Approval conditional use permit for a PUD
-I
\
(
\
~
July 11, 1984
Case No: 84-24
Applicant: Mike Briggs
Location: 1615 Fifth Street South
Request: Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD
STAFF FINDINGS & COMMENTS: Anderson-Kerrigan
The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit for con-
struction of a PUD. On March 31, 1981, the Planning Commission reviewed
this development and approved a Conditional Use Permit and Variance which
was subsequently approved on April 7, 1981 by the City Council (see
attached). 427.26(5) states that a CUP shall expire one year afer issued
unless the use for which the permit was granted prior to the end of said
year may request and the Council may grant an extension not to exceed one
year. As the applicant did not submit such a request for extension prior
to April 7, 1982, a new CUP must be approved prior to any construction.
The plan as presented is basically the same as that originally approved.
. ". - I " .... ~-
, . , ,. . '~...".
, . - .. - .. .
" \
Nt. 4KA NORTH ~
I
~I(INS .,' ... 541,1'
~
...
N cP
~ 0 0
c
:-J -t ~
" 5
-
-t ~.
....rth
(,25
16TH AVE,
/80 ISO 297/5
"r
...
v
Co
~
~ 0
.....~ N .......
\oN ... N ..... tv ~ OJ
~ ~ ..... ColI ~ N ..... 'f-. 00
~ (J) ~ ~ (J) 0
'0 ~ :-t QQ - G-.. ~. CI'
- QQ ~' 0> I'l
~ . I . cP '" --'
.-
~3n /80 29754-
... ,J.: (J) I 0
0-. ..;. . ~ t7' 15TH AVE. S~ --
~ 40 :lf11l,1~ ,..,
..
460.01 .' ~ u.
Z4164~'" . .
, u.. ~
t7l. ~N
500 9 '.5,-E ~ ~ .......
~..... OJ
.d 7 ~ " oi N 0
(71' ~~ ~
~~ I ~ 50 .:410 N 0
rK'~ - L, P. \>' Ul
,. 0
, .. ......- ... --'
~N' _0 ' V'
.... <>
- ~ t1I ~
0'1'
...
f\)
~1Jz..:}.Z
346,~Z
(
,
\
\
....
().I
o
tJl
--'
\
,
\
\
\
13 T1i A'I' '" .
.., -; ~::
- ....
\
\
.
"
. ...... )7
.t\ 1(>1 Y
'0'1 . J'
" ('/ 0'.
ti !>o r
"- ~ 0 ~
AVENUE ') -4
,..
ColI 0
,A. ,
r- ^
~
March 26, 1981
Case No:
81-06
Applicant: Mike Briggs
Location: 1617 Fifth Street South
Request:
Conditional Use Permit to construct a PUD
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: Kerrigan - Rafferty
1. The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Planned
Unit Development in an area zoned I-2. The applicant is proposing a Planned
Unit Development as specified under 427.50 wh1ch states; "The PUD ordinance
is necessary to provide a method where flexib11ity of site and architectural
design may be applied by placing more than one building on a lot in accord
with an overall approved integrated plan". The applicant is also requesting
a 10 foot side variance in an area requiring a 20 foot side yard.
(
2. The property is approximately 363' x 168' or 1 1/3 acres (57,700 sq. ft.).
Presently the applicant has an existing structure on that parcel of approxi~
mately 10,000 square feet. The structure proposed will be an additional
10,000 sq. ft. The sum of both structures (20,000) on that parcel of 57,700
sq. ft. is well within the maximum floor area ratio (60%) permitted in that
district. Both buildings Qombined will have a building coverage of 36\.
3. The existing structure is presently broken down into 1400 sq. ft. of office,
200 sq. ft. of manufacturing and 8246 sq. ft. of warehouse, with a total park-
ing requirement of eleven spaces. The applicant has provided 12 spaces for
that structure. The proposed structure will be providing 1230 sq. ft. of
office and 9235 sq. ft. of warehouse for a total parking requirement of ten
spaces. The applicant has provided 12 spaces. It should be noted that all
spaces must be paved and should the uses change in the future, the parking
requirement would also change. In other words, if the office, manufacturing,
or retail to warehouse ratio should change in the future, which woulq require
the applicant to provide more parking spaces, either the uses would have to be
terminated or on site parking provided. The present parcel plan would not
allow for anymore surface parking therefore the ramping alternative may become
necessary.
