Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 08-22 CCM Regular Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 22, 1977 CITY HALL Call to Order The Brooklyn Center City Council met in regular session and was called to order by Mayor Philip Cohen at 7:30 p.m. Fignar, Roll Call Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, K uefler, g nar , and Lhotka. Also present were Acting City Manager James Merila, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Director of Finance Paul Holmlund, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere, and Administrative Assistants Brad Hoffman, Mary Harty, and Ronald Warren. Invocation An invocation was offered by Councilman Britts. City Council Meeting Mayor Cohen, referring to a memorandum that he had Schedule distributed to members of the.City Council, reported that Loren Law would like to hold a special meeting with the City Council for approximately two hours in order that he might give a verbal update on the city manager applications and the selection process he is going through, and also to conduct a work- shop with members of the City Council on the procedures and process for interviewing and select - ing a new city manager. The Mayor further reported that Mr. Law has suggested either Thursday, September 1; Tuesday, September 6; or Wednesday, September 7 as possible dates for the special meeting. A brief-discussion ensued relative to the suggested meeting dates with it being the consensus of the City Council to establish Wednesday, September 7, 1977, at 7:30 p.m., as a special meeting to receive an update and conduct a workshop with Mr. Loren Law.. The Acting City Manager reported that Councilman Britts would be unable to attend the special City Council budget meeting scheduled for September 14 and inquired of the City Council if it might be as convenient to hold the special budget meeting on Thursday, September 15. Upon polling the Council it was the consensus to hold the special budget meeting on September 15, 1977 at 7:30 p.m., instead of September 14, 1977. Approval of Minutes Motion by Councilman Lhotka and seconded by 8/8/77 Councilman Fignar to approve the minutes of the August 8, 1977 City Council meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Performance Bond Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Reduction Councilman Lhotka to authorize reduction of a (Benson -Orth for site performance bond posted by Benson -Orth for Hiawatha Rubber Co.) site improvements for the Hiawatha Rubber Company, 1700 - 67th Avenue North, from $30,000 to $5,000 f completed obli obligations. voting on the basis o g g in -Z- 8- 22 - -77 favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Performance Bond Councilman Kuefler to authorize reduction of Reduction a site performance bond posted by Dr. Robert (Dr. Robert Schell) Schell for site improvements for the dental clinic at 412 - 66th Avenue North from $7,500 to $3,000 on the basis of completed obligations. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Subdivision Bond Councilman Lhotka to authorize release of a Release $250 subdivision financial guarantee for the (Johnson- Brandvold Johnson- Brandvold Addition located on Camden Addition) Avenue North southerly of 58th Avenue North on the basis that guaranteed obligations have been satisfied. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, . Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Subdivision Bond Councilman Lhotka to authorize release of a Release $750 subdivision financial guarantee for the (Brand -Col Addition) Brand -Col Addition located on Colfax Avenue North between 53rd and 54th Avenues North on the basis that guaranteed obligations have been satisfied. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Final Plat Approval Councilman Britts to approve the final registered land survey for the property at the southeast quadrant of Summit Drive North and Earle Brown Drive as comprehended by Planning Commission Application No. 77027. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar,.and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following RESOLUTION resolution and moved its adoption: NO. 77 -159 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1977 The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Maurice Britts, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 8 -22 -77 -2- RESOLUTION Member Gene Lhotka introduced the following NO. 77 - 160 resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION PLACING ON FILE AND OPENING PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Metropolitan System The Acting City Manager introduced the next item Statement of business on the agenda, that of a resolution recommended for the purpose of officially appealing segments of the Metropolitan System Statement relative to the housing section and functional street classification map as requested by the City Council at the August 8, 1977 meeting. He explained that the Metropolitan Council could agree to change the wording in the Statement as requested by the resolution and the matter would end there. He further explained that if the Metropolitan Council does not agree, the City would then take advantage of the reconciliation process and a public hearing on the matter would be held. He next reviewed a lengthy letter which was to be forwarded to Mr. John Boland, Chairman of the Metropolitan Council, along with the recommended resolution. He explained that the letter contained recommended wording for the proposed changes. RESOLUTION Member Maurice Britts introduced the following NO. 77 -•161 resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION CONTESTING PORTIONS OF THE JUNE 23,1977 METROPOLITAN SYSTEM STATEMENT AND INITIATING RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES ESTABLISHED BY THE 1976 METROPOLITAN LAND PLANNING ACT The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar,and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Planning Commission The Acting City Manager introduced the next item Application No. 77039 of business, that of Planning Commission Application (Nancy Shanahan) No. 77039 submitted by Nancy Shanahan, 5219 - 62nd Avenue North. