 63005 Applicants P.B.C. Medical - Dental Center Doscription of Request; Approval of site and building plans of an addition to a commercial building. Variance from Section 35-704 to permit a lesser number of parking spaces than required for the commercial use. Property. 6120 Osseo Road (Lots 1 and 3, P. B. C. first Addition) Owner of Property. W. O. Patterson BACKGROUND: 1) The present clinic/office building was constructed with the intention that in the future, an addition would be made to the building extending to the east with a continuation of the same type of architecture used in the first stage, but the architectural type has changed • somewhat in the proposed addition from that originally proposed.. The building was constructed on a large lot extending from Osseo Road to Beard Avenue, including the present Burger--King site and property to the rear of the Burger.-King. The property since that time was divided by the owner into a lot for P.B.C. Clinic, a lot for the Burger-King, and three smaller lots on Beard Avenue for multiple dwellings. The applicant advises that the only land retained by the Clinic of the original property is the lot the Clinic is on, and one contiguous multiple dwelling lot; there is not enough land on these two lots to provide the required amount of parking for the enlarged use: POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED; 1) In addition to not (at least as he states) having additional land available, Air.. Frickson of P.B.C. states that the requirement of 1 parking space for each 150 square feet of gross floor area does not fit the needs of his building, and are excessive:. The following data may be of value in discussing the! mattvr, • Page 2 Application No. 68005 Present building: 9,865 sq.ft. office portion 30240 sq.ft. halls, stairs, ramps 13, 105 sq.ft. Total Proposed building: 8, 160 sq. ft. office portion 1,015 sq.ft. halls, stairs 9, 175 sq.ft. Total Complete first & second stage 18,025 office portion 4,255 halls, stairs, ramp 22,280 sq.ft. Total Applying the 150 square foot rule to the total fin zhed gross floor area of 22, 280 square feet, 148. 5 parking spaces would be required. if this were simply an office building rather than a medical-dental clinic, the requirement would be 1 parking space for each 200 square feet of gross floor area, or Ill spaces. The present site is capable of accommodating approximately 100 spaces, depending on arrangement. 2) Another comment of Mr. Erickson' s with relation to our parking requirements is that they should probably be based on "nei:. leaseable space" rather than gross floor area, a comment which has been made in the past as well. in this case, he stated that the present requirement penalizes a building design which provides ramps rather than stairs only. For purposes of comparison, the Northbrook Clinic has about 16% of its gross floor area in halls, while the P.B.C. has approximately 19% in halls, stairs, and ramps, for a difference of only 3% which does not seem to differ greatly, especially when one considers that the P.B.C. is multi-story and Northbrook is single-story. STAFF COTOIENTS: 1) Assuming a satisfactory resolution of the parking question, the usual requirements of paving, curbing, Building Inspector' s and Engineer' s approvals, performance agreement and bond, etc. should be made, P:UT�N IXG COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68007 • Applicant: Phillips Oil Co. (by Signcrafters) Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-340 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 6850 Osseo Road (Parcel 615, Aud. Sub. No. 25) Owner of Property: Phillips Oil Co. BACKGROUND: 1) The present freestanding sign for the property consists of a 6' by 6 ' sign on a 12 foot pole adjacent to the 69th & Osseo Road intersection. The intention of the applicant is to remove the sign and sign standard from that location, and place the same sign atop the structural steel column which supports the end of the canopy which extends from the station building over the gasoline pumps. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) There is question in my mind as to whether this new sign would in fact be a freestanding sign, as it would be mounted on a structural member of the building. Since it was to take the place of the freestanding sign presently on the property, however, I presumed that it should be handled in this manner. 2) If approved, the steel column would be adjusted to a height (about 18 feet, which would be just above the canopy) which would allow the installation of the 6 foot sign, with a 24 foot overall height. 3) The Commission' s January 5, 1967 Draft Sign Ordinance would permit a 250 sq. ft. 24 foot high sign for this "drive-in" type of business. The Council' s "graph" would permit a 90 sq. ft. 18 foot high sign. • PIA.'1NIYC; Ct�,_'.ITAISSION SNFORMAT`ON SH:FET Application No. 68011 . Applicant: Shell Oil Company (By Howard Olson, Operator) Description of Request: Special use permission to store and rent trailers and trucks on a service station property. Property: 1505 - 68th Avenue North (Lot 1, Block 1, Hellstad Addition) Owner: Shell Oil Company BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) There is (approx.) 5,000 square feet of usable vacant space to the rear of the station building which was to be put into grassed area, but which the operator would propose to put into paved area for the storage of these rental units, and also .he east of maintenance. 2) A recent request of this type for the Shell Oil Station at 66th and Lyndale Avenues was approved by the Council in the following manner: " . . .1. That a maximum of 14 rental units in any combination of trucks and trailers be per- mitted on the station property at any one time; 2. That there shall be no parking of the rental units in such a manner so as to block the entrances to the station site, and no parking of such units in front of the station building; 3. No signing is being approved at this time for advertising the availability of these rental units; 4. The special use permission shall be reviewed in one year from the date of Council approval to consider the effect of this rental activity on the station site with the possibility at the time of reviewal of raising or lowering the number of units permitted and to examine the question of whether the presently vacant rear portion of the station property should be paved or covered with crushed rock. . . " Page 2 Application No, 68011 The only significant difference between this Shell Oil site and the 66th and Lyndale site is the fact that the 66th site is bounded on all sides by commercial zoning, while: the 69th site is bounded on its rear by multiple dwellings. A 6 foot opaque fence exists on the 69th site, but. the visibility factor of rental units whic'a will be visible over this screen should probably !.)e discussed, perhaps with vegetative screening above ths, fence being considered. 3) it is wy understanding from my discussion with Mr. Olson that ba would not intend immediately to have truck rental units, as a U-Haul operator must be in business at 12ast 6 months before he is allowed any truck units, but that it is his intention to have such units after his probationary period is completed. 4) The present 3-bay station is required to have at least 14 parking spaces on the site, and in fact has sufficient paved area for at least 18 vehicles. i • PLAINbTING COIIISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68012 Applicant: Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-330 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 5445 Xerxes Avenue North (Tract O, R.L.S.# 1209) Owner of Property: Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. BACKGROUND: 1) In plan reviews far the proposed commercial use of this site last year, approval of a freestanding sign was specifically exeiroted. As the developer wishes to include the sign in the contract for the construction of the building on the ,3roperty, a variance for such sign is being submitted at this time. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERrl): • 1) The sign pres,.-atly contained in plans submitted by the applicant is rf the following dimensions: Height to bo tom of sign - 20 feet Overall heiq',t - 26' feet Gross surface area of sign -- 120 square feet As a point Df reference, the freestanding sign permitted for the Goodyear dealership across the street from this site is 154 square feet in area and 22.5 feet in height above the finished !:l.00r grade. (This was the sign size approved by the Coincil; the Commission had recommended 170 square feet and 18 feet in height on March 30, 1967.) The fl.oar area used in the case of Goodyear was approximately 8,250, while the floor area of the Firestone building will be approximately 8, 350. Utilizing the Commission's Draft Ordi,ance, this would again yield a sign 170 square feet and 18 feet in height; using the Council' s "Graph", a 154 :quare foot, 22.5 foot high sign would be permitted, as •%.iere is little differentiation from 100 square feet of -::door area on the Graph. PLANNING CUiY't1lI SSIGN Application No, 66091 • Applicant: .Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Description of Request; Approval of final site and building plans of a retail store/automotive service center. Property: 5445 Xerxes .Avenue (Tract O. R.L.S. No. 1209) Owner of Property: same as above BACKGROUND: 1) In January of 1967, the site plan for the proposed Firestone building was submitted to the Commission and Council for approval. The site plan was approved, and since that timed the building plans have been prepared to conform to the plan previously submitted. Since the site plan has been redrawn since that time, it also is being submitted for review. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: • 1) The plans submitted appear to satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. STAFF COMMENTS: ?) The usual provisions for Building inspector' s and City Engineer' s approvals, performance agreement and bond. e pLAISM'ING COTMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68013 . Applicant: Homedale Builders Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of "Northland Estates 4th Addition" . Property: 70th to 73rd Avenue North, on the east side of Humboldt Avenue (Part of Lots 46 and 47, Aud. Sub. No. 309) Owner of Property: Homedale Builders BACKGROXM--D: 1) This property is the only strip of land remaining vacant on the east side of Humboldt, as the property to the east of this has been previously platted and developed into single family dwellings. The subdivision pattern on the east side of Humboldt consists of north-south streets, while the west side has developed in what the City feels is a better pattern, east-west streets, with homes facing on • the minor streets rather than Humboldt. With this problem in mind, both the Commission and Council have recommended that a duplex or fourplex type of zoning be attached to this property, but the owner of the land is not interested in a type of development other than single dwellings. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) One of the corner lots in the subdivision is substandard in one dimension by about .8 foot, and 300 square feet in area, but to gain the additional land area, either the lot would have to assume a very odd shape or be combined to become a duplex lot. As to the .8 foot deficiency, there is simply no more land to be had to change this, unless the owner of a lot to the east would seal this small amount to Homedale. STAFF COMMENTS: 1) The staff stall feels that the idea of using this area for other than single family usage (to eliminate some curb cuts) is a good one, but given the existing situation, it appears that the City' s contribution to wise development will be to • encourage the developer and subsequent purchasers to provide turn-grounds on their property so they might enter Humboldt Avenue frontwards. PLA.11_1111G COMMISSION' 1':TFQ.T_Z!%V,T10!T SH-'HET Application No. 68014 Applicant: Rodney Ber_nu and Darrel Farr Description of Request: Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-B (Residence-Business) Property: West side of Osseo Road at 59th Avenue North (Parcel 1210, Aud. Sub. No. 216) - the former Miller Greenhouse property. Owner of Property: Hattie C. Miller BACKGROUND: 1) This property, as well as the property to its south between Cross of Glory Church and 58th Avenue, has been designated as a Planned Development Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The intention of this designation is to provide coordinated development of the entire area, if possible, into a "higher" type of usage such as public buildings, apartments, and offices. In such a development, the amount of direct access to the Osseo Road would be encourage to be kept to a • minimum, with joint use of driveways and service drives where feasible. The zoning proposed by the Commission has been to the C1 Service-Office type; as the C1 classification does not yet exist, RB is being requested. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The applicant' s stated intention, supported by his preliminary plans, is to construct an office building on the property. The concept which would underly this development would be a joint use agreement with Cross of Glory Church with respect to parking lot use, as provided in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bernu has been making satisfactory progress in coordinating his preliminary plans with the Church, and the proposed situation seems to be one which would be advantageous to both parties and to the City as well. If this agreement does not work out, the size of the proposed building would have to be changed. 2) One of the ideas underlying the "planned development" is that the development should take place as a"package". In practice, we must recognize that this will be extremely difficult in most cases due to multiple ownerships. in the case of • Bermel-Smaby's proposed office use at 65th and Osseo Road, for example, the "package" did not occur, although the City Page 2 Application No. 58014 • impressed upon all concerned the need for cooperation between landowners as the area redeveloped. A similar situation seems to exist at this 59th and Osseo Road location, and although the present application does not encompass the entire area designated for this type of use, it seems reasonable to assume that one office-type use will follow another, and as they do, it will be in the best interests of all concerned to coordinate their designs with the recommendations of the City. • a CO:'�+rF�I S S T ON SHEET Application No.. 68015 • Applicant: Shopper' s City Description of !;egiest: Special use permission to erect and operate a "garden store" on the Shopper' s City property, including relocation of the "garden store" building to the north side of Shopper' s City property. The operation of the "garden store" to extend until O'uly 15, 1968. Property: 3600 -- 63rd Avenue North (Tract A, R.L.S. #807; and Tract B, R.L.S. #817) Owner of Property: Zayre Corporation BACKGRt'GND: The building which will be used for this operation is that which was used for a similar operation last year with special use permission, and then stored on the north side • of the Shopper' s City property. At that time, two resolutions were adopted by the City Council granting such approval (Resolutions 67-77, and 67-78) . ?OINTS TO BE 1CONSIDERED: 1) None, other than personal observation and knowledge of the use from previous permissions. The operator of the store will be the same as in past years. • Application No. 68010 • Applicant: lylaranz tha Con,serva-iv e- Baptist Home for the Aged Description of Request: App.co-,'al of ,:-,ite and building plans of an addition to the nursing home. Property: 5401 -- 69th 1,venue (Parcel 1520, Plat, 690337 Outlot 1, Donnay' s Brook Lyn GE rdens 5th Addit4on) Owner of Property: same as 170001.7e BACKGROUND: 1) The nursing home, which is a special use in an Rl district, was approved several years ago. There. was a delay in pro- ceeding with construction , an6i then vhen construction did occur, foundation work �7as started on three wings of the building, but a substantial poition of the building did not rise above the foundation. The plans being submitted now include the building for which foundation work was previously done, plus a portion of building not previously contemplated, and development of the site in a manner previously designed but never put into effect. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The present parking area oln the eatst side- of IC-he property lies immediately adjacent to t�.e rear property lines of homes along Toledo Avenue. Some chain lin1r. fencing exists along this property line, but no vi.,i:,.al screening off- the parking area exists. it was si"4gge-sted to 1--he applicant that the paved area be pullod back frr Che propel-ty line to provide 8 to 10 feet of land in w-hich vegetative screening could be provided, and this appeare,zl to be agreeable, as the plan was redrawn to incorporate the -idea. 2) The present building is 28 feet from the rear lot line of the homes along Toledo. in giving the plans an initial examina- tion, the ordinance was referred to to determine if there is a special setback rea ,uireme.�.,t for t"is type of use. I found that schools in an R1 zo.re 1:'D 1'1ave A-10 building closer than 30 feet- to any reside ntial property, but that such a provision did not apply to a jau_rsing home. The • original plan submitted to the City included a storage room Page 2 Application No. 680IG to be added to the east side of the Home, yielding an 8 .foot setback; I advised the applicant that the minimum would have to be a 10 foot sideya rd, and that if another location for this structure were feasible, that relocation would probably be better. No other location proved to be as functional, and the setback was changed to 10 feet. 3) The site plans have been drawn to incorporate paved parking and driving areas, curbing, and landscaping. STAFF COAMNTS: 1) The usual provisions for Building Inspector' s and City Engineer' s approvals, performance agreement and bond. • r PLANNING CUvZlISSION INFORMATION S74EET Application No. 67045 Applicant: B & G Realty (for Big Boy Restaurants) Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-330 to per- mit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 5440 Osseo Road (Tract N, R.L.S. No. 1209) Owner of Property: same as above BACKGROUND: 1) In September of 1967, the Commission reviewed this Application both for the freestanding sign request and for the site and building plans for the proposed Big Boy restaur- and. The plans were approved, but the sign request was tabled with the concurrence of the applicant. The plans were subsequently approved by the Council, with the sign request not being acted upon. The applicant has now requested that the matter be place on the Agenda for resolution of the subject. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Using the 4,800 sq. ft. floor area of the proposed building, and relating it to the January 5, 1967 Draft Sign Ordinance, a 96 sq.ft. 16 foot high sign would be permitted. Using the Council' s "graph", a 9715 sq.ft. 18 foot high sign would be permitted. Other food establishment signs are as follows: Kentucky Fried Chicken -- 90 sq. ft. , 24 feet high (not yet installed; floor area to be 1, 625 sq.ft.) Burger King - 250 sq.ft. , 24 feet high (floor area 2, 250 sq.ft.) King' s Food Host - 165 sq. ft. , 23 feet high (floor area 2, 900 sq. ft) i Planning Commission Agenda May 2, 1968 Application No. 1. Roll Calls 2. Gordon Christiansen 67070 Variance from Section 35-401 to permit the construction of an attached garage with less than the required front (351 ) and side (51) setbacks required. (tabled at previous meetings) The property involved is at 3019 Nash Road. 3. Phillips Oil ,69th and Osseo Road) 68007 Variance from Section 35--340 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. The property involved is at 6850 Osseo Road. 4. Shell Oil 69th and Humboldt) 68011 Special use permission to store and reps trailers and trucks on a service station • property. The property involved is at 1505 - 69th Avenue,. 5. Gale Pierce 68017 Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-B (Residence-Business) . The property involved is at 5960 Osseo Road. 6. Glad and Miller Construction Co.. 68018 Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) . The property involved is bounded by Lakeside Avenue, Highway No. 104, and rrwin Lake. 7� .Darrel Farr 68019 Rezoning from R 1 (Single Family Residence)' to R-5 (Multiple Damily Residence) . The property involved is at the northeast corner of the intersection of 65th and Willow Lane, between Willow Lane and the Mississippi River. • Planning Corm issidn Agenda - May 2, 1968 - continued. A. Shell oil 'xanea Hi. eta 100 67005 (originally submitted by Bruce HasselberK:, Rezoning from Ri and R-B to B•-2 (Regional Business) ; spacial use permission, including plan approval, for a service station. The property involved is at the southwest corner of the intersectiob of Fiance Aveaue and Highway No. 104. 9. miscellaneous ac t p ♦ .;. f ;N 4 �_ �'n I PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67070 Applicant: Gordon Christiansen Description of Request: Variance from Section 35--401 to permit the construction of an attached garage with less than the required front (351 ) and side (5' ) setbacks required. Property: 3019 Nash Road (Lot 7, Block 2, Garden City 3rd Addition) Owner of Property: Same as above BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1. The front setback variance requested is 30 feet rather than the 35 feet normally required on a mid-block lot. This is to permit the proposed construction of a 22 foot long garage to the front of the side exit of the home. The roof of the garage would then extend to the rear of the home, providing a cover for the side exit, and also a roofed-over patio area. 2. The sideyard setback variance being requested is to a distance of 4' feet (property line to wall, with a 2 foot cornice) to permit the garage and roofed-over patio area to be 16 feet in width. 