4. The applicant meets the loading berth requirement as specified in 427.47(3)
where as warehousing 5000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. shall provide one loading
berth fifty feet in length. Further, the applicant has provided the necessary
roadway.
5. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the plan and will require the structure to be
sprinkled. Any flamable storage may necessitate further requirements.
6. The engineer has reviewed the plan and has found no problem with the drainage.
However, the applicant is proposing to pave the easterly 10 feet of his property
where the City has a ten foot utility easement. Should the City or other
utilities ever need to repair those utilities, they will only be responsible
for the utilities and not the hard surface paving or landscaping replacement.
7. The applicant is proposing to landscape the front yard as required with grass
and the following plantings: Red Maple, Hackberry, Globe Arborvime, Buckhorn,
~
Hardl 26, 1981
Case No:
81-07
Applicant: Mike Briggs
Location: 1617 Fifth Street South
Request:
Variance
STAFF FINDINGS AND COMMENTS: Kerrigan - Rafferty
1. The applicant has requested a ten foot side yard variance in an I-2 District
which requires 20 foot s1de yard setback. The applicant has stated poor soil
conditions between the existing structure and the propo3ed structure as a
reason for granting the variance. The applicant meets the other lot require-
ments of the ordinance.
2. The Engineering Department has identified a ten foot utility easement on the
easterly portion of the proprrty in question. The applicants request to con-
struct their structure 10 feet from the property line ~r.ould not obstruct the
utilities now in place.
(
3. The existing structure was granted a 15 foot side yard for poor soil at the
time of construct1on.
(
"-
~
.
(~-.
(
c,
A regular meeting of the 1I0pklns ZonLnq and PlannLnq CommLsslon was h~ld on
Tuesday, March 31, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. 1n the CounCIl Chambers of the City Hall.
Present ~ere Cha1rman H1ller, members Folk, Loberg, McDonald, Milbert and Re1nehr.
Also pr~sent were C1ty Manager Cra1g, Zon1ng Admlnlstrator Kohnen and Asslstant
Co~unity Development D1rector Rafferty.
lte.:!:
Case No:
81-03
Action:
Case No,
81-05
Action:
'*
Case No:
81-06
Action:
Approve and sign minutes of the Spec1al Meet1ng of Harch 11, 1981.
Ms, Reinehr moved and Hr. Hilbert seconded a mot10n that the m1nutes
of the March 11, 19B1 meet1ng be approved and s1gned. Motion carried,
Hearing on an application by Super V~lu Stores Inc. and the Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac1fLc Railroad Company to vacate parts of
Washington Avenue, H1lwaukee Street, Second Street, Jefferso, Avenue
and the abandoned M1nneapo11s, St. Paul Suburban Ra1lway Company,
continued from the February 24, 1981 mectlng,
Hr. Lowell Janke of Super Valu revlewed the request wIth the CO~~lSS1on
and stated thcit they have been work1ng w1th Mlllwork and General Resources
in re98rd to possible relocation. H~ also stated that the landf111 51te
is not feas1ble for their garage facility.
Hr. Deaver representing Millwork Inc. stated that they were not aga1nst
the vacating of Second Street South Sr Jefferson South, but that they were
opposed to the vacating of Washington Avenue and Milwaukee Street.
Mr. Bruce Lieberman represent1ng General Resources, East End Bottle Shop,
Gertzens Restaurant, Dairy Queen, Surge Water Condition1ng, S~ur Serv1ce
Station and V1king Identif1cation Products. He staLed that all of these
businesses were concerned over the poss1ble vacat10n of rl1]wiin!<:",e <.>:-:1
Washington, They had noted a decrease 1n the1r buslness wlth the co~-
struction of County Road 18. Mr. Lleberman also presented to the CnFom~SS10n
a petition slgned by residents, bus1ness places and patrons agalnst ti,e ~.
vacation of these streets.
