Loading...
BLDG STNRD 07.74BUILDING STANDARDS -DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 18, 1974 - Pg. 4 3. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCTA NEW BUILDING TO BE USED AS AN APARTMENT LOCATED ON LOT 13, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89; THE SAME BEING 1250 NORTON AVENUE NORTHEAST, FRIDLEY,-PIINNESOTA. (REQUE; BY MR. KUTZIK, 209 NORTH SNELLING AVENUE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.) 4. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW BUILDING TO BE USED AS AN APARTMENT LOCATED ON LOT 13, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO.. 89; THE SAME BEING 1280 NORTON AVENUE NORTHEAST, FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST. BY MR. KUTZIK, 209 NORTH SENLLING AVENUE, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA.) Mr. Weber and Mr. Brangstrom (architect) were present for the requests. Mr. Brangstrom said they will be constructing 2 complexes, 2 stories with 18 units each. The exterior will be constructed of brick and cedar. The cedar will be used around the windows and for the balconys. At present they do not plan any garages. The Board asked what would be located in the storage building in the parking lot. Mr. Brangstrom said lawn equipment, dumpsters, etc. They plan on having a central garbage pickup inside the building and then transfer it to this area for pickup by a garbage service. Mr. Tonco asked what type of shingles would be used. Mr. Brangstrom said perhaps a slate -type, depending on the dollars available. Mr. Weber explained they do not know how many investors will be going in on this building so they do not have final plans or dollars available at the present time. Mr. Tonco asked about the construction of the party walls and was partic- ularly interested in the wall where the joint plumbing would be located. He felt noise would be carried back and forth between apartments. Mr. Brangstrom said this construction was not finaled yet. Mr. Boardman said this Board had no jurisdiction over the inner construction, but that City staff would make sure it met code. Mr. Lindblad asked if there would be parking facilities for recreations equipment. Mr. Weber said no, as this created an area of added expense and vandalism. Mr. Lindblad asked Mr. Boardman about the changes in red in regards to the parking lot. Air. Boardman said they had 9' x 20' parking stalls and in order to get the 36 stalls per complex needed at 10' x 20' he relocated the one entrance and parking stalls as needed. Otherwise all setbacks, poured concrete curbing, 6" x 18" around the blacktop, driveway widths of 25' and 10' radius was followed. Mr. Lindblad suggested perhaps they could work with Medtronics on sharing parking (for recreational vehicles and guest parking) if needed. BUILDING STANDARDS -DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 18, 1974 - Pg. S Mr. Tonco asked about the floor construction of the balconys. Mr. Brangstrom said they are cedar with an open floor. Mr. Tonco was concerned that debris from the top balcony would filter down to the one below and also a lady's privacy could possibly be hindered. Mr. Brangstrom said the reason for the open floor is to allow for proper drainage. He said in order to construct a closed floor which will allow proper drainage, it would have to be built on the order of a roof plus a surface placed on top that is good looking and easy to walk on. He said this gets to be quite expensive and did agree that a closed fluor would be better. Mr. Lindblad felt due to the reasons sited by Mr. Tonco they should look into the feasibility of a closed floor versus an open floor. Mrs. Cariolano asked about the green area between the two buildings designated on the plans as "play area". Both Mr. Brangstrom and Mr. Weber said this area is undecided, due to money. Mr. Weber said it would be a good area for a swimming pool, but this was just an idea. Mr. Brangstrom said it should be more accurately referred to as a landscaped area. Mr. Boardman said he would like to see some barbecue facilities in this area. Mr. Lindbald asked about the landscaping plan on the plans. Mr. Boardman said he had shown some ideas as to what the City would like to see. The Board said a plan showing landscaping should be brought in for staff approval. Mr. Lindblad asked if a fence would be placed between their land and Medtronics' parking lot. Mr. Brangstrom wanted to know if there is an ordinace stating one would be needed here. Mr. Boardman said no, but perhaps they could work with Medtronics to plan some extensive landscaping on this 10 foot strip (each owner has 5 feet of green). He said Medtronics has already been required to landscape this area. Mr. Lindblad asked if the wood on the balconys would be painted. Mr. Brangstrom said no, they would be kept natural cedar looking. Mr. Boardman said the drainage plan should be worked out with the Engineering Department. Mrs. Cariolano asked about lighting. Mr. Weber said there will be lighting by the entrances. Mr. Lindblad said there should be lighting on all sides and a plan should be brought in for Council approval. Mr. Boardman asked what type of time table they would be working with, especially when would they know how money would be available. Mr. Weber said he was not sure at this time but felt it would not create a problem. MOTION by Simoneau, seconded by Cariolano to recommend to Council approval of the two buildings with the following stipulations: BUILDING STANDARDS DESIGN CONTROL SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 18, 1974 - PR. 6 1. Use parking lot layout as changed by,staff to allow for 10' x 20' stalls, 36 stalls per building. 2. 25' driveway widths. 3. 10' radius at entrances. 4. Look into the possibility of joint parking with Medtronics for guest parking facilities. S. Look into the feasibility of close floor vs. open floor for the balcony floors. 6. Landscape plan brought in for staff approval. 7. Look into feasibility of working with Medtronics on land- scaping the 10' area between the parking lots. 8. Work out drainage plan with Engineering Department. 9. Bring in security light, -plan for Council approval. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW BUILDINGS TO BE USED AS SPECULATIVE WAREHOUSES LOCATED ON BLOCK 10, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 78; THE SA%1E BEING 5951 AND 6051 FAST RIVER ROAD FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA. (REQUEST BY R.W. MURRAY COMPANY OF ILLINOIS I Mr. Hank Tigue was present for the request. Mr. Tigue and Mr. Boardman explained that some problems have come up with this site. They had met with Anoka County Highway Department that afternoon and learned that they.(Anoka County) would be taking an additional 22 feet for street improvement right-of-way. This will affect their layout somewhat. Mr. Boardman said they will be losing the area designated for screening the buildings from East River Road. This is of particular concern for this Board. He also said they are going to the Board of Appeals for a lot coverage variance, loading facilities in front variance and 5' to 0' setback for parking variance. Air. Tigue said the layout concept would remain the same, they only would reduce it to the new lot size, after all right-of-way has been decided on. He explained that his company builds these buildings for inventory warehousing only, and that he cannot know how many customers would be using it. This is one reason for so many loading docks, to help rent the building. Mr. Tigue said his company will rent the land from Burlington Northern and rent out the building space. They never sell, so they are very interested in a good appearance. Mr. Simoneau felt they should go through all the legal hassel with Board of Appeals, Burlington Northern and Anoka County before coming to this Board. Mr. Boardman said it would have been done that way had they known of the 22' easement.