3. Nash Road, as you can see by the attached sketch, is a curving roadway, with this house probably set back further than any other house on the street, as the setback was taken from the nearest point to the street, the corners. The center of the front of the house is in the vicinity of 43 feet from the street, while its corners are about 36 feet back. The house immediately south, at 3018 Mumford Road, being a corner lot, has a 25 foot setback from Nash Road. • Page 2 Application No. 67070 STAFF COD M NTS s 1. The Commission had a lengthy discussion of these residential setbacks at its February 29th meeting, and recommended a change to the Council for a 3 foot minimum setback for garages. with regard to the front setback, the Commission resolved at its April 25th meeting that this should be changed to 30 feet from the present 35 feet, and will discuss the matter further to determine whether a front setback of less than 30 feet is desirable, and if so, under what circumstances. It appears than, that this application can now be resolved, unless the applicant wishes to have a front setback of Less than 30 feet. PLANNING CONHISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68007 Applicant: Philips Oil Company (by Signcrafturs) Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-340 to permit erection of a freestanding sign. Property: 6850 Osseo Road (Parcel 615, Aud. Sub. No. 25) Owner of Property: Philips Oil Company BACKGROUND: 1) The present freestanding sign for the property consists of a, 61 by 6' sign on a 12 foot pole adjacent to the 69th and Osseo Road intersection. The intention of the appli- cant is to remove the sign and sign standard from that locz�.tion, and place the same sign atop the structural steel column which supports the end of the canopy • which extends from the station building over the gasoline pumps. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) There is question in my mind as to whether this new sign would in fact be a freestanding sign, as it would be mounted on a structural member of the building. Since it was to take the place of the freestanding sign presently on the property, however, I presumed that it should be handled in this manner. 2) If approved, the steel column would be adjusted to a height (about 18 feet, which would be just above the canopy) which would allow the installation of the 6 foot sign, with a 24 foot overall height. 3) The Commission's January 5, 1967 Draft Sign Ordinance would permit a 250 sq.ft. 24 foot high sign for this "drive-in" type of business. The Council' s recently revised "graph" would permit a 90 sq. ft. , 24 foot high sign. e PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68011 Applicant: Shell oil Company (By Howard Olson, Operator) Description of Request: Special use permission to store and rent trailers and trucks on a service station property. Property: 1505 - 69th Avenue North (Lot 1, Block 1, Hellsted Addition) Owner: Shell Oil Company BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) There is (approx.) 5,000 square feet of usable vacant space to the rear of the station building which was to • be put into grassed area, but which the operator would propose to put into paved area for the storage of these rental units, and also the ease of maintenance. 2) A recent request of this type for the Shell Oil Station at 66th and Lyndale Avenues was approved by the Council in the following manner: 1. That a maximum of 14 rental units in any combination of trucks and trailers be per- mitted on the station property at any one time; 2. That there shall be no parking of the rental units in such a manner so as to block the entrances to the station site, and no parking of such units in front of the station building; 3. No signing is beijzg approved at this time for advertising the availability of these rental units; 4. The special use permission shall be reviewed in one year from the date of Council approval to consider the effect of this rental activity on the station site with the possibility at the • time of reviewal of raising or lowering the number of units permitted and to examine the question of whether the presently v-,cant rear Application No. 680 1) Page 2 portion of the station property should be paved or covered with crushed rock. . . " The only significant difference between this Shell Oil site and the 66th and Lyndale site is the fact that the 66th site is bounden on all sides by commercial zoning, while the 69th site is bounded on its rear by multiple dwellings. A 6 foot opaque fence exists on the 69th site, but the visibility factor of rental units which will be visible over this screen should probably be discussed` perhaps with vegetative screening above the fence being considered. The owner of the apartment property to the south has telephoned his comments regarding the use, and a memo relating his comments is included in the file. 31 It is my understanding from my discussion with Mr. Olson that he would not intend immediately to have truck rental, units, as a V-Raul operator must be in business at least 6 months before he i.s allowed to have such units, but that it is his intention to have such units • after his probationary period is completed. 4) The present 3-bay station is required to have at least 14 parking spaces on the site, and in fact has sufficient paved area for at least 18 vehicles. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68017 Applicant: Gale Pierce (Fireside Rc-alty) Description of Request: Rezoning from R-1 S (Single Family Residence) to R-B (Residence-Business) Property: 5960 Osseo Road (Parcel 4900, Aud. Sub. No. 218) Owner of Property: Cale Pierce BACKGROUND: 1) This property is considered in the Comprehensive Plan to be part of an area in which "Planned Development" uses (mul-Uple dwellings or office uses) are to be encouraged. The Commission's recommended zoning for the block bounded by 59th, Osseo Road, 60th, and Beard Avenue (o:_` which this is a part) was to an R-5-multiple residence classification, with Cl-office zoning to the north, west and south. The Council, in preparing a pro- posed zoning for the City for public informational. • meetings, has suggested an R4-multiple residence classification. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The Ca.mnission and the Council have, in the recent past, consirered that the intensity of use of apartments vs. offic-, uses was essentially equal. 2) Mr. .'?ierce has indicated that he has options on two additional lots to the south of the one contained in this application, but he was to late in acquiring this land to have it included in this zoning application. 3) Mr, Pierce has been advised of the progress of the proposed comprehensive zoning, but inasmuch as the requested zoning differs from the zoning which the Council is presently proposing, felt it an opportune i;.b,.e to bring this type of proposed usage to the City's attention. Application No. 68017 Page 2 4) Mr. Pierce does not own or have an option on the lot immediately south of 60th Avenue, that lot being owned by Mr. Nordbye of Evans-Nordbye Funeral Home. Whether that lot is available for inclusion as a part of whatever development Mr. Pierce proposed is not known. 5) The Staff has had conversations with Mr. VanDeVelde (forme Golden Point owner) who owns the south half of this block, who stated that he also is interested in office zoning for his property, although he presently had deed restriction problems which he will have to work out with other property owners in the subdivision regardless of what zoning is attached to his property. 6) In discussing this block with both Mr. Pierce and Mr. Van DeVelde, the City's interest in limiting access to Osseo Road has been discussed, and each has stated that there is merit to the idea, although the Nordbye property on the north is a key to its effectiveness. e7) The three parcels which Mr. Pierce either owns or has options on contain about an acre and a quarter of land; the uordbye piece to the north contains a little over one-third acre= and the VanDeVelde lots contain about an acre and a half. STAFF COMMENTS: 1) Regardless of the action taken by the Commission on the single lot in this application, commentary on the entire block should probably be passed on to the Council. e I i 01•• 12 7 3%-11 . 5 4 3 .0 43 Jill. ............ 2 DRIVE Joel 4 14 M v �4 f�16 o4 4: 3 10 6 10 4 At 3� do jl� 13 14- 151 is.. .... 3 -1 2 60th 4 VA r WOW) *47 0 ADMIRAL 4 LANE 13 1? 0 A > golf%(, r vil iii d 4'4alws 0 A c) 1911 20:k 21 - I6 rl 4 ar Ln wt 0,% (5,M) 14 HL 14 — Y. - L 4, 26 p =2 , �'% 24 22 6 a t4!0) PART OF] obi 3 2-F )t 75 its I rl LO At NO.4 CD Ll < 4 PART OF 3 LOT 12 0 9 SA 7_1V 00 J?4 Nitr Op 3 (131(s) #3 0 7) PART OF LOT 15 M 58 As AVr 3 �c o w 135 10 ~1 It 2 2 3 gat- 3 a 3 10 4 m r. TRACT lid tar tA Ift Zoo I w 4 62 Ix 9 r sc xv 1 :Ep AA !!�'- ..SITS Jos* 96 1� 10,04 1 Z.�_ _'�ip F 0 # #?rib A'f Ar La" 2 > 7 cc c :t 15 i • i 'to NOW • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 69018 Applicant: Glad and Miller Construction Co. Description of Request; Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) . Property: Bounded by Lakeiide Avenue, Highway No. 100, and Twist Lake (Legal. description on file) Owner of Property: Emil Engberg BACKGROUND: 1) The property in question is now occupied by the Twin Lake swimming beach, and consists of approximately 8.09 acres (352, 227 sq.,ft.) . POIN'T'S TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) This property was recommended for open space usage (private) based on the existence of the swimming beach, apparently with the thought that such use would continua indefinitely. 21 The upgrading of Highway ' 100 to expressway status in the next few years will change the access to the area, and the future circulation patterc.. have not yet been faxed. 3) The zoning for the area recommended for the area to the north of this property by the Commission was to R--2 (duplex) and R-4 (2 story multiple) classifications. This same zoning has been carried through by the Council on the proposed zoning map. STAFF COMMENTS : 1) Z would suggest to the Commission that the public hearing which has been set for this rezoning request be held, and comments gathered from those parties notified of the nearing, and that the hearing be closed for consideration by the Commission. This will enable the Staff sufficient time to examine the past planning proposals for the area and the concepts which underly this planning, and also to research the likely future development of the area. i lei LAKEBREELIE AVE. • 5 � 3 S 8S 5 .4 4 ---'---- -4-- - - w - ' - A- A 4-- 1 '$ T � ! 0 N 34 _ > t � 3 I re K a• ./ a.• .r +. is i != 3 .! .•1+3 .!� 3a .� •1 �� •r• .•: j _ 36OV R's •.lp,e.'LAKE E r •x.91 •�� A IT AAKE51DE &E,..a, i , .�� ,' • 1 ?i 1� fir• � �/� '' � - — ')."'' •�. • as a '• v. w. /•a.rt; -� .: 09 r . .V. N6 ' a ® a Property involved in °� >, •° Application No. 68018 •• C # ,� it •4, � � � A. iii 99• C Cask «, • ,f��4 Yr +'�• P 1 � PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68019 Applicant: Darrel Farr Description of Request: Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) . Property: Northeast quadrant of intersection of 65th Avenue and Willow Lane (Lot 1, Block 1, Farr' s First Addition) Owner of Property: Darrel Farr BACKGROUND: 1) The property in question is now vacant, and consists of approximately 70,000 sq. ft. (about 1 and 3/4ths acres) . POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Mr. Farr has made two previous requests for rezoning of • this property to a multiple family residence classification. One of these was in the summer of 19630 the other in the summer of 1965. On both occasions, the requested rezoning was denied by both the Commission and Council. Subsequent to the second denial, Mr. Farr divided the property by the installation of Willow Lane, and the property to the west of this property (on the west side of Willow Lane) was rezoned. 2) This property was recommended for single or duplex residential usage in the Plan, and the Commission and Council have carried through with this concept in the proposed compre- hensive rezoning, with a proposed designation of R-1 (Single Family Residence) . STAFF COMMENTS: 1) As with another zoning request in this Agenda, I would suggest to the Commission that the public hearing which has been set for this rezoning request be held, and comments gathered from those parties notified of the hearing, and that the hearing then be closed for consideration by the Commission. This will enable the Staff sufficient time to examine the past planning proposals for the area and the concepts which underly this planning and also to research the likely future development of this area. PLANNING COMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 67005 Applicant: Shell Oil Company Description of Request: Rezoning from R-1 and R-B (Regional Business) ; special use permission, including plan approval` for a service station. Property: Southwest corner of the intersection of France Avenue and Highway No. 100. (parcel 2910, Section 10; and Tract A, R.L.S. #1082) Owner of Property: Norman Chazin, Izolda Gilles BA CKG ROUND 1) A stipulation of dismissal has been entered into by the City with the applicants, which will cause the City to enact the requested rezoning to a commercial retail zone, grant special use permission for a service station, and approve site and building plans for the station. A draft resolution will be prepared for this matter and submitted at the meeting. . 1 ' Dialogue-Of the Planni n Corm;issi.on Meeting of May 21 1968. Note: This record does not propose to be a verbatim record nor to include all comments made. Application No. 6gc7,'submitted by Gale Pierce McCull.agh (representing Pierce) - Mr. Pierce wishes to construct an office building for his real estate company (Fireside Realty) , plus some additional rental office space within the same building, on the property now occupied by a home at 5960 Osseo Road. Mr. Pierce also presently has listings on the two parcels occupied by a single family home at 5930 - 5950 Osseo Road, but not for the purpose of purchase. Mr. Pierce would have like to have applied for office zoning on those two parcels also, on behalf of his client, but was too late to include them on this application. In response to a question by Mr. Jensen, Mr. McCul.lagh stated that Mr. Pierce' s present intentions did not include the use of the two properties south of this property as a three lot development for an office use. Jensen - The Commission has been in favor of a use change along • much of the Osseo Road, generally to office building or multiple dwelling type uses, but in such redevelopment the thinking of the Commission has been that it should take place in more than one-lot increments. McCuilagh - The R4 zoning as proposed by the City really isn't too realistic, as the proposed zoning is Cl on three sides, and an R4 zoning on this block would leave -a break in the zoning pattern. Pierce - In response to a question by the chair, Mr. Pierce noted that Mr. Nordby, the owner of the property at 5964 Osseo Road, and that Mr. N'ordby had no comment with regard to the rezoning and wanted to "wait it out" as to the ultimate use of that lot. Jensen -- If the zoning were granted for the office use, would you build just one building on the one lot? Pierce - Yes. Jensen - I don't believe the Commission has ever voicedstrong objection to the office type zoning in place of multiple dwelling type zoning, but the Commission would like to see the owners developing their properties in cooperation with one another. McCullagh - It is unlikely, though, that the property owners would work on the complete development until they had the zoning commitment. Page 2 At this point, Cihoski explained to the applicants (with the aid of the overhead projector) how the Commission had conceived the development of this block, with the possible closure of 59th Avenue and the use of a common driveway from 55th to 60th Avenue, thereby limiting or eliminating the need for curb cuts in mid-block. McCullagh - With the new zoning ordinance coming up soon, I don't think the owners would be able to get together now and plan the sort of complete development that you are talking about. The Council will be going through with the Comprehensive Rezoning to R4 in the meantime, and this would not gain the land owners or the City anything. if the Commission wishes to table this application, it could at least make a recommendation on what it feels the whole block should be zoned so that the Council could consider this in the ovez;all zoning of the City. (The tabling action took place at this time.) AMlication No. 68018 submitted b)r Glad and Miller Construction Co. Karl Herman (representing ��lad and Miller) - Mr. Herman introduced Mr. Malcolm Glad and Alfred Miller, the principals of Glad and • Millen Construction Company* He then went on to explain that the property involved in .this application is bounded by Lakeside Avenue, Highway No. 100, r{nd Twin Lake, and is presently occupied by a public beach which bas been operated (I believe for some forty years) with the actual beach size ranging between 150 and 185 feet in depth. Also on the property is a cottage, and a beach house to serve thi: beach, and a couple of other buildings.' My clients believe that the multiple dwelling development would upgrade and improve this area and enhance the property values of adjacent uses in this neighborhood south of the Soo .Line Railroad right--of-way. The present proposal of Glad and Miller is to construct about 226 cluelli.ng units in several buildings with some underground parking. Recognizing the interest of the City in the beach area, an improved beach house and beach could be retained for public lase as has- been available in the past. We are prepared to amen4 our plans to sat sfv the desires of the Planning Commission in arriving at this better use of the property. We are aware of the desire of the City' to maintain an attractive shoreline on Twin Lake in this and other areas, and to this end, we have the tentative plans to retain at least as much beach area as presently exists. We feel that this proposed rezoning to multiple dwelli.nj follows several of the City' s goals, among others being: placing multiple family development adjacent to highway rights•-of-way; enhancement of the tax base of the City, with revenues outweighing costs to the City for this type of development, providing an identifying feature for persons coming into the City along the highway. Page 3 Dorenfeld - What sort of access is there to this property? vanEeckhout - Presently, the property has direct access onto Highway No. 100 from Lakeside Avenue and from its own private driveway; this access would be closed by the highway department upon the upgrading of Righway No. 100 to expressway status. Where . is north/south access along Twin Lake and Lakeview Avenues to Lakebreeze Avenue, and dependent on the type of development in this neighborhood, Azelia Avenue might be cut through to Lake- side Avenue. This would provide three north/south accesses from this property. The ultimate circulation pattern for the area depends somewhat upon the development to take place, including this property and the industrial property to the east of Azelia Avenue. Digitano (4040 Lakeside) - We have brought a petition of about 95% of the people affected. We are opposed to the rezoning as we would be completely surrounded by multiple dwellings and commerce and would be in a "pocket" . Wilson (4100 Lakeside) - The access we will end up with when Highway 100 is upgraded will be France Avenue. It is congested • now at France and 100 and it would be more congested with the added traffic from these multiple dwellings. Scott (4104 Lakeside) w I am opposed to the rezoning. We have. 128 kids now in this small area with no park to play in except -:his property near the beach that Mr. Engberg lets the kids play in. We have to be concerned with the safety of our children in the streets. Mrs. Dover (4034 Xenia) -- We are opposed to the rezoning. Kubus (4705 Lakeside) - Opposed. Forsman (4703 Lakeside) - We :were here Last year for the water and sewer improvement hearing and the Mayor said this area was already saturated with multiple dwellings. I don't think the utilities in the streets can handle the additional multiple dwellings. Morgan (4716)Twin bake) - I am in favor of the rezoning. I can see no detrimental effects to the area. McDonald (4725 Twin Lake) -- I am opposed. Nichols (4812 Lakeview) - (Asks whether Glad and Miller will retain ownership of the building, and the reply is yes. I served on a committee for the Southwest neighborhood working with Hodne during the Comprehensive Planning Study. When the access to r Page 4 • Highway 100 from Lakeside Avenue is closed, all the traffic from this area and the area north on France Avenue will be funneled through the France Avenue intersection which is already overloaded, and is congested at various times of the day; this development would only increase that congestion. We already have 126 kids in the neighborhood and 104 Cars, which is plenty for Lakebreeze Avenue to handle. The development of this property for multiple dwellings would create a "sanitary slum" here with a high level of transients as is shown now by the fourplexes existing in the area. (Mr. Nichols submits a petition signed by 38 residents of the area.) Boyd (4807 Azelia) -- I think some plz-ce in this area should be left for a playground for the kids. Ile have already had some hot--nodding on our streets, and with .paved streets going in this year, we will probably have more of i•. in the future. if the land must be disposed of, it should be bui .t up as houses. Wilson (4100 Lakeside) -- This property confronts our house. We fought for water and street in our area, but not for the apartments. There is always a mess over by the beacli with cars jammed in all over and if the beach is retained for public use, it will • be worse then than it is now. Anonymous Ilan - I don't see where they plan to put the parking for these apartments. It fills up to the Ughway from the beach now on a busy day. .Bruce (4747 Twin Lake) - This is one of the '.w,st places along the lake that is available for parks. Dorenfeld I think the whole thing should be rsviewed. We should examine whether we should retain the present beu,Yh as a beach in the future, should look at the controls we ha,,e over health and parking at beaches. and generally we should look at the unique situation presented with this application. Jensen (Comments on the published zoning map from the Brooklyn Center post, explaining that the 0--2 classification vas applied to the existing property as a classification that wou:.d cover the existing beach use.) Open land is at a premium in Brooklyn Center especially Lakeshore. The City has proposed to acquixe the Lake- shore of the pole yard to the north, and we should look very care- fully at an application such as this. • Page 5 Anonymous Woman - The property on the west end of the pole yard won't make a very good park. it is all swampy and has all those poles and railroad trackage over there. The beach would make a much better park. Anonymous Man - I think the land that the beach is on should be combined with the land the highway department has along the shore. If this property has 8 acres in it, the state must have 8 or 10 acres also. Jensen - Has anyone examined the possibility of single family usage for the property? Mr. Glad - We feel that the land is too valuable to use for single family dwellings. Nichols - I think it would be