Hs. Reinehr moved and Hr. McDonald seconded a motion recommending to the
Council approval of the proposed vacation, Ms, Reinehr, Mr. UcDonald and
Hr. Hiller voting yea; Mr. Folk, Hr. Loberg and Hr. Hilbert voting nay.
Motion defeated.
Hearing on an application by 601 Investment Company to consider vacating
V<1U1 Buren Avenue North frolll Excelsior Avenue to the Chicago, Mil-"aUJl"e,
St. Paul & Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
Being that no one was present in regard to this request, Mr. McDOnald moved
and Hr. Folk seconded a motion to deny the request. l~. Hilbert, Mr. Folk
and Hr. McDonald voting yea: Hr. Loberg, Ms. Reinehr and Hr. Miller v ting
nay. MoHoll defeated.
Hr. Loberg moved and Ms. Reinehr seconded a motion to continue this case
to the April 28, 1981 meeting. Motion carried.
Hearing on an application by Hr. Briggs for a Conditional Use Permit f r a
Planned Unit Development to construct an office-warehouse on Lot 1, Block 1,
Napeo Industrial Park also known as 1615 5th Street South.
Hr. Reinertson, architect, and Hr. Briggs, owner, presented plans to the
COII1!Ilission.
Mr. Hilbert moved and Mr. Folk seconded a JnOtion to reconnend to the C uncil
approval of the C nditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Develo~nt f r
the construction of an office-warehouse at 1615 5th Street South. Motion
carried.
~
.
(
Zoning a~d Plann1ng Comm1SS1on m1nutes of March 31, 1901, continued.
M--
Case No'
81-07
Act1on:
Case No:
81-08
Action:
Item:
Action:
ATTEST:
lIear1ng on an appl1cat1on by Mr. Brlggs for a varlance to reduce the slde
yard setback requ1rement of 20 feet to 10 feet for construct1on of an offlce
warehouse at 1615 5th Street South.
Mr. Briggs stated that the reason for the variance 1S due to poor soil
conditions 1n the mlddle of the lot.
Mr. Loberg moved and Ms. Reinehr seconded a mot1on rccommend1~g to the
Councll approval ot the varlance due to the poor sOlI condltions ~n the
m1ddle of the lot. Motion carrled.
lIearlng on an appl1catlon by lIansord Agency for a Cond1t1onal Use Permlt
for parklng and storage at 21 8th Avenue North in conJunction wlth the
auto sales operatlon at 7th & Excelslor Avenue.
Mr. Gordon Nelson, Manager of Hopkins Honea and MI. Davld Carl~on, real
estate agent, presented the propo~al to t~e commlSSlon for the 15 feer.
of rallroad right-of-way and the Dr. Stahr property for storage of new
cars and customer cars.
Mr. Roger Kopp of 18 7th Avenue North wanted to see complete pla"ls for the
project and stated that he had some problem wlth trespass1ng on hlS property.
Mr. Thomas Quinn of 19 8th Avenue North st~ted that he would like some
type of fencing so he would not be looking at these cars.
Mr. McDonald moved and Mr. Loberg ~econded a motlon recommending to the
Council granting of the Cond~tional Use Permlt to L~prove the property at
21 8th Avenue ~orth to be used for addltlonal parklng and storage in con-
Junction with the auto sales operatlon on the corner of 7th & Excelsior
Avenue known as Rudy Luthers Hopkins Motors Inc., lncluain~ landscaping and
fencing on 8th Avenue as dra.r.l en the survey with a SlX foot wro1.ght lron
fence set back six feet and landscaped with shnws, six foot op~n cyclone
fence on the north property line, and six foot cyclone fence with slats on
the south property line, curb cut at the northerly 15 feet of the property,
and drainage to be approved by the Clty Engineer. Motion carrled.
Special Planning Meeting wlth Mr. Hawks scheduled for April 22, 1981, at
7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Downtown Committee and the City
Council invited to attend.
Hr. Folk moved and Ms. Reinehr seconded a motion that the meeting be
adjourned. Hotion carried.
MEMBERS:
Robert Hiller, Chairman