money well spent by the City to acquire the beach area for park purposes. Anonymous Man - Are there enough utilities going to be in the streets for such an apartment development? With regard to the comments that this would be an aesthetic view upon entering the City, it, I think, would be more beautiful, and a more beautiful entrance to the City • to have a park there. Anonymous Man - How about extra utilities costs, and how about the maintenance of streets? We would be paying more in taxes to beef up the utilities and maintain the streets. Van Eeckhout - If extra utilities are needed for a land use such as this, the property that would benefit would pay £or it. As far as the streets are concerned, the streets in the area are going to be permanent type surfacing and should very easily support the amount of traffic that would be put on them. Nichols - We think the Planning Commission should consider our desires at least as much or even more than the proposed developer's desires. Dorenfeld - We can not only consider the people in the area or community, but we also have to consider the legal property rights of a property owner to use it for the best use, in light of the public interest. Redding (4741 Lakeview)- I think the Commission should come out and • see the traffic that we have. We can't take any more cars along that France Avenue intersection. (The motion to table took place at this time.) Page 6 • A l.ication s�To. 55019 5i�bmi tted b Darrel Farr Jensen -- I have received word from Mr. Parr's attorney that Mr. Farr is in Now York and will be unable to be present at the meeting. The attorney has conveyed to vas that he is not versed in the facts of the situation and doubted that his attendance would add anything to the discussion. Since we have called the public hearing, and since there are people present for the hearing, I 'chink we should carry on with the proceedings. Hannay (6432 Willow Lane) - I don't think I have to go through the previous two or three denials on Mr. Parr's requested rezonings or those by Mr. Glover further to the south. The property has been zoned R1 for many years, at least since 1947 as I recall. We have parking problems and traffic problems now on Willow Lane south of 65th whence it is cul-de-sacced. We have the Lyn--River Apartments and a year ago. as a matter of fact, we had problems with these people parking on the narrow street, and when they parked there, it was congested to the point that our fire vechiles could not get down that street. Mr. Farr boughtthe property as R1 and should have known the uses that it could be put to. Thezoning to R5 of this property would be spot. zoning. We have the problems with the present apartments, and all of us here are against this rezoning, We E. Olson (6546 Lyndale) » There are too many apartments in the area nor; thence is always the continual :roving in and moving out of people. Lustig (6536 Lyndale) - I am opposed. We moved four years ago from our former place of residence and thought that this would be a good area to live in with all single family around us. Charles Bell (6440 Lyndale) - We bought our property as residential and we are opposed to the rezoning to R5. Jensen - Mr. Parr has told us on previous occasions that it is difficult to sell this property For single family usage. If that what you people feel about new development in this area? Hannay - i don't think Mr. Farr has tried to develop is into single family. It seems to be hard to sell land down there, but if a house is on the land it seems to sell. quickly. We always thought that this would be an ideal situation for perhaps a company president from the Brown Farm who might want to live on the river. • Jensen - On previous occasi.ona, we were concerned with encroachment of these multiple dwellings on the river shore. Has there been any new single family construction in this area? word n.'c Ri tmoo £.J._o,-<atJ '..l flS .::1`la. ,•,.� ,,. `»i. {f3cr, c4, tai a'rw „t r •a ? c�. Page 7 • (Answer: There was a new home building in 1964 on the south side of 65th Avenue and a house moved from Lyyndale down to the River during 1966.) Higginbotham (6408 Willow Lane) - There are three vacant lots by us for sale for about $8500.00 each. People who want to live on water are willing to pay the extra cost of land, houses, and taxes involved. (The recommended denial took place at this point.) 0 • • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA • June 6, 1.968 A�ppLx.gat.ion No. 1,- Roll Call 2 . Anproval of Minutes Regular meetings of April 4t.h and May 2nd Special meeting of April 25th 3 , Jack Arvidson 68020 Approval of a preliminary plat of a Registered Land Survey. The property involved is on the west side of Humboldt Avenue between Woodbine Lane and 73rd Avenue. 4 , Normian and Mvra Chazin 68021 Approval of a preliminary plat of "Shell' s Brooklyn Center 2nd Addition" . The property involved is at the southwest • corner of the intersection of France Avenue and Highway No. 1001 5E Charles Veli.ea Jr,. 68022 Approval of the preliminary plat of "Velie Addition" . The property involved is in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of F.A,.I , #94 and Osseo Road. 6, Ethel 14agnuson 68023 Approval of a preliminary plat of a Registered Land Survey. The property involved is in the vicinity of 54t1r and Russell Avenues. 7 . 1"imerican Construction Co. 68024 Approval of site and building plans of a. conurercial building,, The property involved is at 4325 •68th Avenue (west of Servomation) . 8 ., Ginqold-Pink Architects 68025 Approval of site and building plans of a commercial building. The property involved is at, 6901 Humboldt Avenue (the northwest corner of 69th and Humboldt) ., Fage 2 Manning Commissi.on Agenda • June 6,, 1968 9 Rodney Berne 68026 Approval of site and building plans )F a commercial building., The property involved is at 5901 Osseo RoaO (south of Cross of Glory Church) IU - Irvinq flerman 68027 Approval of site and building plans of an apartment building, The property involved is at 6737 Humboldt Ave. 11, Discuss on Item - Glad and Miller zoning application #68016 12--, Discussion Item - Special Use Permits with a time provision which have or will expire,, 13. Discussion Item - Front yard setbacks in residential areas„ • PLANTING COMMISSION INFORMATION SKEET Application No. 68020 Applicant : Jack Arvidson Description of Request: Approval of a preliminary plat of a Registered Land Survey Property: Lying on the west side of Humboldt Avenue between Woodbine bane and 73rd Avenue (the south 400 feet of the north 433 feet of the northeast 1/4 of the southeast 1/4 of Section 26, except the east 1193 feet thereof) Owner of Property: Same BACKGROUND: 1) The property involved is a strip of land on the west. side of Humboldt` with present dimensions of 89 feet (east-west) and 369 feet (north-south) . It is the most easterly, of a number of such Long lots between 73rd Avenue and Woodbine Lane which were not platted • into "Northland Estates 3rd Addition" immediately to the south. At the time of the platting of Northland Estates 3rd; an attempt was made by Mr. Chazin of Home- dale Builders (who platted Northland Estates) to acquire additional land on the south end of the Arvidson lot (owned by another party at that time) and the southern ends of the ether similar lots to the west of the Arvidson lot. The attempt was unsuccessful, and the >orthland Estates Subdivision was developed as a "short" su."odlivision, with wider lots, and with Woodbine ,pane further south than if all of the properties had .been involved in a "normal" grid subdivision. The i3attern of development of the lots to the north of Woodbine Lane which had been expected by the City Staff was into deep lots facing north on 73rd Avenue and south onto Woodbine Lane, with possibly one or two "butt" lots facing onto Humboldt from the Arvidson property it was assumed, however. that to get such butt lots (and for that matter, an ec�onomicai division of the rest of the block) that the property owners would horse- trade land amongst themselves to their best advantage • Page 2 Application No. 68020 • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED. 1) As noted above, the present east-west dimension of this property is 89 feet; this dimension does not include the dedication of a 33 foot half of Humboldt which has been required of all recent platting north of 70th Avenue, and this requirement should be made of any division of the Arvidson property. The extra dedication would take 3 more feet from the property, leaving it 86 feet by 369 feet. 2) Mr. Arvidson was encouraged by the Staff to attempt to coordinate his plans for division with at least the one property immediately to his west, and he has said that that person was not interested in doing so. In addition, he has stated that the lots, if only two were made out of this property, would be too large. (if divided into two equal lots with an additional 3 feet dedicated for street, the lots would each be 86' x 182.51 , or 15, 695 square feet, which are indeed large lots.) 3) The subdivision presented by Mr. Arvidson for approval iconsists of three lots; each is approximately 10, 525 square feet (after additional 3 foot dedication) , with dimensions of 86 feet (after 3 foot dedication) . The division as presented would require the recognition of two variances: substandard width (90 feet required - 86 feet available) on the two corner lots; and substandard depth (110 feet required - 86 feet available) on the single butt lot. STAFF COMMENTS: 1) It is unfortunate that: a) these properties north of Woodbine were not included in the platting to the south; and b) that Arvidson cannot combine with the property to his west. The situation on this entire block between Humboldt and Knot will be one of deep (180 foot) lots; only the end properties, of which the Arvidson piece is one, have another alternate division which can be used, that of a butt lot (s) . it should be noted Page 3 • Application No. 68020 than the 86 foot deep butt lot could function as an ind.'.vidual single dwelling lot, with the situation no worse than a similarly sized corner lot, and in fact sore lots of this size were permitted in the past. 2) V.- should be noted that in one discussion with the Staff, Mr. Arvidson mane reference to "putting in a duplex" on part of the property. The regulations relating to .duplexes were explained to him at that timer but should probably be related to him at this time, prior to his creating a division which would be substandard for a duplex if he were granted the zoning for it. If a 2 lot division is -Anally used in this case, perhaps the suplex situation would be the best one. i • • M.M w 1�Tr{nYV.e9�.alRV.rwta.we we.drxmsa*rewsw c»�$'Lr�iM1V,w:iw MRrs.aw a+�.su wrwpa.a'),a.a+►.w�Nfi+.+�i-. •�.:�*9.+.wv se .pia•,.er Jrowa B.� S 11 37na: +N 1�, sl �.- +� .rw�wr - .wue,srs.,u„a:r. .awf!. w�Atiusmr r,.w.n:r.11wam� rice w.urle r r� • i � ;,� •• it . � �[' �:yi^f e t f� v � ^ � V '00 cs sea N I � I 4 T. A�2 e" SOBS _Ell et— .a' • .bv. 7f •T+... r�.+�...JL+. +...ti +y 0 '� � � � �y 'y.�,•.ti"_ __�,,.__.__...____._�..'�`!Y _ °'��S d'_r�..r�- ".,�� ._ ._. ._._ . ._- Y.w,.,� �i Inc • � � � �� 1. g � ,, i •IV y �tt ' ..`J,ti.. d '�.�mtxk�•"s�` .� ��' TIR��d ,/�4y�6. ,.M.z..w�.d.,...� �1�..�h�l� >�:.--°+— ` .F µ. 8 w� 1{ .) A•�.R 3� �a _".'-3�7Sf"_�-.,....�•��'¢,�.". �.�.�IiN..iFs ._�_.___ '�°.�._ _ - u4 gip....__ .q �1 lye' � t� 7 0Y Ir Ij ( Iz l it p Is 6A era 1 j ` N 000 04 � 9y y Y 1 {` PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68021 Applicants Norman and Myra Chazin Description of Request: Approval of a preliminary plat of "Shell' s Brooklyn Center 2nd Addition" . Property: Lying at the southwest corner of the intersection of France Avenue and Highway No. 100. (Tract Ar R�LaS, #1082; and Parcel 2910, Section 10) Owner of Property: Same BA CK 3 ROUND 1) This preliminary plat is being svbnitted as a part of the Stipulation of Dismissal entered into by the City of Brooklyn Center, Norman and Myra Ahazind et.al. . The plat wrll accomplish the combinati(in of the two parcels covered by the Stipulation. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: None PLANNING C'OM-MTSSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68022 Applicant° Charles Velie, Jr. Description of Request- Approval of the preliminary plat of "Velie Addition" . Property,! Lying it the northeast quadrant of the intersection of F.A.I. #94 and the Osseo Road (legal description on file) owner of Property.- Velie Motor Company BACKGROUND- 1) The preliminary plat being submitted will accomplish the combining of the various parcels of viand now contained in the area which is now being developed by the Velie Motor. Company for its auto dealership. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED; None • PLANNI?4G COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68023 Applicant: Ethel Magnuson (agent for the owners) Description of Request: Approval of a preliminary plat of a Registered Land Survey. Property: Consisting of part. of Russell Avenue and lands abutting same on the east, in the vicinity of 54th Avenue (Parts ` of Lots 23 and 24, Aud. Sub. No. 218 lying east of the west line of Russell Avenue; Outlot 1, Queen Addition) . Owner of Property: Stanley and Ruth Edling; Esther Ryden; Richard Kauffmann. BACKGROUND: 1) The property involved in this application formerly ran to Shingle Creek from a point approximately midway between Queen and Russell Avenues. Most, if not all, of the • property west of Russell Avenue has not been acquired by the City for park purposes. The subdivision being submitted will produce 4 duplex lots to the south of 54th Avenue and on the east side of Russell Avenue, and a single lot on the north side of 54th Avenue and east of Russell Avenue. In addition, that portion of Russell Avenue not previously dedicated to the City for road purposes will be dedicated at this time. POINTS TO DE CONSIDERED: 1) The area to the south of 54th Avenue will shortly be zoned to an R-2 (duplex) zoning classification. The 4 lots being divided there will all be of sufficient size to accommodate duplexes. (13,-14,000 sq. ft. available; 12,400 sq. ft. required) . The lot to the north of 54th will be about 13,000 square feet in area. 2) The applicants have been required to provide a 50 foot Russell Avenue north of 54th, and a 60 foot road south of 54th, in order to match the existing pattern of platting. • �,r+`/ �bti�611�y •� li T` A ✓ S 10 Lit 1 , �.r i x 10„ i s - a12 t , 14 ERICON !I 6 / / / 'r•' i& ty S / 1 6 S 1 • 'I 3 2 1 j1 1: 401 1 / .. "I -�,, / '// //3020) /% � � �° �`A • '•��• ��1 �� ,L�y .� g 2 .: 0/r// .?�v11hq•� f f� 6 td) 3 rZ r j •y t cv ! — 6 1 ►� a ►s- z . LOT 23 . CAW " Vii• // ,/ /1 �j�! a y_ _�� `7�Q .....,.... •/ � CFA` � e - � lC` I %�RT j t :d// // P O',TLOT 1 r -- _ 41X Fr,76W t: R'TT 6e � � �'� '- `rr •4� C• 14 w LUT It T, 43 Ti CL 60 ),95 14 411 .«�,�,.A.w..-be.» ev�mil'G`s;.?.s a+nm¢"a�os:mar+w0lt:�s+�aavo-T'Gmest'MN[tyti'�'�arvavw+•+..trwn� avv� �. PLANNING COMMISSION INFOR1ATION SHEET Application No. 68024 Applicant: American Construction Company Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial building. Property: 4325 -- 68th Avenue North (the east 83 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, Northtown Plaza 2nd Addition) Owner of Property: Lecon Properties BACKGROUND: 1) American Construction Company (on behalf of Rockwell Mfg.) applied for a similar plan approval in December of 1967 for a property south of the Shell Oil Station at 66th and Lyndale Avenues. There was a good deal of discussion relative to the configuration which the property should take, be it "L-shaped" or some sort of rectangle, with the Council approving the plans with the contingency that a drawing of the rectangular site • be prepared for the Council' s final review. Apparently, that site did not work out for the company, as they have now switched to the site contained in this application, to the west of the Servomation operation west of Osseo Road. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The plans which have been submitted include the same 3200 sq.ft. building which was involved in the previous approval. Using the standards of our parking regulations, 31 spaces are required for the use; more than that number are provided. Other features of the plan are in accordance with the standards of the new ordinance. It should be noted that the applicant and Lecon Properties propose to enter into a joint-use agreement with regard to a driveway to be constructed on the future property line, in order to avoid duplication of driveways, in a manner similar to those on the Brookdale periphery, with half the driveway on each property. STAFF COMMENTS: 1) The usual Building Inspector' s and Engineer' s approval, in addition to the performance agreement and bond, are recommended, Gl- �\ o�. �4,, ^q lip 0 . O� PONTIAC GARAGE f r aLo a k @ Lv z 440 9 4301 3 r, o QD le, 0 d 307._ j� i (0701 ►r ITEM -' r-PEVROLET i PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68025 Applicant: Gin old-Pink Architects p.p g (agent for the owner) Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial building. Property: 6901 Humboldt Avenue (Lot 2, Block 1, Horbal Addition) Owner of Property: John Horbal BACKGROUND: 1) This property was formerly zoned to a commercial retail classification, with the expectation that it would develop as a service station site. The present plans involve the construction of a three shop retail building to house a Lill General Store, and two rental spaces, probably to be occupied by a drycleaner pickup station and a beauty shop. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The proposed building will contain 4460 square feet, requiring 42 parking spaces by our standards; more than that number have been delineated on the plans. 2) The ordinance required that parking areas be screened from adjacent residential uses; a partial screen has been designated along the north line, but not for its entire length, and not along the west line. STAFF COMMENTS : 1) The usual Building Inspector's and Engineer' s approval, in addition to the performance agreement and bond, are recommended. • PLANNING COM14ISSION INFOIWATION SHEET Application No. 66026 Applicant: Rodney Bernu Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial building. Property: 5901 Osseo Road (Parcel 1210, Aud. Sub. No. 216) Owner of Property: Same BACKGROUND-. 1) Mr. Bernu applied for a rezoning of this property from R-1 to R-B for the purpose of constructin3 an office building on the property. The Council, while agreeing with this type of zoning for the property, did not grant the R-B zoning, but is instead zoning the property (and the property to the south) to the new C-1 (Service/ Office) classification, which will permit the office construction proposed. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The building proposed will contain 18,000 sq.ft. , requiring 90 parking spaces, which have been delineated on the plan submitted. 2) There is one "hangup" with respect to the plans proposed for the property, and that is that the building proposed is essentially a 112�-3 story" building rather than the 2 s dry which was established for the C-1 zone. The plans are being submitted in this form, however, in case this type of situation was not considered in establishing the 2 story maximum, for in considering the interchangeability of R5 and C1 uses, the fact that one would be exchanging a 3 story building (apartment) for a 2 story building (office) was never discussed. 3) The Staff, in examining the plans, has not considered the church property (although zoned Rl) as residential property for purposes of screening. STAFF COMMENTS: • 1) The usual Building Inspector' s and Engineer's approval, in addition to the performance agreement and bond, are recommended. PIANNING C'C)MISSION INFORr1ATION SIMET Application Non 68027 Applicant: Irving Herman Description of Request:: Approval of sii.E. building plans of ar< apax 4-wont building. Property: 6737 Humboldt Avenue North (Parcel 4001, Section 35) Owner of Property-, Same BACKGROUND 1) The applicant, in May of 1966, applied for special use permission to construct a second 11 unit building on this property. The request was denied at that time, primarily because the property would only support an additional 7 units at the required apartment density. The present plans have been prepared in light of the proposed R•-5 (Multiple Family Residence) zoning require- ments, and consist of the addition of a 2� story, 7 unit • apartment building, along with site revisions to incor- porate the new bu:'Llding on the property. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED- 1) The Staff has found some deficiencies in the plans which were submitted, and is attempting to work with the applicant to revise the plans, hopefully to avoid his having to wait an additional month to have the plans approved. Further comment will be forthcoming on the revised plans. • MEMO TO: Planning Commission • FROM: Funning Commission Secretary DATE: May 27, 1968 At the meeting of May 2nd, I brought to the Commission's attention the fact that a number of special use permits which had been approved in the past had been approved with "time limits" as to the length of time which they would be permitted before the City would review them to determine if they should continue. At that meeting, the Chair asked that these permits be summarized for the Commission' s review, and that is the purpose of this memo. The special permits are listed by their expiration dates. November 8, 1967 -- Application No. 65084 approved by the Council on November 8, 1965 for a period of two years. This permit involves an ice machine on the premises of the Shell Station at 63rd and Osseo Road. Comments: The permission granted was for a • single ice machine, and a second machine materialized on the property, as there are two machines there now. The policy which the Staff has begun to follow recently has been to consider the ice machine as a more or less auxillary use at a service station if the operator inquires, provided the machine is within the building or on the sidewalk around the 'building. The Council may wish to consider the location of this ice machine while review ng the reconstruction plans for the 63rd and Osseo Road Shell. November 14, 1967 - Application No. 66076 approved by the Council on November 14, 1966, for a period of one year. This permit involves the operation of a beauty shop in the home at 6325 Osseo Road. Comments: Mrs. Isaac, the operator and resident, stated at the time the beauty shop was permitted, that her business would be very light, and this appears to have been the case since the use began, as no problems have come to the Staff' s attention. -2- • March 6, 1968 - Application .No. 67007 approved by the Council on March 6, 1967, for a period of one year. This permit involves the yenta) of trailers on the premises of the Standard Station at 6044 Osseo Road. Comments: A maximum of 6 camping trailers (out of the areas of traffic flow) were permitted by the previous approval. No problems related to the trailer rentals have evidenced them- selves on the station site in the intervening period. April 13, 1968 - Application No. 66031 approved by the Council on May 16, 1966, for a period of two years (from date of eXpiration of previous approval) . This permit involves the use of a metal building on the Spur Oil Station property by the Star and Tribune as a carrier pickup station. Comments: There have been occurrences when papers were scattered about the property, but • in general the area is kept clean, and . .f problems do develop, they can be handled by calling the district manager. July 6, 1968 _ Application No. 65045 approved by the Council on July 6, 1965 for a period of three years. This permit involves the operation of a beauty shop in the home at 6200 Osseo Road. Comments: The Staff is not aware of any problems which has arisen due to the operation of the beauty shop over the past three years. The Commission should (if it so desires) make a recommendation on each of these applications which will amend the time provision made previously. C- . ... !{�. .. . '�.� �.{•� ..'i��,�t. _ sir: L• N 1��. -. r e .�. �. S.Lam• .. .. ,........ 'y r. ., !. .,. �:`� .. .. ., :,J ...r ,i.... .. ..,..,. t .., . . , ., . ...�J 9 .a' Moo .... .. 4 ti not MEMO TO: Planning Commission • FROM: Planning Commission Secretary DV-PE: May 29, 1968 RE: Setbacks in single and duplex residential areas. In examining my notes as to what has been discussed relative to residential. setbacks, I find that the Commission has come to the following conclusions. 1. The differentiation bet-,veen a garage which is 20 feet to the rear of a house and one which might be attached to a house is not relevant as such differentiation relates to the sideyard setback for garages. This assumption begins from the given factor that 3 feet was and is an adequate distance for a garage to be from a side lot line. Further, in recommending the lessening of the sideyard minimum to 3 feet, the measurement of such sideyard setback shall be from the vertical wall of the building, and the roof may not extend closer than 2 feet from the property line; if there is a greater • overhang, the overhang setback still shall be no less than 2 feet. 2. The question of whether the minimum distance of 8 feet between a detached garage and the primary building is a logical and reasonable requirement has not been discussed. This subject bears some relation to the "occupancy" classifications of the Uniform Building Code, and will bear further investigation. 3. The question of whether a lessening of f:Lontyard setback standards is equaily valid in existing and undeveloped residential areas has not been discussed fully,, although the Commission has leaned more to liberalization in newly developing areas. 4, The question of whether street setbacks should be lessened has been discussed quite deeply, with no firm policy yet resulting, although general acceptance of a lesser setback for garages rat this point to 30 feet) has been the concensus. lair. Ausen has suggested further examination of the possibility of using a "percentage" basis for a lesser setback. This percentage concept could probably • take the form "X% of the primary structure on the property may extend closer to the street than 35 feet, but not closer than Y feet to such street". The percentage to -2- be chosen is personal preference, and I can offer no suggestion. With respect to the use of the percentage concept, however, the Commission should note that if the percentage were based on the existing structure, the amount of building which would be permitted closer to the street would be less than that permitted by the ultimate size of the house, assuming subsequent additions were made to the house after its initial construction, such as adding additional bedrooms or family roams. The idea 6,hich had been discussed previously, that of permitting only the garage portion of a home to be at a lesser setback, has the advantage of being easy to understand and identify; there' s little chance of not recognizing a garage. • • /}� ��Y�� e� ?E213�,. � 3✓J. A♦ OC.r E.t�.s*w� �//.�i�r l.f•1�.i.+iJG �A. r • • Planning commission Agenda June 27, 1968 Application No. 1 Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes Regular Meeting of June 6, 1968 3. Miles_ Fiterman (Miles Construction .f-_o.1 68028 Rezoning from B-3 (General Business) to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence The property involved lies south of 66th Avenue and east of Camden Avenue. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. 68029 Approval of site and building plans of an Addition to the present. building on the property. The property involved is at 1101 - 65th Avenue (southwest corner 65th and Dupont Avenue) • 5. Phillips Oil (by Signcrafters) 68007 Variance to permit the erection of a f1:ee- standing sign. The property involved is at 6850 Osseo Road (southeast corner 69t.h and Osseo Road) (Tabled at the meetings of April 4th and May 2nd to permit the applicant to submit further information.) 6. Shell _01-1 -(Howard Olson) 68011 Special use permission to stare and rent trailers and trucks on a service station property. The property involved is at 1505 - 69th Avenue (southwest corner .69th and Humboldt) (Tabled at previous )Meetings as applicant not present) 7. Gale Fierce (Fireside Realty} 68017 Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-B (Residence-Business) . The property involed is at 5960 Osseo Road„ (Tabled at the ).meeting of May 2nd, pending the • outcome of the Comprehensive Rezoning) • Planning ComAssion Agenda (Cont1d) June 27, 1968 8. Charles Velie, Jr. (Velie Motor Co._) 68022 Approval of the preliminary plat of I'Velie Addition" . The property involved is in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of F,A,,I . #94 and Osseo Road (The hearing was held and the application tabled at the June 6th meeting., Discussion Itemsz a) Special Use Permits with a time provisions which have 6r will. soon expire (See Agenda of June 6th) b) Front yard setbacks in residential areas (See Agenda of June 6th) • • R PLANNING COMKISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68028 Applicant: Miles Fiterman (Miles Construction Co.) Description of Request: Rezoning from B-3 (General Business) to R-5 (Multiple Family Residence) . Property: Lying south of 66th Avenue and east of Camden Avenue (Lot 2, Block 1, Shell' s Brooklyn Center, except the east 175 feet thereof) Owner of Property: Shell Oil Company BACKGROUND: 1) The Commission will recall that the property in question was a part of a single tract which was rezoned two years ago upon the request of Shell Oil Company for the purpose of establishing a service station on the 66th and Lyndale corner of the site. 2) The present request for rezoning would permit development of 3 story apartments on the portion of the lot lying west of the Shell service station site, and west of the part of this same lot lying to the south of the station site, so that a 76' x 175' commercial lot would remain facing Lyndale Avenue (service road) . POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The Comprehensive Plan envisioned the area south of 66th Avenue and east of Camden Avenue as a commercial node for regional specialty-type retail activity. Since the time of the adoption of this principal, I have not been aware of a change in attitude on the part of the Commission and Council, and in fact there was a positive affirmation of this concept in the denial of a request made about one year ago for multiple dwellings on the property between the City's police station and Camden Avenue. • Planning Commission Information Sheet (Cont'd) Application No. 68028 Page 2 STAFF COMMENTS 1) It is recommended that the rezoning requested not be granted, for the following reasons: a. interest has recently been expressed by several firms in the commercial land available in this vicinity, showing that the logic of having commercial property in the area is not beyond the realm of possibility; b. if this property were to be zoned and used for multiple residential purposes, the injection of this "finger" of multiple zoning might interfere with the utilization of the commercial property to the south. i i - Vacant Commercial i _ Townhouse Texaco { Development _- She 11 Oil Vacant Commercial Property Involved In Appl. #6€ 07.8 -_ ouse j Beacon Bowl '{ Ouse o ody ----- — "" ou s e Shop 65th Avenue North �l ! Vacant Commercial � zi N a o F'utu a !Multiple 1 > in ,,Re idential Qf a) 0 0 rj to w ! { Vacant Commercial / (parcel 5500) I I Future Multiple e o Res..dential PLAWING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 66029 Applicants Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an addition to the present building on the property. Property: 1101 - 65th Avenue (Lot 1, Block 1, Princess Addition) Owner of Property: Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. BACKGROUND: 1) The present building, authorized as a special use in 1960, houses office space and telephone circuitry. The present area of the building is about 10,800 square feet, and the total after the addition will be about 20,100 square feet, with the overwhelming majority of the additional space to be used for additional circuitry. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Miscellaneous comments were made by residents in the area a couple of years ago with regard to the telephone facility which resulted in the company' s installing trees and shrubs on the property. 2) The present parking lot will be covered by the new building addition,, requiring the relocation of the parking lot further to the south. Its new location, will still be some 50 feet from residential property, abutting on the south. STAFF COW ENTS: 1) The plans are quite well done, but it is recommended that the present pegged-down concrete wheel stops be replaced with poured-in-place curbing, and that the parking and driving area meet the dimensional standards of the City's ordinance, the City Engineer recommending a 24 foot minimum with driveway, 2) The applica-nt ' s representative has explained that there will be little addition to personnel due to this expansion. • By past observation, and since we have no parking standard for such use, I would suggest that the parking to be provided will suffice for the future, PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68011 Applicant: Howard Olson, operator - Shell Oil Description of Request: Special use permission to store and rent trailers and trucks on a service station property. property: 1505 - 69th Avenue North (Lot 1, Block 1, Hellsted Addition) Owner of Property: Shell oil Company BACKGROUND: 1) This application has been on the Commission' s agenda several times during recent months, with the first hearing of it having been on March 7th. Due to the absence of the applicant at these meetings, the application has been tabled. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) There is (approx.) 5,000 square feet of usuable vacant space to the rear of the station building which was to be put into grassed area, but which the operator would proposed to put into paved -irea for the storage of these rental units, and also the ease of maintenance. 2) A recent request of this type for the Shell Oil Station at 66th and Lyndale Avenues was approved by the Council in the following manner: ". . .1. That a maximum of 14 rental units in any combination of trucks and trailers be per- mitted on the station property at any one time; 2. That there shall be no parking of the rental units in such a manner so as to block the entrances to the station site, and no parking of such units in front of the station building; 3. No signing is being approved at this time for advertising the availability of these rental units; 4. The special use permission shall be reviewed in one year from the date of Council approval to consider the effect of this rental activity on the station site with the possibility at the time of reviewal of raising or lowering the Page 2 Application No. 68011 number of units permitted and to examine the question of whether the presently vacant rear portion of the station property should be paved or covered with crushed rock. . ." The only significant difference between this Shell Oil site and the 66th and Lyndale site is the fact that the 66th site is bounded on all sides by commercial zoning, while the 69th site is bounded on its -rear by multiple dwellings. A 6 foot opaque fence exists on the 69th site, but the visibility factor of rental units which will be visible over this screen should probably be discussed, perhaps with vegetative screening above the fence being considered. The owner of the apartment property to the south has telephoned his comments regarding the use, and a memo relating his comments is included in the file. 3) It is my understanding from my discussion with Mr. Olson • that he would not intend immediately to have truck rental units, as a U-haul operator must be in business at least 6 months before he is allowed to have such units, but that it is his intention to have such units after his probationary period is completed. 4) The present 3-bay station is required to have at least 14 parking spaces on the site, and in fact has sufficient paved area for at least 18 vehicles. PLANNING CO MISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No® 68017 Applicant.- Gale Pierce (Fireside Realty) Description of Request;. Rezoning from R-•1 (Single Family Residence) to R-B (Residence--Business) Property; 5960 Osseo Road (Parcel 4900, Auditors Subdivision No. 218) Owner of Property.- Gale Pierce BACKGROUND 1) The Commission will recall that Mr. Pierce requested at the May 2nd meeting that the subject property be rezoned to the R-B classification to permit the use of the property for office purposes. At that time, the City Council was preparing to hold public information meetings on the Comprehensive Rezoning of the City. For that reason, the Commission, tabled the application, with the • matter to be considered again following the Council's determination on the zoning for the City, so that the Commission' s recommendation on this application might have some relevance. During the Council' s di-:cussion of the comprehensive rezoning and subsequently in the rezoning itself, this property was placed in the "C-1 Service/ Office" zoning classification, making this application obsolete and redundant. A motion should be made which will dispose of this request. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 66022 Applicant: Charles Velie, Jr. (Velie Motor Co.) Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of "Velie Addition" . Property: Lying in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of F.A.I. #94 and the Osseo Road (legal description on file) Owner of Property: Velie Motor Company RASKGROUN D: 1) The preliminary plat being submitted will accomplish the combining of the various parcels of land now contained in the area which is now being developed by the Velie Motor Company for its auto dealership. STAFF COMMENTS : 1) Thouglattwas given at the Staff level to the possible inclusion of a pedestrian walkway easement along the southern edge of this plat, but inasmuch as public right-of-clay still remains between the property line of the Velie property and the Interstate fence, it is felt that the additional walkway will not be necessary. • PLAMTING COMMISSION AGENDA July 18, 1968 Application Mo. 11 Roll Call 2 . Phillips Oil (by iqncrafters) 68007 Variance to permit the erection of a free- standing sign, The property involved is at 6850 Osseo Road (southeast corner of 69th and Osseo Road) (Tabled at previous meetings to permit the applicant to submit further information) 3,. Shell oil (Howard Olson)- 68011 Special use permission to store and rent trailers and trucks on a service station property. The property involved is at 1505 -. 69th Avenue (southwest corner of 69th and Humboldt) . (Tabled at previous meetings as the applicant was not present) 4. farrell' s ice Cream Parlour Restaurant 68030 Approval of site and building plans of a conm,ercial establishment. Variance to permit erection of a freestanding sign. The property involved is at 5:524 Osseo Road 5. Harold Jorgenson 68031 Variance from Section 35-400 to permit a lesser front yard setback than the 35 feet required. The properties involved are at 4506, 4510, 4514, 4518, 4522 and 4526 Kathrene Drive. 6. King' s Academy 68032 Special use Permission to use the property as a private Christian day school. The property involved is at 6120 Xerxes Avenue. • Planning ConrAssion Agenda Page 2 ,July 18, 1.968 7 . Camden Park Church of the Nazarene 680333 Approval of the preliminary plat of .Nazarene Addition" ., The property involved is in the southwest quadrant of 73rd and Lyndale Avenues, generally between Lyndale and Camden Avenues- 8. ^amden Park Church of the Nazarene 68034 2Z Approval of site and building plans of a church. Special use permission to construct and operate a church. The property involved is in the southwest quadrant of of 73rd and Lyndale Avenues. generally between Lyndale and Camden Avenues , 9. Brookdale Chrysler/Pivntouth 68035 Special use permission to permit the use of the property for motor vehicle sales. • Approval of site and building plans for an expansion of the present retail facility. The property involved is at 6121 Osseo Road. 10. Brooklyn Methodist Church 68036 Special use permission to utilize the (residential) property as a youth activities building in conjunction with the church. The propoerty involved is at 7110 Noble Avenue. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFO-WA11.10H SHEET Application No. 68030 Applicant% Farrell 's ice '.'ream Parlour Restaurant Description of vequests Approval of site and building plaAs of a commercial establishment. 'Variance to permit erection of a freestanding sign, Property.- 5524 Osseo Road Owner of Property-,- Dayton Development (Caritas, Inc. purchasing) BACKGROUIEW 3 1) The property involved is a site adjacent to Osseo 'Road, immediately north of the Kentucky Pried Chicken operation. P01WS TO BE CONSIDERED- 30 The building proposed will be approximately 4900 square feet in area, seating just over 160 persons. 1,7ith respect to the freestandi.ng sign being requested, a sign about 155 square feet and 24'i feet high would be permitted by the council's graph of llree-s tan ding signs., The Corm,iissionys draft ordinance would yield about 98 square feet and W2 feet in height. The sign being requested is about 120 to 150 square feet and 20 to 25 feet high, depending upon interpretation as to whether lights affixed to the top of the sign are a par--'-- of the sign., 2) Setbacks and other dhinesisional standards of the site plan are appropriate, ST.-WP C01VIUMS-. 1) Tiho Farrell' s bailding sign is basically a "two-front" building, meaning that two sides are given a better architectural treatment than the other two sides,, Although Dayton Deve],opment wily probably give aesthetic review to these plans, review by the Coi=ission of the "back" sides should also be made to avoid if possible the • bare view of the Kentucky Pried Chicken installation. The Staff suggested the use of vegetative materials on the `#back," sides:, to help offset their bare appearance. • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68031 Applicant: Harold Jorgenson Description of Request: Variance from Section 35-400 to permit a lesser front yard setback than the 35 feet required. Propertyg 4506 to 4526 Kathrene Drive, inclusive (Lots 11 - 16, Block 3, Fair. Meadows 2nd Addition) Owner of Property; Claus Johnson and Sons (,Torgenson purchasing) BACKGROUND: 1) The lots in question lie on the west, northwest, and north side of Kathrene Drive. Most of the lots drop from street grade at their fronts to a low area in the rear. The street curves toward the northeast. The applicant has stated to 40 the Staff that he wishes to have lesser front setbacks than the 35 feet provided for in the City's ordinance, either a gradual tapering from one end of the series of lots from one end to the other with a 30 foot setback for the middle lot, or permission to be 30 feet on all of the lots, with the discretion as to how the setbacks would be arranged left up to him. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) Some or all. of the lots may have a soils problem (poorer soils) the further one goes back from the street, based on the fact that poor soils were encountered when 63rd Avenue was upgraded. This, however, is not the basis on which the applicant is requesting the lesser setbacks (at least as far as this aspect was discussed with the Staff) the reason rather being one of a "better" use of the properties without the visual effect so produced being detrimental to other properties. 2) This application is similar to the recent Application #67070 • (approved by the Commission, denied by the Council) which requested a 30 foot setback for a garage along another curving street (Nash Road) . The differences between this application and #67070 are: more than one lot is involved novvi; the lesser setbacks may or may not relate to garages, Page 2 • Application No. 68031 as the building designs to be used are not known; the lots now in question lie on the outside of the street' s curve rather than the inside as in the other application. 3) As may be seen from the attached sketch, only three buildings exist on this street at present, on three corner lots; relevant setbacks are as shown. STALE COMMENTS 1) The question raised by this application, as in other similar applications, is really not a question of hardships but one of a questioning of rearranging setbacks to place open space in different areas than required by the zoning ordinance. It appears that on the basis of a variance, the City probably has no right to grant the relief requested. The application does, however, raise some of the points discussed in my msmo of February 26, 1968 , and subsequently discussed at several meetings of the Commission with as yet no formulated opinion on the front. setbacks. • • *FAV ESP' ISE W/ i r yip i } At Af "IN — t �! ..,3 � y ,•.a y\• �� //2 - -_:r o dw �i s� t or •,sue f�.,z��". � � � ,o�� ' � �.� �g SE �- t It NO! +' t a 1 r i // � Y PLANNTNrg COKMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No.. 68032 Applicant,- King* s Academy Vescription of Request,- Special use permission to use the property as a private Christian day school. Property-. 6120 Xerxes Avenue North (Lot 1, Block 11, Garden City lst Addition) 0%•iner of Property: Trinity Presbyterian Church (King's Academy purchasing) aACKGROTIND., 1) King's Academy is described by a representative of the operation, Mr.. Laurel Zipf, as being a non-commercial educational institution operating now in Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center. and Brooklyn Park. The educational unit which would be established in this former church • building (Trinity Presbyterian Church) is presently renting space in the Brooklyn Methodist Churct at 72nd and Osseo Road and also operating in a home at 52nd and Great View Avenues... As the situation has been described by the applicant to the Staff, the educational/day nursery activities at these other two locations will be curtailed iipon the opening of the Xerxes Avenue location. Although long-temn expansion is anticipated f0_117 -the building at 62nd and Xerxes, the present intention is to utilize the present building and site as they now exist. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED:-, 1) The Staff assumes, until ruled otherwise by the Council,, It--hatthe proposed use will fit under one of the following special use descriptions- "Public and private elementary and secondary schools offering a regular course of study accredited by theminnesota Department of Education, pro- %ded primary vehicule access shall be gained to the uses by a collector or arterial street. "; or "Other, non- commercial uses required for the public welfare in an Rl district, as determined by the City Council. ".. Page 2 Application No. 68032 2) As in another item for the Church of the Nazarene, if the CoAimis3ion wishes to make any requirement for screening or landscaping of the grounds, that this should be made a requirement of the special use. One area in which there may be some discussion is the screening of the parking lot from adjacent church-owned RI property, and from property occupied by homes on the west side of Xerxes. 3) The applicant has mentioned that with the school use, the approximately 60 parking spaces available should be more than sufficient. Some busses will probably be parking an the property, and the applicant has mentioned some type of security fencing for them, but I am not certain whether this idea is firm or not STAFF COMENTS-0 1) The premises of the church have been allowed to deteriorate and this deterioration coupled with the lack of landscaping • (trees, shrubs, etc.) have made the property quite unsightly- it would seen, reasonable to require some additional landscaping of the property. • PLANNING CO MISSION INFORMATION S114BET • Applicat.-Lon No. 68033 Applicant-. Camden Park Church of the Nazarene Description of RequestS Approval of the preliminary plat. of "Nazarene Addition", property-, Part of future Hazarene Addition; to the south of 73rd Avenue between Lyndale and Camden Avenue Owner of Propertyr multiple owners, Church of the Nazarene purchasing BACKGROUND 1) The present land divisions in the vicinity consist generally of long lots extending between Lyndalle and (future) Camden Avenues. T'he Church of the Nazarene has entered into agreements with the owners of the properties involved to purchase the westerly portions of these propertiesp using all but the portion abutting • future Camden Avenue for the church use, with the portion along Camden to be platted into lots for houses. As there were different land owners involved, 'the parcel of land Which the Church acquired had a number of jogs and angles, as the previous owners wished to retain differing amounts of property depth from Lyndale Avenue, POINTS TO BE C0b!S1DBRRTJ).c 1) The plat as submitted by the Nazarene Church people was based on a pre-existing subdivision design drawn by our Engineering department for single family development throughout the area. This preliminary Nazarene plat is in general agreement as to the overall design, but inter- rupts it as it affects property development along Lyndale Avenue. In examining the design, the Staff had to make some assum�ptiona about the future develolwtient of the property in the area, and the result of discussion on the matter was that it is un."Likely that the R3 zoning now on a part of the property along Lyndale is unlikely to develop, and if it dad develop, it would not be as good a development as it could be if more property were to be allocated to multiple residence usage. The decision which resulted was to st-raighten the easterly property line of the Church property so as to leave about 300 feet in depth along Ail,ndale, so that a desirable multiple development could take place in the future,, Page 2 • Application No 68033 2) The Nazarene people had indicated a row of single family lots to be platted along Camden Avenue. After examining the plat. at, length, the Staff' would recommend that the lots not be platted at this time, because a utility easement will likely be needed across the property in the future, and its location is not known, and in addition, a greater amount of flexibility in coordinating the future lots with subdivisions to the south will be capable in the future. 3) in line with the idea of retaining flexibility for coor- dination with future plats, it is the Staff's view that an agreement be tendered by the Chtzrch for a street easement along the Church' s south property line,, It is not anticipated that this easement will be needed, but i-his need is predicated on the design of a future subdivision to the south. 4) A substandard lot occupied by an older single family home tail remain along 73rd Avenue after this subdivision,, The • lot is substandard already (• he substandard feature being a 70 foot de-th from 73rd to its back lot line) , and the 7 area of tb.e lot is more than 11, 500 square feet. STAFF 1_0VDf..E_WS-. 1) T-he recommend a i;ions for this plat are as follows.- a "squared-off" parcel for the church, with about 300 feet of depth to its east along 1.,yndale; leaving of future single family lots along Camden Avenue as a single Outlot; an agreement for a 30 foot road easement along the south property 'Line of the plat. • S. a 14)• . .K' slow hAZARa s $ v+ 7"par 37CO) 11. Sol 'E 'RCH w PROP RTY 050V ( n; Ord a ( DB NE E 4120 I 4014 jls� ( ) hous 1 w I ! rs qf — house x �L (522 0) (3215) f .a ' r / O (5100) >� _ r �S (3020) / -(Soto) is., / �J � � .— -- —_ -- + ._.fit '•� f (2900) p -v4j Ii "<qY" -.tl q ..-4. �. f ------ - . .rs-JJ Sol r+► 1 O +++►-.. PIANNING WWRISSAW INFORRATION SHEET • Applicatice No. 68034 Applicant: Camden Park Church of the Nazarene Description of Requestl Approval of site and building plans of a church. Special use permission to construct and operate a church. Property-. Part of future Mazarene Addition; to the south of 73rd Avenue between Lyndale and Camden Avenues. Owner of property multiple owners; Churdb of the Wazarene purchasing. EACRGMUMV 1) There are problems related to the provision of utilities to the property, and its proper drainage; these, however, will be worked out by the applicant together with the Engineering staff. In addition, there were theoretical problems with regard to the future development of this • area after the church was located were examined in determining what site should be used, and its shape. This matter was more closely involved with the platting of the property, and is discussed in conjunction with it, POINTS TO BE CONSIDEREW, 1) The plans submitted are detailed for the proposed first stage of church construction and the site plan has been prepared to include projected fuiure expansion. The present site construction would provide for a0out 40 vehicles spaces (which would permit up to 120 seats in the church -- the proposed seating capacity of the first stage is not indicated, but it would appear that it would not exceed 120 seats) . Proper dimensional standards of the City have been followed in the parking and driving areas. Future parking shown on the plans will accommodate the proposed 300 seat capactiy of the Church. 2) The proposed plantings to be placed on the property have been indicated as to species, but sizes have not been given, This could be added to the plans in the form of a schedule of sizes and number of paintings. Page 2 Application No, 63034 3) A screen fence has been indicated along the west property line,, Vaere in the future, residential uses will develop; the size of this fence should be discussed and stated, and some thoughtshould be given to sintilar screening where this property will abut reS4 dential property along the east side. Along the south side of the parking area, there is about 160 feet of open area,, and screening there is probably not necessary. A 25 foot landscaped area has been proposed for both the east and west sides of the property, but on the east side a small (4 spaces) parking area has been placed in the landscaped area. There is no special requirement that there be a landscaped separation between a church use and residential uses, but if there is some desire that this be accomplished, it may be a part of the special use consideration. 4) It is not sitated on the plans that concrete curbing is in- -tende,d to be installed, but this is understood ,,,.,,y the F L pplicant. As developments In R1. and R2 zones are exerapted from this requirement, if concrete is to be used, a special stipulation to that effect should 'be made. 5) The location along 73rd Avenue meets the requirement that church, special uses must gain access from a collector or arterial street. S-T'AFF CCXVTENTS- i) The Commission should review the vise of concrete block. th.roug7hout the church building. Some aesthetic consideration is a valid part of the Conraiss."Lon's review, although the achievement of some other exterior treatment may be in the area of cooperation, rather than as a state requirement. PLAMNING COMISSION ZNF.'ORMATION SHEET • Application No. 66035 Applicants Brookdale Chrysler/Plymouth (Chrysler Motors) Description of Requestx Special use permission to permit the use of the property for motor vehicle sales. Approval of site and building plans for an expansion of the present retail. facility. Property: 6121 Osseo Road (Chrysler Motors Corporation addition and Part of Lot 1, Block 2, Ewing Lane Addition) Owner. of Property- Chrysler Motors Corporation BACKGROUND.- 1) The existing Brookdale Chrysler/Plymouth facility is being expanded into the area between the present dealership and 62nd Avenue North, requiring a plan approval, and under the new ordinance, a special use permit. A subsequent applications, too late to be considered at this meeting, will include a plat to combine the old dealership and this new property. POIFTS TO BE CONSIDERED I 1) The proposed site changes includes enlargement of the used ear sales area with additional display lighting; addition of additional parking spaces to the rear of the main building for cars being serviced or just out of service; enlargement of the used car sales building- a smaller new car storage area with revised lighting in that area; a "screen wall." between the new car storage area and new/used car sales area approximately 20 feet high; and extension of the 8 foot wall around the dealership, including miscellaneous plantings. 2) ri%e 20 :Foot high "backdrop" or screen wall being proposed between the new car storage area and the new/used car sales area is to be constructed of prestressed concrete mounted on end in the ground, interspersed with translucent panels. The purposed of this wall is to eliminate past-stated complaints related to glare from the display lighting in the residential • area to the west of the dealership. Page 2 • Application No. 68035 3) Incorporated in the new plans for the site, as stated above, are additional lights in the expanded display area. in addition,, new lighting -is proposed for the new car storage area of a type exhibited to the City Council some weeks agor, which are shielded units mounted on light poles approximately 30 feet high This type of light, when shown to the Council,, was capable of a sharp cutoff in light at a selected point based on the angle of the lamr, and its shields, and in addition seemed to provide lighting at a subdued level in the landscaped area outside the wall to eliminate nocturnal activities there. Phe present operation is operating under an agreement., entered into by Chrysler Motors Corporation to the City relative to certain types of activities and/or site improvements to be maintained on the property,. This agreement will have to be revised to include the new property being added, and to correct certain sections which become incorrect due to the additions. STAFF MMNTS i 1) The lighting proposed for the rear vehicle storage, while of a type which seems to meet the Council" s conception of a non-glaring fixture, appears to have been overdone as to the number (21 fixtures) to bc::� usedd. Further information. f r(Xn the applicant' s lighting expert may be sought, but regardless of the light levels which may be predicted. for that area, I would seriously question the need for fixtures on any but the outside walls facing inward; with fixtures mounted along 62nd Avenue or on the backdrop wall, one again encounters the problems of their being visible in areas beyond the commercial property. 2) A chain link fence 6 or 8 feet high with sliding chain link gates has been proposed along 62nd Avenue Iforth to provide security for the vehicle storage and customer's vehicle storage area, connecting to the block. wall along the west side of the property. Both the block wall (on the west. side of the property) and the security fence along 62nd Avenue will be extending into the yard setback along the street, to the edge of the 15 foot greenstrip. Other security fences have been permitted to be installed on other auto dealerships 'within the usual. building setback area, and it is suggested • that this is an appropriate item under the special use permit. PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68036 Applicanto. Brooklyn. flethodist Church Description of Request.- Special. use permission to utilize the property as a youth activities building in conjunction with the Church. Propertyg 71.1.0 Noble Avenue North (Lot -5,, Block 1, Hoppes 1st. Addition) 0-vnier of Property,, Brooklyn Methodist Church BACKGROUND- 1) Brooklyn -Methodist Church is the owner of two homes and other vacant property to the north of the City Hall on the east side of Noble Avenue. The southernmost property, at 71.1.0 Noble Avenue, is occupied by a single family home, and it is this property which the Church desires to use as a "youth activities building" until. the present church building has been rebuilt with expanded space, probably during the next three years. A copy of a letter from Mr. Kronen, one of the Trustees of the Ch ,rch, is attached for your review. P0114TS TO 3E CONSIDERED; 1) A use of this type has a poteniatial to develop either desirable or undesirable effects on the surrounding community, depending on the manner in which it is operated and upon the persons who will make use of it, This potential for detrimental effects is one of the reasons why it is placed in a special use category, for review prior to its inception. In this particular case, the Staff assumes that the use proposed is (until approved or disapproved by the Council,) an "Other, non-conrqercial uses required for the public welfare in an R1 district, as determined by the City Council " ,, if the use proposed is to be allo,,7ed, the question next arises as to what limitations shall. be placed on the use to ensure that any detrimental effects (if they exist) are mitigated. At present, the Church uses the vacant lots -to the north • as parking area (for the Church on the west side of Noble) ; Page 2 AprAication No, 68036 the primary use of these unpaved lots on Sundays. if the •'youth house" were to be in operation during other periods of the week, primarily in the evenings, more traffic might be generated to and from this parking area, which backs up to a row of houses on the next street. If paving of the parking lott and screening of such lot is to be required at some time in the future vilien the vacant properties become the permanent lot for the Church, should this requirement be imposed at this time? • July 3, 1968 City of Brookl7n Center ^:100 Osseo Road Brooklyn Caeater,g M.=esaota 5529 Attention: Mr. Bla2aaard Cihoasi i 80oretary Damr° Mr. Cihoskis 'The purpose of this letter is to further define for you the Brooklyn Mathad3st Church?a request for speciaj use of the property- • at 'MO Noble Avimus North. To anaourag4 youth p&rtici.paa..ion at both the formal educatIon rlasasss and in a'_ur: related so:.i.al anti-"k:l e s, ou:r F-Iv a►Iicn Coxxission hers prop:sal and recsived epnrcv&l from the Church 3,1&:.-d to operate a "Youth Houses" at, 7110 KIbl' s .Avenue Forth. .his ',Youth Housst" will be set up 4n tho follovi.ng se em 1. All youth a c ti-e''�.tiss wb-i c "Lake place in the house uil.1 hare adult super-H-assion. 2. The youth program establiahed through this '"Youth EiOu.as*" v�''ll *over that 14 to 22 year age g;oup. 3., Spes'cir a classes now ssschedule3 at vaaricus 1c,gaad..4rs v:*.c1x the aharah proper wUl be r es helaled at the '"Youth Hrausee", These alassees vill occur on Mondays, Wedna ada,ya and Sunday. ,�. Info M l ss.eetiugs aa y-,juth social. events rill *=ter aroum l or take place at thu "Youth House". �. .Attendance arils. bo limited to the yout4 at H;rookIyn Methodlf', Ch:xch or those vho attend by invItation of one of )�:r Youth zszberR. A great d*aal of aafort erred pIcaxd,m4 hag gon.a-imto thit effort to date. A Letter to Mr. Gihoski ?ago 2 July 3,, !966 study group which oassisted of both adult ambers of the 1duoation Commission and representatives from the youth groups joined in rsvi evi g a "TOuth Rousso aotiv^ity now uxiderway in South Kinct"polis and also stv iod wayv in which youth 4*f the church eould. be encouraged to aoutinus both formal. +edueation and informal activities within th.e *buroh LraiOx.oso It was then &*aided that the w1cath Yousem would, be the best way of attaining an izforns-1 atuosph.are yet remain under the g-jl .anae or tho church proper. Loug 1-ewe! P2AW3J&9 We indlcat s tLa.t the abatrch vUJ probably be buildizg a n,%: sianatiAr with +free ors and thle would neo*ssitats additional. poxkixg to amet 01ty ordinances. The plaZ as :t now stands would be to expand our present parking lots, taking both Us properties at 71.31.0 ate. 7120 Noble for parking requirements. This is mentioned at thin tIAO to indicate to tho »i.Uxl p oartain current planning in regard to the two properties Jae. ikorrh of the City HALU. ire req nest that we be given the special use perait as it relates to the • " icath House" at 7110 Moblo Avenue North. ray e�ely yours,, .n RoakId 0. groaaan Q irman of the Trustees zsa coi dire Ormlig, Spxvvejos (Financial Gomiagion) Yx. Adler (gducatiox Cannmission) Pastor Robert BaUsy F,41),17 dI:oo a Ci--�ry E-,I e p r�-u r s c-,i :j�. <1 "Chr,;c'14 r MI:A.f-vY-,r west of 10Z.A The property involvod is 71at, Run an 2-sirenues. Ap 0 it-c! aa6, 'Azildinq pU�in.s cntf A t 121he p4roperty inkvolv-c" Roac' DAO , Ppprc,"I %if oite, and of ztrl .a-partu,,ent The Property Avenue arki vies t of Osstfl,o and Vcice-- 6 8 0 4.11 pproval ,if slt,e at'A buildinc, -a' On apattmelit" developinf;'at , Zhe pro-pe'rt.y, -xmyolved is boundit--.4 bV Bry'a.,vt Avenue, 665tili lwr-�.nve, Cazt6c�n Avein,),e anet Tjkj-a t e 11,z .pcovaj, of sjt- L4.q6 of PM addition cormcreint The orc. rty involved, i, Ot. 57uX Avenue gorth (southwest, ccrfi�--,r OL Avenae and Cokinty 7w.,ad 110) Planning ComAsaion Aqranda ge VIM 5 ign Ca , °z ontiac of Brookdal- 68043 Vaxlance to permit orection of .:, freevtandinq ,he property involved is at 6801 Osseo Road. She" ! Oil (Howard 01.son 68011 Special use permission t,-,o store and rent trailers and trucks on a service station property. Tiie prarorty involved is at 1505 - 69th I-venue (.--jouthuest cornmr of 69th and flturkboldt) . (T-al:Aed at previous v.et,st-irxgs - see tie Jume 27th agenda) . Rarold Jorgenson 60031 Vari�w-ce from Section 35-400 to pexiait a lesser front yard setback than the 35 feet required. The properties involved 'are at 4506, 4510, 4514, 4518, 4522j, and 4526 Kiathrene Drive. (Tabled at a previous meeting w. see rho. July 18th agenda) . PLAMING COM ISSION INFORMATION SRRET Application No. 68037 Applicant-. Brookdale Chrysler/Plymouth (Chrysler Motors Coraoration.) Description of R.equesta Approval of the preliminary plat of "C°hnirs ler Motors Corporation 2nd Addition" Property- 6111 - 6121 Osseo Road (Chrysler rotors Corporation lst Addition and part of Lot 1, Block 1, Ewing Lane Addition) Cr ner of Propertyi Clarysler Notors Corporation BACKGROUND 1) The property within the plat consists of the original Brookdale Chrysler/Plymouth site together with the property lying north of that site, up to 62nd AveDue. All of the property is now zoned to a C-2 Commerce classifications and plans for an expansion of the auto dealership onto this new property have recently been approved POINTS TO BE C ONSIDERED 4 1) In light of past:.-stated interest in a walkway system to provide easy access to areas such as parks, schools, and commercial areas,, the Commission might like to consider the provision of a walkway easement along the merest side of the Chrysler property® connecting the residential area to the south (across Wangstad Park) wit-hh the Lynn Brook/ Kroger shopping area, if this principle is used in this instance, it would also seem logical that a similar walkway be used between France Avenue and "Ewing Lane,. when the area to the west of B.ridgeman°s begins- to develop. The representatives of C1hrysler Corporation are amenable to the walkway concept if the City is interested and Chrysler will not have legal liability for persons who may be injured on such a walkway this legal liability question has not been research. The installation of a ,vaVkway easement at this location would .seem. to be a recognition of the use presently being made of the strip of land between the park and the commercial area, judging by the well-worn condition of the Lando PLANNING COMMISSION INFOPKATION SHEET • Application No., 68038 applicant John Horbal Description of Request o Approval of the preliminary plat of "Jessie's Addition'". Property Bounded by Irving, 71st, Humboldt& and 70th (extended) Avenues. (Lot 1, Block 1® Horbal Addition) Owner of Property; John Horbal 1) This property is approximately the north half of the parcel of land awned by Mr. Horbal between 69th and 71st Avenues, In past actions, the property has been divided and zoned to C2, R-5, and R 2 zoning classifi- cation, with the property involved in this new plat being that portion whilh was zoned to the R-2 Wo , Family Residence classification. The R-2 zone permits either single- or duplex dwellings, and the proposed plat provides for division of the property into single dwelling sized parcels,, POINTS TO BE CUISIDEREW,, 1) 1 believe the intent of the Conatinsion and Council in zoning this property to !he P,2 classification was to accomplish two aims; u) a 11pe had to be drawn where the Rv5 zoning would terminate, and the 70th Avenue extension was cbmsen as that place; b) to cut down Oche number of potential curb cuts onto Humboldt Avenue, and duplex dwellings, although increasing the number of living units most likely, would have reduced the number by about 1/3rd. What is likely to occur with this development is that six and possibly seven, curb cuts will enter onto Humboldt Avenue. The proposed subdivision, however, meets the standards for residential subdivisions, Page 2 Application No. 68038 STAFF COMMENVS . 1) It should be noted that regardless of the City' s desires as to the desirability or undesirability of more or less curb cuts onto Hurboldt Avenue, the owner of the property has the right to proceed wi-%-.-h the development of the property for single family usage. The only thing which apparently would forestall, Viis use of the property ,.-7oxald be zoning to a higher use, and this issue was decided at the time of the comprehensive rezoning, PLANNING CCIMMISSIOS INFORMATION SHEET Application wo, 68039 Applieantz European Health Spa - Brookdale Description of Request-. Approval of site and building plans of a commercial building. :property. Part of Tract B6 R.L.S. #3,211 Owner of Property.- Dayton Development Company BACKGRCKYNDS None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED 1) The parcel- of property involved lies between the Metro- politan insurance building and Home Pederal on the north side of County Road No. 10. As access to the County Road is ciosed, access to the property will be from Is Northway Drive on the north, Although a similar "leg" site was looked upon with disfavor in a past application along Lyndale Avenue, this site design follows a previous concept that access to this property would be had from Northway Drive in this manner, the only difference being that the previous concept included this as a public street with a cul-de •sac, to serve three sites, whereas this new access would serve the Health Spa site only. 2) Usable parking spaces on the site number 55; using the standard of 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for "other commercial uses" (building area 9,961 sq.ft�) , 50 spaces are required. Is FF a t r 5 h AVENUE NCRT11 _ 1! --- --_- --- ---- - - ta ot F i i 4 1 r f PROPOSED APAXTHENT SITE .- � , j (15 . 22 ac.-es) �r 1 Tract S, R. L.S, #1186 f FUTURE — ROADWAYS CGNIN4E L r�f ETn:3. HEALTHY FEDERAL FUTURE COMMERCIAL USES � 8200KUALE f INSUR. SPA FORD. E f� CO. RD. #10 PLANNING CCWMiSSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68041 Appl.icantx Nordling and Welter Description of.Requests Approval of site and building plans of an apartment development, Property$ Bounded by Bryant, 66th, and Camden Avenues and interstate ##94, Owner of Property-, Nordling and Welter purchasing BACKGROUND,-, 1) A large portion of this property was the subject of a rezoning request by Mr. Robert Keller during the sun=er of 1967 (prior to the comprehensive rezoning) , which rezoning was approved by the Council on September 18, 196 70 Subsequent to the rezoning, Mr. Keller did not exercise his options to buy the property, 2) The property in this application includes the property described above, but in addition includes property south- ward to the freeway and northward to 66th Avenue. This additional land was designated for 12-5 zoning in the comprehensive rezoning recently accomplished, PO1IRTS TO BE CONSIDERED-. 1) Prior to development, road dedications will be necessary, 13.5 feet for Bryant Avenue and 30 feet for Camden Avenue. This will be provided for in a proposed plat which has been submitted by the applicants,. This plat will also provide land for an intersection of Camden Avenue with 66th' Avenueo The development contemplates the vacation of that portion of 65th Avenue between Bryant and Camden Avenues, which would then become a part of this development. 2) Accessory uses to the apartment development will (at least in the initial development) be the tennis court, the community building with indoor swimming pool, and t17e manager's residence/office on the north end of the site. The manager' s building will also provide two sleeping units for persons visiting friends or relatives who may live in the apartment development. Thereis about 20,000 square feet of area not allocated to dwelling units in the main portion of the development which can be used for the unit (s) in the manager's building, regardless of how the use of the manager's building is construed. Page 2 Application No. 68041 The development consists of 6 - 36 unit buildings (216 unit total) . 3) The new ordinance provision for installation of trees G" or 'Larger in diameter requires that this development have 30 such trees; 17 are shown to exist, leaving 13 more to be installed, in addition to other plantings on the plans. STAFF C=4ENTS 1) The Commission is probably not aware of the circumstances surrounding the former Keller rezoning on part of this property. At that time, a great deal of objection was voiced relative to the building of apartments on this property by persons living on the west side of Bryant Avenue, in order to satisfy the desires of the neigh- bors, mr. Keller stated that he would put a 100 foot setback along Bryant Avenue. In attempting to design a development with this setback, Mr. Keller had problems locating his buildings and parking, which may have partially led to his leaving the project. In development the plan now being presented, the develqpers were told of the history of that part of the property, and attempted to develop the west side of the development in a vein similar to that which had been desired of the previous developer. In switching to a different style of building, this new design has held apartments at a further distance than the 100 feet previously discussed, but has placed the cormunity center building` and tennis courts about 50 feet from Bryant. With the improvements to the landscape shown on the plans submitted, the view frcxr, the west of the development should be pleasing to those concerned. 2) A platting of the property will be forthcoming at the September meeting of the Commission. r , s t ' ' 4 Va['al.:At ComtF'r."1'c.I.e'!1 X&CO TI'AnIhov 3e Develcpment i c ryyq,m g r c'p may. Y ' �£...,,....,...._.,,_.... t r r�r. � -.-�..-...�.� _.,�._�..,.s.---1. ..._...._...................__._._....__._—_.� Ouse ; Beacon Bowl � f t 'Podgy n ,`� • } 4 y f.; Rea0i exatial � cs } 1 C) Vacant i'y"unnerciul. / 1 : 5500) ml.F!`L'!pIc. t � + P14A NNING COMUSSION INPX)RFjATIOlq SHEET Application No. 68042 Applicant.- Boutells Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of an addition to a commercial building. Property: 5701 Xerxes Avenue North Owner of Property: Dayton Development Company BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) During the initial development of the Boutells property in 1964, the City granted a variance from the parking requirements of the Zoning ordinance to perTnit a ratio of 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for the 44,700 square foot area of the building. it was assumed by the Staff that the same logic is to be followed in, this expansion to the new 63, 700 acpare foot building (the addition is 19,000 sq.ft� , 3,000 of which is an enclosed loading area) . The 3ite plan as submitted provides for 133 parking spaces, while -.4 mo-re efficient parking layout would make possible about 190 spaces. Extending the previously approved ratio to this new addition, about 127-128 spaces are required (if the enclosed loading bays are deleted, about 120 spaces) . 2) The property will continue as a lease property, with common access from a service driveway which will be used by future development in the interior of this block. STAFF MMMENTS 1) The Corxaission may find it appropriate to discuss the possibility of revising the parking requirements section of the zoning ordinance as those requirements relate to furniture stores. PLANNINC M.. IMISSIOIAT 114MR44ATION STIEET Application No. 68043 Applicant Macey Sign Co, ffor Pontiac of Brookdale) Description of Request,., Variance to permit erection of a freestanding sign,, Property-. 6801. Osseo Road (Lot 1� Block 1 0 Northtown Plaza 2ndAddition) I Owner of Property-, Pontiac of Brookdale BACKGROUND-. 1) The property in question is occupied by the new Pontiac auto dealership. in approving the plans for the dealer- ship, the freestanding sign was exempted from approval, as it had not yet been designed,, and further® it was expected that by the time the sign was needed, a neur sign ordinance would be in force which would provide for administrative permits for signs. POYUNTS TO BE CONS IDER23)-. 1) The building an the property has a floor area of about 246040 square feet,. with about 1,000 square feet likely in a. future used car sales- office. :If the Commission were to use its draft Sign ordinance as a guide in granting this 8j.gn, a 250 square foot,. .20 feet high sign uDuld be permitted; using the Council's table of sign sizes, a sign 240 square feet in area and 31 feet above finished floor grade would be permitted. 2) A drawing of the sign which the applicant would like to install has been submitted. The design has two options, one being over 40 feet in height, the other with the portion of the sign structure above the sign message being cnit in height to conform with a 30 plus feet over- all height. The area of the sign proposed approximates 135 square feet, with the possibility of including an additional Pontiac emblem, in the event the business would choose to utilize more fully the area which will likely be permitted. • Planning Caimmission x,Agenda September 5, 1968 JA 2 A. -o icat4on for 1. 803.1 Call 2. Approval of minutes j"),egtjj,a:L- Meetings of jur-e 6, 1968 and August 1, 1968 Special 1,Ieeting of:Ejuly 18, 1.968 3. Co. LEU. agntiac of BrookdaleL 6304-3 t%7 aciance to P('117�it erection. clf- a freestanding S llg.-Ll 'Tile r>ro-,,?crt_y _-,.n-volved is at 6801 GsssO Road. Tabled by t3he Comaiiiesion at its atrzeting of Augi.,isIC 1 19168 - see the Agenda of that r(teei-.,i.ng. P,oC)jr -,1 6 8 IV- CO.rjtP__ Tndustrial Park 2;pprova-#.. of a preliEninary plzit of a :�-gisstered I,and Survey. • The 1--)roriartv invol-ved. lies conth -of Tn-'Cerstate north of State Higlw•lay #100, and. (genera'11y) east of Shingle Creek. 5. MordJuLng rx Welter 58045 Approval of t1le o.�eliminary plat: of "mordling We.'U'Cer A-ddit-ion" . she -,,Droperty involved. is bounded. by 66t.h A-venue, Camden Interstate f- ,4, and Br,7ant Avenue . 6 . P`.rs. ,Andt-ew Bover 68046 A. - --I!- p ,proval of a preliminary pla-*C: of a 'Registered Land Survey. involved is (generally) bovandad by COth, 33.-_-yant, and Col:aid A,;,enues . i"i an Group Dic. ) 60U 7 Va.riznce tz:_-) parmit erection (in ItIl"Air, of -a --,Frees tazid ing sign. The: T):I.'Oj?art%7 involved is, boun6ed- by SICate. Hlglh- 1-!aill -j9:100, Avenue. • Avenue, and 37ti P_ Darrel Parr P A,pp:---oval of site and building plans of a commercial (offi-ce) building. rjrlhc involved. is at 50331 Osseo Road. Planning Commission Agsi-ea. (Cont'd) September 5, 196(' 9. Federal Lumber Company 68 008 Approval of site and building plans of a commercial-industrial building. The propa:cty involved is at: 4810 Lilac Drive. Plan approvals were given to this ,->roject by the Commission and Council earlier in the year, and ammndments to that approved plan are now being submitted. 10. Discussion Items - a) Residential setbacks • PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION S17TEET • Application No. 6804,1 Applicant: Brooklyn Center industrial. Pal-k Inc. DeScription of Request : Approval of a prel'J-minary plat of a Registered Lana Surve'v. Pr opra.-,t- �'7: Tract 1, Twin Ci'-ies Interchange Park Addition (south of interstate 'ir94, ino-ftla of State Highway #100, and (generally east of Shingle Creek. ) of B.C.I .P. inc. BACKG7,-ZOUUM: 1) During the combining of properties iv-iithin the Ear—le Brown Far.'A. in•to the plat called Twin Cities interchange Park Adaition, it was recognised that the plat was incomplete insofar as a final Subdivision would talke place as t3he planning of Uie area Continued to develop. The purpose of- the or4 ginal plat was to • define retail coi-m-aercial parcels, dedicate certain roadways to the City so ;.-hat roadway and/or utilities construc•-ion could take place with little delay when they becaute necessary, and give the property easier descriptions than the loiv; olnes wlaich previously had to ba used. POINTS TO BE C0!,TSjDEP'0j'): 1) The propose( sul)d-A.vison does the following: a) sets out- a )a"Cal -1 019 _U ngle Creek for multiple residan : a -L:urL p oses, generally -.'Lo l.loiving the R7 zoni,ng lind; b) desc-c-ibe-s a parcal likely to bee useed" For the -prorposed municipa.-I :.�uildling complex; c) eNctends Shinojle Creek Parlxavay to the south edge 1_riterstat,? 41,1:94; et) c-reates four industrial paroels, on of contains the Farm"s office, and ano-Cher -nhich contains the remaj.-_rider of t_�he Farm bui-I.dings. Vne proposed subdivison, although somne�..,ha-• diff-aaren• in exac;_- divisions than originally conceived, f'ollow's the, be sic concel.zo--s- of the Comprehensive Plan. I i P)A ZMYNG COMMSSION MFORMATION SHEET • Application Oo. 68045 Applicant: Nordling and Welte-i- Description of Request: Approval of the preliminary plat of "Nordling Welter Addition" . Property: Bounded by Bryant Avenue, 66th Avenue, Camden Avenue, and interstate 494 (legal description on file) . Owner of Property: Sane as above BACKGROUND: 1) During the month of August, the Commission and Council approved 91te and building plans for a proposed multiple residential pro.ject on the property covered by this application. The Council' s final approval of these plans on August 0, 1968 contained the requirement that the several smaller parcels making up the project be combined into a single parcel for the entire pioject. This application accomplishes that directive . POINTS TO BE COYSIDERED: 1) The plat sets out required roadway dedications for Camden, 66th, and Bryant &venues. In addition, the plat assumes the vacation of that portion of 65th Avznue lying between Camden and Bryant Avenucol a letter to this effect has been submitted to the City. STAFF COID137ENTS : Duxing the design of the subdivision, the future road network for the area was examined, to determine what road dedications should be required of this development. in lice with the Comprehensive Plan ' s proposed land uses, it is expected that a redevelopment of the existing commercial 5evelopment at the intersection of 65th Avenue with the Lyndale Avenue service drive will occur in the Qture. This being the case, the need for 65th Avenue will disappear, and be replaced by 66th, the Staff that any antension of the service drive was necessary or decinable between Camden and Bryant Avenues. It is recommendeff-- that the subdivison be approved. • Fir ;ir'ItiTr; C(IMMISSI.ON IDTpORrAr'1TIO1' ,C., 3CC;':C • Applicatia; No. 66046 .,Applicant: Ifrs. Andrew Ba`=er Description of Request: Approval of preliminary prat of M registered Land Survey. Property: Generally bounded by Bryant-, 39th, Colfax$ and 60th Avenues (T,ot.s I_ through 8, Block 3, Frank Burch' s Addition; Part: of Lot .l, Section l. ) Owner of Property: Mrs. Boyer, et-al. BACKGROUND: l.) Mrs. foyer is one ;af the owners of single £amity residential prop-arties (long lots) facing onto Bryant Avenue . Due to :separate lazed ownerships during the development of this area of t1le City, a strip of land about 47 et in width was left as a Ilwaste" piece of land, along the western side of all the Bryant Aven"e properties. Vxjis proparty recently became 'tax iorsea +�, and they m-mers of the Bryant Avenue grope .-t_ie; a::^ acaui.?:ir_g it • to be Ghle to divide the black into a noz-mal grid. �Zatting. �Uw•ed sUht,iivi s E on is a step toward correction of the previously exist, i ng division of land, and the lot sixes are comparable to others in the area. Those subdivisions, however, were pz:e--'i957 zubdi�risions, i�nc weer e aerie to a-e 7::i £eet T.-ii.de corner lotr;. f,,Ie proposed subdivision, if -accepted, will hav, c:or1jer l.ot..7 of 77 to 80 feet -wi.dths, but all will have about 1.33 feet in depth. 2) A :>i.ng!-Z :Lot zloxth of 60th Avenue cannot: be combizled with the uC7 Q:t.l'liil l7:'u 3�7'ty al; this ti.Tne, di.'.e t0 41 legal T3'f OCGt?:iinCI Q but it is ey.pected that that ruTrulatt wn'L. 1_ also .�c r-ac3.4 usable -in the future. ?_) w is e.tr-er7e,.;.y Joubtful tha'r, pe! rmitt<' ng tk.:l_s, su'- divi:-ion w.:.13. in all'ur ;.may ja detrimental to Surrou.i,C il'! � �;� �S t::3f:i.C' .i.S coll�.-�Jciw'r:�1.�e in addition, the a3C�w ;:J4'ibdi.v .s, (Jll c3 ['c"!`'C • 7..,apl ot;�ej-ient ovei: '::�1Q C'?CiStit7�� ul tti t. Litt. PLANNING COW4ISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Ar)plication No. 68047 Northbrook Shopping Center (Titan Group Inc. ) of Request: Variance t%.10 permit erection of a I-reestanding sign. Bounded by Logan Avenue, 57th Avenue, and State Highway #100. Owner- of Property: Titan Group Inc. BACKGROUND: 1) In October/'November of 1965, the Commission and Council approved the erection of a freestanding sign for the North- brook Shopping Center, at the intersection of 57th Avenue and Highway #100. Since that time, the bridgework has been completed in the vicinity (with the exception of bridging into the Industrial Park, and the Shopping Center wishes to raise the sign to a greater height. The approved sign is now 32 feet above grade, and the applicant wishes it to be a total of 40 feet in height. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED 1) The previous approval of the freestanding sign at 32 feet in height and 250 sq. ft� in area was based on the sign draft just being finalized by the Planning Commission at that time. The provisions of the Sign ordinance Draft permitted a free- standing sign on each major street, with its size related to the floor area of the development., The same height and area limitations came through in the final Commission draft, and although the Council has altered the proposed regulations somewhat, the application of the present Council draft would permit the sign as it now exists. 2) The applicant has suggested to the Staff that the situation at the Northbrook Shopping Center is the same as the circumstance which existed in the Iten Chevrolet case, where highway structures (an overpass for Iten; a raised roadway and forthcoming averpass for Northbrook) prevented adequate sight distance for the driving public. This argument has not beer advanced by representative of Northbrook for northbound traffic, but only that coming from the nort-h, Planning Commission information Sheet (Cont'd) • Application No. 68047 Page STAFF COMENTS 1) The Commission and Council may find scmie room for agreement witt the Northbrook Shopping Center people as far as the greater sign height is concerned. if not, the alternative exists (i£ I construe the draft ordinance correctly) that a second frees-Landing sign of a size similar to that now existing of installing a second sign at the northeast corner of the property to serve southbound traffic on Highway #100. .:ry �y M a� `'.i::i'� :"c a. f �. F:.:. � Cdr _. w. ` ._ _. , .. _ .. .. y r .... -� .... PLANNING COMMISSION INFOWATION SIMI ET Application No. 58048 Applicant: Darrel. Farr Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial Building. Property: 5831 Osseo Road (Lot 2, Block 1, Grimme's Addition. ) Owner of Property: M. V. Plummer BACKGROUND.- 1) 11his property is one of several extending between 58th Avenue and Cross of -Glory Church on the west side of Osseo Road which was recently zoned to a Cl Service/office classification. The theory underlying such zoning was that the present primarily single family residential usage of the properties should switch to the more appropriate office use along such a heavily traveled roadway. This area in addition has a major at-grade intersection contiguous to it. • 2) Earlier in the year, another office project was approved for a a larger property two lots to the north of this parcel. POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The Commission will remember that the Comprehensive Plan suggests that these areas where transition from one type of land use to another exist, that they be encouraged to occur as a "package". In theory, this principle is excellent, and during Mr. Farr's preliminary work on this project, he was encouraged to put more properties into his development. He has informed the Staff that he did attempt to do this, but that the present property owners of the other property apparently have inflated concepts of the value of the property for office Purposes. Thus, he has designed a building for the single property. At such time as the other properties switch to office usage, it is expected that their plans will be capable of coordination with this and the previously approved office project. STAFF CO,W17oNTS: 1) Although the plan is marginal., due to the limitations of site • design imposed by a single lot, the plans submitted do satisfy the City's ordinances. 4 • • f PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68008 Applicant: Federal Lumber Company Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial.--industrial building. Property: 4810 Lilac Drive Owner of Property: Federal Lumber Company BACKGROUND: 1) During the Spring of the year, site and building changes to be made to the former Foote Lumber property by the new owner, Federal Lumber Co. , were reviewed and approved by the Commission and the Council. Since that tame, Federal Lumber has decided to install two other buildings on the property, one a bu=riding in which trusses will be manufactured, and the other a bolding of a homebuilding operation, President Homes. The plans are being resubmitted with these changes. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) You may refer to the Agenda of March 7th if you wish. The essence of the comments at that time, as now, relates to the matter of parking. The Staff, for lack of method of defining exactly the type of operation, has assumed this to be a "uses not covered by this last", and further assumes that the spaces shown on the plan are sufficient for the uses proposed. I ti :'��3�.c.�C�t�..r'S .: �;�� Planning Cormnission Agenda October 3, 1.968 A No. Roll Call 2,- Approval of Minutes Regular meeting of September. 50 1968 Special Meeting of September 26, 1968 Macey Sign Con2any, (for. Pontiac of BrookdalSI, 68043 Variance to permit erection of a freestanding sign. The property involved is at. 6801 Osseo Road,, Tabled by the Commission at its meeting of Septewber 5th. (See the Agenda of August lst) 4., Northbrook Sho22!nq Center 68047 'Variance to permit the orection (in this case, raising) of a freestanding sign. The property involved is bounded by State Highway #100, Logan Avenue, and 57th Avenue. Tabled by the Coimnission at its meeting of September 5th (See the agenda of September Sth) • 5. Embretson h Woody Construction Co. 6805141 Rezoning from C--2 (Commerce) to R-5 (multiple Family Residence) . The property involved lies on the east side of Humboldt Avenue, generally between 67th and 69th Avenues, 61 Strand Construction C2Ma= for R.oqer Hunible). 68053 Variance to construct an attached garage with a setbaek of 30 feet rather than the 35 feet required by ordinance. The property involved is at 5831 June Avenue., 7. Brooklyn Center Devel2Ment Cox'LD,,, 68054 Rezoning from 1-1 (industrial Park) to R--5 (Multiple Faraily Residence) ., The property involved lies on either side of James Avenue, between 67th and 69th Avenues. 81 Ch sler Realtv Corn. 68055 M. Approval of site and building plans of a commercial building. Special use permission to operat-e a motor vehicle dealership. The property involved is at (approx.) 6800 Osseo Road. Planning Ccoylartission Agenda (Continued) Jose h Kennedy 68056, Variance from Section 15-104 to permit. sub- division of land without a plat into two substandard lots.. The property involved is at 5447 Bryant Avemae., Brooklvn Center Assemblies of ,-,od Murch 68057 Approval of site and building plans of an addition to a church. The property involved is at 6018 Xerxes Avenue. • PLAINUUNG COWESSION INAFOWIATION SHEET • Application No. 68052 Applicant: Fmbretson and woody Constric • ion (By Stanley Sopczy]NO Description of Request: Rezoning frl= C-2 (Commerce) to R-5 (Multiple Residence) Property-. Abutting on acne east side of uumboldt Avenue to the south of 69th Avenue, (Part of the westerly 300 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, Hi Crest Square Addition) aaner of Property,, Yi Crest Square Inc. rACKGFaGND-. 1) This property is the westerly part (abutting onto Humboldt Avenue) of the approximately 12 acres of land set out in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial purposes in the southeast quadrant of 69th and Humboildt Avenue,. At present, about 1/2 acre at the corner of 69th and Humboldt is being • utilized for commercial purposes (Union 76-Pure oil Station) . The remainder of the property is vacant, except for a single family dwelling lying directly east of the service station. 23 The purpose of this rezoning, as indicated by drawings submitted to the Staff, is to rezone a strip of land on the east side of Humboldt Avenue (about 300 feet in depth from Humboldt Avenue) to an E5 Multiple Family Residence classification. 'phis rezoning would leave (assuming a land division along the lines indicated by the drawings) the home on the property as a single cowatercial tract of about .5 acre, and a vacant, commercial tract of about .4 acre to the south of the Pure Station. The remaining 7. 5 acres to the east would remain in commercial zoning. POINTS TO R-F, CONSIDERED- 1) The applicant and/or his agents have, in past months, attempted to convince the Sta:ER that the se-tting out of a 12 acre area as a neighborhood commercial -node in the Comprehensive Plan was incorrect, or if correct at the time the Plan was prepared, that it has becolue incorrect due to a change in the methods of retail commercial activity in the suburbs. The two-pronged philosophy advanced by the owners on the holding of 12 acres for Page 2 AppliCatiOD NOt 68052 Ikul"'On't) commercial uses in this area is further defined as follows. First, although neigilborhood commercial centers were popular in the late 50s and early 605 in olann►ng theoryp with a commercial center provided for each "neighborhood"e the local center has now been replaced by convenience centers such as "P.D.Q. _,x Li# 1 General, Toro. Thumb", etc. , offering cpAck-stop shopping, with longer shopping trips being directed to community or regional shopping areas, such as Target, Holiday, Shopper' s City, Brookdale, Apache, etc. . Secondly, if the first theory is not acceptable, then this location is incorrect for a neighborhood shopping center because it is too close to Northbrook and Brookdale Shopping Centers to survive economically, and a smaller convenience center of the type mentioned above (VItich can survive economically on the 'business from the multiple residential elements in the area.) is raore appropriate, and if a larger commercial center is shown to be economically feasible, that It should probably be located further north, in Brooklyn Par'X, to mitigate the effects of Northbrook Center. 2) Some time ago, the applicant submitted drawings of a pro- posed commercial complex on this Property for discussion with the Staff. rehat proposal also did not encompass the entire 12--acre tract, but only about 3 acres; the building proposed was about 15,000 scruare feet (convenience grocery, barber, beauty shop, cleaners pickup, etc�) < The remainder of ti-ke 12 acres was proposed for apartments. The arguments made were essentially as discussed above. The decrease' in the size of proposed conunercial activity as contained in this rezoning proposal is n .tore likely a reflection of the cckninq development of a small commercial building on the northwest corner of 69th and ijumboldt (the morbal property) , 3) The applicant has supported his claim that this is not a site for a. neid, ,11:,zborhood center 3by stating that no major supermarket. chain contacted (National, Red 0,111, Kroger) is J_n%'.-.e rested in locating one of i-Cs stores there. One may refute this argument by the observation that retail services usually folj.our population rather than preceding it, and the area is only now developing residentially. A great deal of this proI ahly is tied j.n Iiith timing; if a center were developed at 79th and Lyndale in Brooklyn • Park., the whole complexion of this as a commercial site would" change, I am sure, and the sains would relate to other possible commercial developments, per'n-aps in the Brown Farm. Page 3 • Application No. 66052 (Cont1d) STAFF COMMENTS 1) 1 find a great deal of logic and merit in the positions and theories advanced by the applicant. It may very well be that the typical "neighborhood" commercial center (the same variety as the Kroger/Lynn Brook Center on Osseo Road) as a freestanding unit is on its way out, to be replaced by a greater number of smaller convenience centers and larger full-service shopping centers. On the other hand, it may be that these newer convenience stores may be developed in addition to continued develomient of neighborhood commercial centers. I do not believe at this time that anyone can say vAhich way commercial merchandising will go. Further, it must be acknowledged that the landowners of this particular piece of property are primarily multiple residential developers, and the land (at least to them) has a greater value as multiple residence property than as commercial . • in summation, since no crystal ball has yet revealed what will eventually happen to this 12-acre tract, (even though I do not believe the entire tract will ever be used for commercial purposes') T_ would recommend that no change be made in the existing commercial zoning, and that the land be permitted to develop in its own time, with possible changes on. some portions thereof to multiple residential in the future. -+La,Ntej;;#NG v'.OMISSION INFORMATION 5I��'.MT Application No. 68053 • Applicant: Strand Construction Company (for Roger Humble) Description of Request: Variance to permit the erection of an attached garage with a 30 .foot front setbac3c- Mather than the 35 feet permitted by ordinance. Property.- 5831 June Avenue (Lot 3, Block 1, Pearson' s Northport 5th Addition) Owner of Property: Roger Mumble BACXGR.CUM r Nome POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED a 1) This property, as well as the properties to the south, drops in elevation from its frontage on June ,Avenue to the rear property line on the west. The drop is quite significant, allowing the homes to have walkout base- ments to the west. The applicant contends -that adherence to the 35 foot setback requirement would necessitate additional costs (a few extra courses of block and some fill beneath the slab probably $100 caorth) to construct the attached garage. 2) The applicant contends that other homes to the north of this one appear to have Less than 35 foot setbacks. our records indicate that the others on this side of the street have the following street setbacks Address Douse Garage 5801 June 41' 35' 5807 June 40' 32% 5813 ;June 35' 30' 5819 June 35" 30' 5825 dune 401 353 5831 June 354 ---- 5€337 dune 35` detached-in rear • Page 2 Application No. 68053 (font'd) • The only explanation for the variation in those setbacks seems to be the measurement being taken from different parts of the house fronts when built. As the house fronts have "jogs" in them, different setbacks resulted, as shown above. The setback at 5807 June, at 32 feet, is the result of set-back averaging, a feature which has since been dropped from the ordinance. STAFF COMENTS I) Discussion on the subject of lesser street setback's has been quite exhaustive, both on past applications of this type, and as a matter of general study, at least on the part of the Col mission. The crux of the issue, as I see it, is that the Commission would favor a greater flexibility in setback distances, but would like to see the City retain a measure of control, rather than setting some lesser distance, and having all construction j-u.sl-- move up to the lesser distance. Rather, some variety in the distances of buildings is desired, but the legal practicality of implementing such a concept is difficult. The suggestion I have advanced • previously. that of setting a lesser setback distance for vehicle garage structures, is one workable means to gaining some variety in residential setbacks; this method would take care of an application such as this one. My memo to the Commission of February 26, '1968, contains a further elaboration of the subject. 2) 1 agree personally with the visual effect which would be produced by a 30 foot setback for this property, but the variance is probably not the way to accomplish it, Although ona could argue that the slope of the land makes this property, different-, from some others, it is definitely not unique., and other properties in this block alone could use the same arguement. it is interesting to note, however, that- the accidental variation in setbacks which resulted during the original development of this block is an example of the visual effect which can be accomplished, • PLMNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 65054 Applicant3 Brooklyn Center Development Corp. Description of Request: Rezoning from I--1 (industrial Park) to R.--5 (Multiple Family Residence) Property> Property involved lies on either side of James Avenue, between 67th and 69th Avenues. Owner: Brooklyn Center Development Corp. BACKGROUND: 1) This property involved is a portion of the Brooklyn Center .industrial. Park/Twin Cities Interchange Park, lying directly south of 69th Avenue, and to the west of the "strip" multiple residential development along Humboldt Avenue. !POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED% 1) In examining this proposed rezoning for multiple residences, and in the ones to come later in the "Brovm Farm°' area, the City must decide what effect such uses placed there would have in the future on other potential apartment prop- erties in the City. in addition, consideration must be given to the development and potential development of this type of use in other parts of the metropolitan area. The basic problem is to provide enough properly zoned (including properly located) properties suited to this use. Some of the factors which should enter into a determination of proper location for apartment development are x a) proximity to transportation, either roadways for personal vehicles, or mass transit (existing or proposed) ; b) proximity to commercial uses to serve the greater density of population, hopefully without the need for vehicular transport, at least for everyday needs; c) proximity to amenities, such as theaters and parks, etc. Page 2 Application No.. 68054 Some discussion along these lines is contained in the Comprehensive Plan beginning on page 25. Transportation, to a great extent, has come to rule our lives, at least insofar as land use is concerned, and is probably one of the greatest problems in locating the different types of land used On the one hand,, it seems logical and proper that greater densities of population (in apartments) be located close to transport.at.on corridors, while on the other hand, steps should be taken to mitigate the effects of the nearness to these traffic corridors on the quality of life within the apartment. developments. 2) One of the .factors which should be considered .seriously, unless the assumption of unlimited demand for multiple residences is made, is that a great amount of Land adjacent to Lyndale :Avenue is probably more suited to this type of development, being on a direct traffic corridor to the downtown area. Although the area near Lyndale was not put into this land use classification in the Comprehensive • Plan, I expect, that this will be dome during a future updating of the Plan„ if, in fact, the Lyndale Avenue area will be found more suited to this •type of use, and if there is a saturation point for this type of user it may be important at this time that the more appropriate area lc. developed prior to the less appropriate one, so that the :Less appropriate area might be .left to find its own best use in the future. STAFF COKKE NTS 1) Zoning is,, to a Large extent over the long term, a reflection of demand in the market for certain mixes of land uses„ The function of zoning often appears to me to be a moderating influence on development, producing time for well-reasoned location of uses based on community and metropolitan needs, and not only the personal needs of particular developers whose needs may not truly be reflective of community needs. One of the major land uses is, of course, housing, and the need transcends political boundaries . The "apartment room" is the most recent type of housing bocm!,, and has become probably the most troublesome zoning problem for suburbea • communities, with much of the probl.en, arising frora the fact that there is insufficient :Land properly located and zoned for these uses in the suburbs. 2) There has not been a comprehensive overlook of the potential. growth of multiple family residential development in the metropolitan area. in the absence of such a study projecting Page 3 • Application No., 68054 the likely saturation point of multiple units in the area` one could reasonably assume„ at least for the short term., that no saturation point exists, and just begin to project numbers for his community based on the amount of land which the community wishes to snake available for the use. This determination should then begin with a series of locational principles which would set out those areas Which night be suitable for the use 3) If this rezoning is to be approved , it should be -with the foreknowledge that the 304-plus residential uses which will exist there should be provided with a second .means of access other than to 69th Avenue. This second means of access could take the form of a direct link with 65th Avenue, or by means of a roadway to Shingle Greet: Parkway and them to the 65th and Humboldt. intersection. This secondary means of access would provide a less circuitous route to Interstate #94,> or to the Brookdal.e complex. it is anticipated that the developers would request a vacation of James Avenue, and a new roadway could be required to replace and improve its function,. 4) One of the factors to consider in such a rezoning, as mentioned elsewhere, is the proximity of commercial uses for this higher density population. For several years,, we have awaited the development of retail commercial uses in the southeast: quadrant of 69th and Humboldt. This type of development usually follows residential developmment, and now that the area is being built up with single family and multiple family uses, the commercial activity has begun to be developed, witness the L' it General, store on the north- west corner of 69th and Humboldt. it is expected more com- mercial uses will follow in the near future, especially in the southeast quadrant., and it is any personal opinion that direct walkway access should be provided (if this requested multiple zoning is granted) from this development to the Humboldt Avenue co=uercia:l area. The fl.ava in this theory is that the applicant: does not own the intervening property this, then, might be a :natter of the municipality providing the direct access, possibly an expensive proposition, given the R-5 zoning of the intervening ,parcel. If the walkway: is to be provided, it should not result in the intrusion of private areas in the future multiple development to the east, by including the property thus used as density for the small development, as the smaller development is unlikely to have a surplus of amenities on the small. lot. PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 68055 Applicant-. Chrysler Realty Corporation Description of Request: Approval of site and building plans of a commercial building. Special use permission to operate a motor vehicle dealership. Propertyx 6800 Osseo Road (Tract A, R.L.S. #1020; Tract B, R.LnS„ 0456; Part of Tract A, R.L.S.- #595; Part of Lot 3, Aud. Sub,. #25) Owner of Property; Halverson, Bjork, Hanson BACKGROUND-. 1) The Chrysler Motor Corporation has put together a package of properties, including Brooklyn Hardware/Brooklyn industries and Halvorson Marine on Osseo Road at 68th Avenue, plus the vacant properties lying north of Velie Oldsmobile°s property to 69th Avenue. • POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED 1) The site plan submitted appears to be in conformance with the standards of the zoning ordinance. No freestanding sign is being proposed for this dealership. Rather than such a sign, the developer has proposed a "roof" sign, with an overall height above first floor elevation of 38 feet, and a gross sign area (widest plane) of about 253 sq.. ft.. . If the standards of the Council's September, 1968, draft sign ordinance are to be adopted as law, this sign would have to be lowered to 32 feet, and not exceed 250 sq. ft. in area. There is no technical problem in making the sign conform to these proposed standards. (Building area used in calculation - 32,490 sq.ft.) STAFF C-OtMENTS 1) A business such as an automobile dealership has extraordinary problems as far as protection of property from thefts and destruction is concerned. This situation is evidence by the common practice of using fencing around its storage yar6s, and in this case the primary device is to be chain link Page 2 Application 711ou 68055 fencing interwoven with metal straps„ Although this is not the most beautiful type of fencing possible, in this case the Staff has suggested the use of mixed deciduous and evergreen plantings against the fencing along 69th Avenue in an attempt to provide a somewhat more pleasing view for the residential properties immediately oppositev 2) The Commission will note that the easterly driveway onto 69th Avenue is across from a single family residence, whip: the westerly driveway has been located across from Indiana Avenue. Given the desire of the developer to have two accesses onto 69th ,Avenue,, it is difficult to see how this arrangement could be changed to utake the easterly driveway enter onto 69th Avenue directly across from the common lot line of the two residential properties, although this would pro-ably be snore desirable than the drive-way as proposed. 3) Although meeting the standards of the Toning ordinance with respect to driveway widths, the access between the portion of the dealership abutting on Osseo Road and that extending toward 69th Avenue is constricted, both by the amount of land connecting the two areas, and by the place- ment of the service building. Hope ul.lyp at some time in the future, the expected congestion at this point can be relieved through acquisition of a portion of the Texaco property.. 4) The property should be required to be replatted into a single parcel. • r PLAMING COMISSION INF MA` ION SHEET • Application No.. 68056 Applicant: Joseph -Kennedy Description of Request: Variance from Section 15-104 to permit subdivision of land without a plat into two substandard lots. Propertyi The north 64 feet of the east 128.66 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Bel1vue Acre, Addition.. (soutrhwest corner of Bryant and 55th Avenues North) Owner of Property: Peter Kampa, 5447 Bryant Avenue Tgorth BACKGROUND: 1) The presents owner of the property, Mr. Peter Kampa, wishes to sell approximately half of his 1281 x 135' lot, creating two substandard lots of 644 foot width, with the corner lot being offered for sale, and his home occupying the southerly lot. I have been told by the applicant that there is a. joint driveway easement between Bryant and Colfax which is proposed to be recognized in this division as a part of the southerly lot (see sketch) - POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The Commission and Council agreed some time ago that the older portion of the southeast neighborhood should be encouraged as an area in which dupleltes could be built, perhaps on properties made up of two or more smaller parcels. The parcel here presented for division is of sufficient size to contain a duple:; dwell.Lig, eXcept for the fact that it is already occupied by a single family home. A situation similar to this one was presented to as a. variance last. year (tea., Gallion -- 67068) , and a variance was approved to permit division into two lots,, each 631 x 110' . The difference between these two cases is that the present application includes a substandard cornea lot, wxl--h greater difficulty in utilizing the lot: for a homes i.te a I Page 2 Application No. 68056 2) if a variance is approved for this 64 foot wide corner lot, consideration must be given to the -usability of the property without variance Will the City permit the owner to construct a hog.;se according to pre-1957 setback standards of. 15 feet along a street, or wi'J'U it require adherence to the newer standard of 25 feet? STAFF CMIMENTS 1) Although Z cannot produce logical arguments for not per- mitting a division with a 7 foot wide 14leg" of land =tending to 55th Avenue for driveway purposes,, I think a division without tills SLxi,p 0A." lanc'e Would be C-leaner and create fewer problems in the future. Since the southern property would have access to Bryant Avenue an rwaye the use of the western 7 feet of the property to the no4th as a driveway could be accomplished as a pri.vette aase:neat recorded on the ,properties, as x believe is the case with the properties to the west.. 2) if lots are to be permitted to continue to be divided into • sizes permitted manyyears ago, perhaps consideration should be given to creating a different zoning classification for this area which would include smaller lots for single family residential uses. if not, at least some further discussion of the duplex development idea is in order. 55th A*renuee idorth r ', 126.660 I t Proposed Division Line If 641 i � e ` O ? 64 f Tt I i F r co cr . t PLANNIUG 00MMISSION INFORMATION SFZE.wf • Application No. 68057 Applicants Brooklyn Center A�aemblies of God Church Description of Request; Approval of si-te and building plans of an addition 'Co a church Propertyg 6018 Xerxes Avenue (Outlots 2, 3, 4, and 5, Hipp's Sth Addition; Parcels 110 and 120, Aud. Sub, #218) Owner of Property: Same BACKGROUND-, 1) The present buildings on the property consist of the minister's home on the eastern part of the property, and a building along Xerxes Avenue which will serve as an educational wing of the church. The new construction will involve the construction of the sanctuary and revision of the site and parking areas , POINT'S TO BE CONSIDERED: 1) The only deviation from ordinance requirements which may exist on the plans submitted is the screening of the open parking area along Xences Avenue from residentially zoned property on the west side of Xerxes (Section 35-711) . This matter was discussed at the time of the King's Academy special use application (on the property immediately north of this property) , and no screening reqiiireiaent was made for that property. • I ADDEUDUM TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 7, 1968 The following additions and deletions should be made to the November 7th Agenda. APPLICATION NO. 68062 submitted by Schwartz Oil Co. has been withdrawn by the applicant and notices cancelling the public hearing have been mailed to all interested property owners, Schwartz Oil Company has requested the return of the $25.00 filing fee which should be considered by the Commission. APPLICATION No., 68054 submitted by Brooklyn Center Development Corporation should be acted upon and forwarded to the City Council PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 7, 1968 Application DLO. 1. Roll Call S . Approval of Minutes: Regular Meeting October 3, 1968 Study Meeting October 31, 1968 Special Meeting November 2, 1968 3. Brooklyn pure Station 68060 Special use permit to store and rent trailers. The property involved is at 6901 Osseo Road. 4. Schwartz Oil Company 68062 Special use permit to store and rent trailers. The property involved is at 5001 Drew Avenue. 5. Luther Magelssen 68061 'variance to permit construction of a 24* x 24' addition to an existing garage. • The property involved is at 6525 Beard Avenue, 6. Mildred Grosser 68063 Approval of preliminary plat. The property involved lies between. Lyndale Avenue and willow Lane at 68th Avenue No. 7. Bar-Ett Construction Ccmgany 68064 Approval of site and building plans of a 58 unit apartment building. The property involved is at 7015 Osseo Road. S. Center Development Company 67012 Approval of revised site and building plans of a pool building. The property involved is at Xerxes Avenue and Northway Drive. Twila Donley 68065 Approval of revised parking area at 6045 Osseo Road. • t r � 'y ' s • PLANNING CaHKISSION INFORMATION SUZET Application No. 68060 Applicant, Lee Berg Description of Request% special use Permit to store and rent trailers in a service station. Propertyu 6901 Osseo Road Owner� Pure oil Company BACKGROUND: None POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED 1) That the number of trailers is limited. 2) That truck rental is not part of the approval. • 3) No signing is being approved at this time for advertising the availability of these rental units.- 4) The special use permission shall be reviewed in one year from date of Council approval to consider the effect of this rental activity on the station site with the possi- bility at the time of raviewal of raisivg or lowering the number of units permitted, 5) Section 35-707 (2b) requires 13 parking spaces for the ezisting service stati= Sufficient area is available on the north and West for the required parking plus 8 trailers.. • 5 qjig........:_ ._ .." ,•; F � f ......._.,.��....<,..... •..r,.-�+cv,.a3� A'M'Y �"'�`S + `^^�.,�,,,�w. •.� _ Y �4 � F'LA=Wo CWKISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application -Wo" 68061 Applicant,,,; Luther magelssen DescriPtion of Request- Variance Section. 35-310 (I-W) to permit construction of a 24 x 24 addition to an existing 16 x 22 detached garage. Location', 6.525 Beard Avenue 1,1orth (Lot 4, Block 10, Brooklarie Addition) BACXGIRCUNX-, 1) 7.1-,e principle building is a 40" x 24 ' framce dwelling one story in bei4cfht baving a ground coverage area of 960 square 2) As provided by Section 35-31.0, an accessory building may. lave 75% of the ground area coverage of the dwelling building. in this case, if only one detached garage is built, lit shall not exceed 720 square feet ground area • coverage. 3) TbAe 1.,.iroposed garage.. addition together with the existing building would have 928 square X".'ect of ground area coverage, which is 208 square feet imore than permItted. P 0: !';TS TO Dr, CONSIDrRESD;; it The permitted ground area coverage of accessory buildings was increased frorr, 660 scruare Feet by the adoption of the new zoning ordinat)ce and if this ap- ).Aication is to be approved, it should be done by amendmert not by variance. 40 Y v' sod �r 2 E Z ti �b ti to V� p t vj mommW ION I pole 1), with varl-ance L)e9c,tipt-ion of on lot area'. Ajer.ue J�forth I at 15 of over 340 near the .1st I distance j, jocateOL to de eit to 1.113 at p On ML"Cle to Iberefore of sting city sewer cor Seel use ATS mays o Ve"Clar- es hc a 13 t on same varjw ' 2. OSOG3 ,,,event Of -W nth C,P-ati-c=l . ,n co e -hoases t5ting 'a lie- vj CA area tl Caret" lality � -tan b qV- rost 1, lafl 3.,aciL -cil, Of af.,f Oca In • • 00091,90 Lo -P. PLILA.T 6 A • k t T jPU-�N11MRG MINISSiOlIm' INFORILATIMN SREET 'LMO. 68064 C a n t Bar-Ett cons t n-,Ction Company Of Pr;"Cfk:IC-St: ZI"U,;,n ap�prova.j, for 58 Unit. ii'�partment Building property. 701.5 Osseo Road Mike Elincky BA CKG ROU4,11) 1) The property involved vi.-as rezoned uncle:`.. Application Nos� 67033 and 67067 to R5,. thereby making 37 story ,multiple dv,ellingp, a permitted, -'asez. T0 '113E. CON'S IDE RED% The Property is nov, recordee in several se-par-ate descrlption;:, a-nd shoult'i be, comibi-nee in a single parcel,, • Vencing along the Vest and North v-,here the property adjoirls, ✓th f L be onsidered, City rark land and sr-hool, yard 1-w i d c 3) lxce�-.,s ti.:;, 1 oth Avent,"c t.,Tou 16, vehicular traffic into an-d chrough a singIL,e fpinily i-asiderle-e ds-qtrict 4) Plana for screenirtg thr;,, 8cu,',,'h Property IiIne adjacent to tl)e R). zone, should bia detail-=-6. and ,;Pelled o%At,, 5) Removal o-E exist-ling wid I-a,-xcl clearing should not be by burning., All trees, st-timps and debris from wrecking should be ',:tauled away. • k rz� L , Pli-jIMING COWISSION, ISPORMATION SHEET Application No,. 67012 Applicantfi -,4orman Ma-zin Description of Request- Approval. of site and building plans for recreation building and swimming pool area. Property Location% Four Courts Apartments ."Kerxes Avenue and Northway Drive UJA-CXG ROU ND ii When Application No., 67012 was oriqlnially approved, the plans for the swifoiing pool, recreation building and central open space area were -not complete and therefore could not be included in such approval. 2) Due to soil, conditions, 41--he developer is proposing to eliminate the lagoon and create a contoured green area. 3) There will be no changes in the ve'llhic-ulat' parking and driving areas, ""VanyKa fqlo Sq.7.!. •q POMMU Pus 04 Klllsqns vq 11M Sueld 05rulea! -Weq POAOSddQ UY SaAO P111tItUT 1M spoulmnyq pTul aaAed gayw • aq ;o saqzuj Z go wnmlulv,,, U aq Tleqs bulned 3q, Pus qlw alowman welduT Ism e Aq pepanoo Sq jjUqS Seeir hillped pue 501alm'', Ile go Swo4sylad aq.i neul san ? nbaa 011-Gg U011was "Podwaspue! aq 11eqS Poe bulyled w# p8no QQ 101 11ey'' Axis OnT1001cad WS Qjasdoad 3Tqi j, *pjs j3aQ sq:i buole Tlem 10 eaue; anhedo UP Olin Mane en3joa!016 OPYM 1001 Gd, c aMb0a MOn Q! M-99 U01=5 'T .swo;7 tulAul1w; oq; ..j uoPT5 ,zq pjvcq,,� uOylempisvoo YT0;03.q1 pvt Y-n so PS71ISS010 num WnMoa,3 aqj woupuppin Bujaw Panuaw aqj go anj4dopw aql vnjd.,, ac vubje buTxled 'peon casso pue Is! 0T;;ejw buisnea eqj m2aqm zycd e wnumv jsjq jo sapjs qncp ou mad a! Amsemm amwaq 41 jr1m,' g ja all 10ou wcjjsabuozx 2aaajs vq1 U0 bvj%x2d alam Slamalmn 01 pas •aaDUT Sgaujanq ;a aumnjoa "Pajaldwoo sw� 4ol sqj jo fleR Inoqu Alm as 4pTcAe o3 palza aeuma aq--, qolqm buliqan nazi amou paajnban aAwq p1nom pamadde se of bullaed aqj go uollanijama -AummAjap buTiolm UT a.,,;ms Sald paux lezi pue U'IS all u-, Saveds aw 9 burmoqs POAoIdde SPM 99PY9 'ON 1_I0jqwnFjddv pool 00000 syy�,, -pale buixaso pas7mv ;0 1yacadY,, RaTuol ells.; G9091.) viconhaw ja wn UNION Wp Vli 140 a m 1&Q.7 0 0 plarjaing co mio.ission Agenda Decem)joer 5, 1968 Aeration NO. 1, Roll Call 2. Aperoval of Minutes Regular Meeting kTovember 7, 1968 Study 14eeting 'November 26, 1968 3. Sho ers.' City 68066 Approval of site and building plans for an addition. 4,,, Drs., Christenson 6, Pib.lstrom 68067 Rezone to C-2, to permit construction of a dental office. Vhe proper-t-y involved is at 7047 Osseo Road., 5. Tony Pendzimaz 68068 Approval of preliminary plat "Bing' s Addition" . • The property involved is at 68th Avenue and 5t.b Street Morth. 6. North Central Theatres 68069 Special Use Permit for a 1,000 seat motion picture theatre. The property involved is at 2501 County Road 10 in the easterly part of Brookl%ia Center. 7. North Central Theatres 68070 Approval of site and building plans for Brookdale Theatre. 8. jqiles construction Companv 67072 Approval of revised site plan to (revised) permit construction of two (2) twelve (12) stall parking garages at 7015 jiumboldt Avenue North. 9,, Luther Maq2jsser- 68061 This application was tabled November 7, 3.968, for further. study. s • tPLZIZTNING C::Ci�;!�+ISSION i-mro;a-rIEiT1ON SHEET Application No. 68067 • Applicant% Richard Rockstad Description of Request: Rezone to C-1 Property: 7047 Osseo Road BACKGROUND 1) The property involved in this application consists of two lots legally described as Tots 2 and 3, Block 1, Center Brook Addition and they are located at 7047 and 7053 Osseo Road. 2) Lot 2 is on the Southwest corner of the intersection of 71st Avenue North with the Osseo Road and Lot 3 is adjoining on the South. 3) Prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance, both lot were classified as R-B (Residential Business) . The new ordinance placed Lot 2 in the R-2 (Two Family Residence District) and Lot 3 in the R--4 (Multiple • Family Residence District) POINTS TO BE CONSIDEMDb 1) The property fronting on the Osseo Road is generally not desireable for one and two family residential developm ent and R-4 devalopment does not attract the investors 2) The proposed use would have been permitted under the previous zoning ordinance but for unknown reasons the property did not attract any developers. 3) The criteria used for rezoning fromR B to the present use should be reviewed and evaluated. The Comprehensive Guide Plan suggests that professional office use is compat-Ible witih the residential uses adjacent to the Osseo Road. 4. No zoning change is recommenced where the existing use is found to be proper and reasonable. • 6606 ' f 7? rd AVE-N C> C -. �,ask l Oil vote ry cy- 1 1 ' 1 it E 7a th _ � i �+ .� PLAWAING COMKISSION INFORMATION SIZET Application No. 68068 • Applicants Tony Pendzimaz Description of Request: Approval of preliminary plat of "Bing=s Addition" . Location: Between 7th Street North and Camden Avenue at 68th Avenue. BACKGROUND: l) The proposed subdivision is in an area that has been slow in developing because City sewer and water was not available and the area lacked storm drainage. 2) The property in this area is divided into long narrow plots facing either Lyndale or 69th and the multiplicity of ownership has made it difficult to develop this area. POINTS TO CONSIDER: 1) Sewer and water is available and the proposed platting • conforms to the subdivision regulations and the suggested guide plan for the Northeast neighborhood • ®1h AVE NO 1 � i 10, fo, 90 ga. as • b �` t3S• i too s AV F_ NO S 1 1 I PLANNING CO.PzIUSSION IW ORMATION SHEET • Application No. 68069 Applicants Henry George Greene Description of Requestt Special use permit for a 1,000 seat motion picture theatre. Property: 2501 County Road #10 Owner, North Central Theatres PACKGR©T3 M 1) Amusement places such as motion picture theatres are included in Section 35-322 (3d) of Special Uses. 2) The proposed building site was rezoned in 1967 from I-1 (industrial Park) to B--2 (General Business) and with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance in 1968 the area was placed in C-2 (Commerce District) . 3) The Development Guide Plan indicated that a theatre would be an appropriate use for this area, • PLANNING OC31 vIIS53ON . NFOR IATION SHEET Application No. 58070 • Appl.icantg Henry George Greene Description of Request; Approval of site and building plans for a 1000 seat theatre. Property: 2501 County Road 10 Owner: North central Theatres HA CKGROM'D 1) The property was combined into a single parcel. by Registered Land Survey and is not large enough to provide all the parking needed for a 1000 seat. theatre. 2) Copies of easement grants and agreements have been placed on file in which the Minnesota Amusements Company is required to provide one parking stall on its own land for each five (5) theatre seats and Dayton Development Company will provide on its land a number of parking stalls equaling the number on the theatre site. • POINTS TO CONdSIDER$ 1) The easement grant and cross parking arrangement with the shopping center should be reviewed very carefully and the Commission should be well satisfied that there is no conflict in the operating hours and parking demands (Sec. 35-720) 2) All driving and parking areas small be surfaced as required by Sec. 35-710. 3) The perimeters of all driving and parking areas shall be bounded by cast inplace concrete curbs as required by Sec. 35-710. • � � 4 �i _ 68 ® 7 0 V �t V 14 !t/.S.P. MIMI COLIN-ry ROAD X04 rA 011 1' s° PLANNINC COMISSION INFQPJATION SIMET Application No. 67072 • Applicant.- Miles Construction Company Description of Requests Approval of revised plot plan and parking layout. Property Addressx 7015 Humboldt Avenue Borth BACKCRDUND 1) The approval of the original site plan did not anticipate the need for parking garages and space in which to build them was,,provided. 2) The parking layout is somewhat unique and does not give much choice in the arrangement of the type of garage preferred by the owner. 3) Alternate locations and building types have been suggested to the owner by the City Engineer but the owner prefers the double loaded type garage rather than the long single row type garage which could be backed against the property • line and thereby conserve much space. . }bik;tvaa T(n. Bmoklyn Cern'ter Plaaning Commission ioni: Doi? id G. ?doss, City Manager Subj'ect: December Sth .Agonda Iikems Date: Decainber S,, 1968 1 ava 'taking this oppomilitty to sot forth some • hought.s regarding the various Decezaber Sth Plami),ing Commisolon Vannis,, for what the V'koughts may be worth. Reni 3. Lz�xt week when the agenda was being prepared Mr. 11uryhey In."k-ormed me that -there y,tras Imsuff i.clen-t- inforiin.ation regarding parledng to support the Shoppers City proposal,, At the pricsent -drae It would appear that Shopper's City will not be able to AAiTiiah sul-Zicient rznrkung to meet the ord.1nance requirenneats, In ally avelyi, ,we, Qe-�-_nrdnod to cancel the, mat-t-or 9min the ar.,enda from v,-at c of additional infM-ination. Item 111. Z!, general coyxlensus Coams JIM havo developed over the past many mon°zix tlhat 4"-1 t1facrn., are rely 61ani-i'li:ir to and often considered Int •rchaacgeable with R-4 fand R-5 uses Insofar as lend, covorage and level o' activity whllolh might affect swrrourdirm.i propwItJeS' I T O.,VL- T tl-lere Is no escaping the fact that C-1 represents, a commerolal land use district, and deperrding upon its Iccation A ca-n, at least in the eyes of some oA' those Occupying -lie court benches, havdly be distinguished from some of Uric raore intense usas> permitted in a C-2 Zone. I therefore think we muss 'be careful In appljdrig; the concept. In the case hand., Brooklyn Park has not been bashful about zoning coinmercially to our northern border a.vull past; rezonip.g -requests Involving Thet propor�y im m edj.ately sout-h of our border and west of Osseo Road has raised approho'nsiozis about the forced extention oi- that commercial r .0n4 Mg south-ward imto Brooklyn -'emter and eventually infec-t-Ing, the re-sidencos in -1.:ho vicinAl ty of 71st Avenue. 11: is thxere_fo,--c my J,Ud ►emerrZ, perhaps, based on -UrLiAtion, Y nor e than arlylb-IM9, else-, tha-PI.- thet pa,,ejicula.r coriler, to zoning C-] , could set a pvattern fc-r inore Intease cGinmerckal on the -we.,t side of Osseo 'Rozad kori 71st to 41i.a no,—;Lh. boundery %Ppe' 'el�' to Ine i1a of Llooklya Gkaxter. L t there J's adecluate C-1 zoning along Osseo Road begini'dp, L a- 70th Avenu,-� southwardf. Yr addition, there is vacant C-1 land with tJ_'*Jarrr _I PJaC .0 -4 n ;_ fJ _ :L - water, csmvc��r, st�:eets and dr4 a ag he west side of Lee Avenuomo, With regard to the sugc7estion that the .11-4 classiftcationaf the subject pzrcol does not saom tto attract. 'the iwvestor, 1 can only say that 'iha- investo-1- and owner are naturally aizdouv, to m- eximize their return, but as long as we ark,%:e�--Saraablo in our Planning and zoning con.,:-.-darations'tt is not our obligation -to maximize. retu-nns. R 1':'Oulel' tau my reconrumendation -Lhat the request be denied. • � a • • Peg,e Z 10:O111 5p J.".he pralli-pinary pla-it. o,.,' Pung's is consistent the area de-ifelopment al p I E, ;- a ...(� b", c wc,�Bssary ut-11"i'dess and is r commended fo- ppro it e Y.-I 6 '.ehAl*, Applicetion No. HOG!) has been a sulz, sct of coasiderable cone nn f -ia -icluded -Uhet a number o-C' oil the t:1X,,i!.. 10VO]. Dy V1b.-X.-Ue 0` all gap- I !!'_cave coi .1 Uc h O.n� 'Ia.vo colatxibtlted 1:0 1.1-10 lsy�017-11ation dal -ienoy ilot , e least o� C,i:hich consists L Ll L Oi7 the Uie. project has Ctesbpi3cl and. develo.156d' bl,, a -vary qualffied 11-rUt dist"an't kMr"r York. archi-Coct. !**i-!. the al, sGiics o2: a local rei)res!eatativa who could make dsck;fons: a rgood Ceal of o u, dialague 1-1a. beell carried on by long-dislaawoe te lepholle an.c-1 by, wri n coyn.,:auaication. In apparantly have not b-ar. t Core certall, -I cr.rz.,,Uading T John Rbbo- ox". •1;ay'-wil j-Developrnerl 'Palry Of x .,-S 0�., R.,70, rf",qE4rdillg Ovdinance requii-ements, at "east tuYc11 yestarday, Yesterd.aye Decembar 4-t ,%:-e sucwSful -For 10he xUrst tiiaa Ofl-o knowledge in gatherint; toce.k-�ber I% on c, rola o" Et Ou Dev elope ricnfz 00. , lVir. Reary Gro-eil ti-ie ;:ork Z'.�rchili";ect rand. 1+'r. G;aorge, Aul-e.I.ius 1-11a or the purpose of asp-91.1ing clariftc-et.ion cu as well as aUempting to -213usin te -Ior '-hem the L L -1 .. L.CZ!6 L parking, an drainage wh.-Icch 'have not ibeeii D LI ve-rhally evening 'l le theaIre o-i-e, does not provide.suff' iari*L 0.13 1plc ceat Ordillazice requiroalont and the principa's e oer three -ire 1 Y`'ziytoa's aro giving the -theatre pso-ple c za joint use par.11-ir.,g ,pIan parking; easez-;,.rft over 150 or 200 leet (1 -.1111 don't %%rhi,ch) o4-1 -&,.e castar!%7 -portion of 'Clio Dzaycixn inilf.1. *''or tha pasit. -�'.ew -�,Yceks I have insistod o 711,111'r. AblMI:; to no w,-all to elevela-p a just.liloat.1.oa for ti-he -,Pfalt Use. parkinrj proposali 1 parson nally !"'elleve suc'P. ca tzopocal in coacw: ,pt is -reaisona',Aa and justiiied' b...1'i.. 1 c!UD?. irisiW't. It 13c- if ocumczi-,odi In so that it, cannot be used ,.!s in � ture court cakes Involvi.ag per]-ing. 3econd, we have, told these people, that -On a o"te ba, -,,:�pandc-O so that the PI.C.nninfj Commission ant! CounWE can qaj`,n com.e Ox" the d&-ye.lopillien-Li- mad Rs rela-donship -to the e:d.sting D,_iy"-on 0 parkin lo't "31,1111011a sir celiz, and other p1'-_,,ysicc1 SUCII 0r 'Lhcl site, Plan ic, necozSean, to -th-c. t-M.ffic Idigress and egyess fe,1c-1.'L..1.1r,?,1,.s axo .-L`z13 drawings. It "llust he coils idere'd that LIP to 300 cars call IF)a �*-Ving ta roxm the sj.Ce at same time that. 300 more C&I'S, arc-" -'.111c; �Tlm 10ac applicair s have propose-J, a ys:,'am L vc)1ving a pu-_ S'atiork "'.rhic!", 21's both econ-OTAcally `Mer,O iraorersts ccdna,,rned and, which is operationally as u2C, 0T rpay-r-Anal over t-1-�o long haul iY1SrJkCla as, otir are Concerned, We pointed OtAl the xact zilnzt f.t- Als poscible to aic1l.-,J.eve Sz�vvl.Q draiaage and also, suggested grading" 0 1.31.11 L Inodi.0%ca""bons w1lic1i %".74111 ten,:, t improva t a prox7sal. In, summation,, informal evervolle c�t -jae rac'e-it-ling that- the 1:11awilag CommAssion wouldl probably be happy to rav, thc -e, but would probab.117 -"nrl thein dex�7jcieiit as we have su.ggssted, Ll - plans to? : ? Ca a 3--ar dat- and and ma:, pos."I'01W accept ou.1, ;^I-Oorarylendatioll to`&, tharelix YO tion can d. Clarification Plans as • tat✓+ad :'d uzJ' " . }�'f..y 1peyliljlt, OZ ae7.u.7:VUop.VJ 1114 rina 2s iyv -iiheir,�,, asa too, k.4 'LO "tpenniL. a approval act. On. • r`c(j;e o ,t6om 7, Same comments as above, sGC(a.i o I �3i:iv iiot had an Upportuni`y. 1.0 r-vie"a tl-e revisioil to ?application :t�+0. t/0 7 2. i:3Z`s3. i o 1 presume Appliow.Aon No. 68061 Is coa tame^ on the Planning Commission c'3 meta? '%4r purposes of study Ui1ly. I -,, ould slxo2 gly rCGC:1'Aailend that the matter eii:ier be 'i;ziblce :':C)r a long clura.Gi©n to parmit auch a study or 'i;hat the applica on be dente with ahe advice that it is possiblo although not rlc 3nitc- that the ordiliauc:es may be revised in the, future • • • PLAN14ING COMMISSION AGENDA JDecember 19, 1968 Ap2lication Wo. 1. Roll. CaUt 11- 11. 2. North Central Theatres 68069 Tabled application for special use pe-cmit for a theatre. 3. North Central Theatres 68070 Tabled application for site and building plan approval for a motion picture theatre, 4. Cit of Brooklyn Center 68072 Approval of preliminary plat. • • PLANNING CommISSION INFOPWATION SHEET • Application No. 66072 Applicant., city of Brooklyn Center Description of Reque-st, Preliminary Plat Property 5601 Osseo Road �►h ROU NNO 1) At the direction of t'f•,e city council, a plat has been prepared which combines all of the parcels of Land upon which the Ubrary is located into one single tract. The purpose is to provide can improved legal description which will be used in transferring title to the County and vacating part of Northport. Drive.