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded 4 with a review of Planning Commission Application No. 77039 and the Planning Commission action at its August 11, 1977 meeting. He stated that the applicant was seeking permission to- conduct a special home occupation at� 5219 62nd Avenue North consisting of a one operator beauty shop. -3- 8 -22 -77 He explained that the premises had been inspected by the building official as to compliance with pertinent codes. He reported that during the Planning Commission review there was a discussion relating to the hours of operation of Mrs. Shanahan's proposed home occupation and that she had estimated that the maximum number of hours would be approximately 25 hours per week, and that she did not plan to have any evening hours. He also reported that a public hearing was held during the Planning Commission's consider- ation of the application, and that a Mr. Webster had raised questions regarding potential parking problems relating to the home occupation. The Director of Planning and'Inspection stated that there was adequate off - street parking available and that assurances had been made that customers would be informed of the need to park off the street. The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed a transparency showing the location of the property and various slides depicting the area pointing out the driveway which would be used for off- street parking. A brief discussion ensued relative to the application with the Director of Planning and Inspection respond- ing to an inquiry by Councilman Fignar by stating that the best way to avoid parking problems is for the operator to strictly enforce the appointments only policy. Mayor Cohen recognized the applicant, Nancy Shanahan, who stated that she had nothing further to add to the application. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting for purposes of a Public Hearing public hearing. No one spoke relating to the application. Following a brief discussion there was a motion Action Approving by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Planning Commission Fignar to approve Planning Commission Application Application No. 77039 No. 77039 submitted by Nancy Shanahan, 5219 - (Nancy Shanahan) 62nd Avenue North, subject to the following cond- itions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is not transferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. A copy of the current State operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 4. Maximum hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 P.M. 8 -22 -77 -4- 5. All parking related to the special use shall be off - street parking on appropriate space provided by the applicant. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission The Acting City Manager introduced the next item of Application No. 77036 business, that of Planning Commission Application (Burger King Corp.) No. 77036 submitted by Burger King Corporation. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with a review of Planning Commission Application No. 77036 and the Planning Commission action at its August 11, 1977 meeting. He stated that the applicant is seeking approval of building plans and also certain site plan revisions relating to a small addition on the north side of the building including a canopy which would allow automobile service. He further stated that the proposed operation is similar to the auto banking facilities using remote tellers but would be for the purpose of calling in orders at one station and then driving to another station to pick up the order. He explained that there would be substantial revision of existing curbing to the rear of the building and the provision for landscaping and new curb and gutter, including delineation of the drive- through pickup lane. He next reviewed a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property in question and various slides depicting the site and the proposed location of the addition. He then reviewed the site and building plans with members of the City Council and a brief discussion ensued relative to the possibility of a "stacking" of cars waiting to make orders and to pick up food. Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. Jim Hayes, representing Burger King Corporation, who stated that Burger King has similar operations in a number of their establishments in the area. He further stated that they have been able to adequately handle the drive - through food orders and pickups and that they anticipate no problems at the Brooklyn Center site. Action Approving Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Planning Commission Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Application No. 77036 Britts to approve Planning Commission Application (Burger King Corp.) No. 77036 submitted by Burger King Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes. 2. Grading, drainage, and curbing plans are subject to review by the City Engineer. -5- 8 -22 -77 3 A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which shall be subject to the requirements of the sign ordinance. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager introduced the next Planning Commission item of business, that of Planning Commission Application Nos. Application Nos. 76062 and 76066.submitted by 76062 and 76066 Federal .Lumber Company. (Federal Lumber Co.) The Director of Planning and Inspection pro- ceeded with a review of Planning Commission Application Nos. 76062 and 76066 and the Planning Commission action at its August 11, 1977 meeting. He stated that this item consists of amendments to the two applications. He explained that the City Council on December 20, 1976 had approved the two applications which comprehended a structural addition to an existing building and special use permit for off -site accessory parking. He reported that one of the conditions of those approvals was that the applicant would enter into an agreement with the City acknowledging the responsibility of the owner to provide for adequate off - street parking as stipulated by the zoning ordinance. He explained that the approved off -site accessory parking was for property owned by the Cook Paint Company which is located adjacent to the Federal Lumber Company property. Hr further explained that the applicant did provide an agreement and the building addition has been completed; however, as an alternative to the installation of parking spaces on the private property, the applicant reached an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn /DOT) for use of State owned land across Lilac Drive from Federal Lumber. He stated that the request now before the City Council was for approval of a parking plan which comprehends the installation of approximately 40 parking stalls, including paving, curb and gutter, and landscaping on the Mn /DOT property. He further stated that it is recommended that the amended approval also require revision of the agreement between the City and Federal Lumber Company to clarify the present situation and acknowledge the use of public owned land for off -site parking purposes rather than the use of the private land previously comprehended. 8 -22 -77 -6- The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed a transparency showing the location and configur ation of the property in question and various slides depicting the site and showing the proposed location of the parking area. He also reviewed site plans with members of the City Council and a discussion ensued relative to the application. Councilman Kuefler inquired about the possibility of a backup plan if Mn /DOT decides to upgrade Highway 100 and install an interchange which might affect the parking lot area. The Director of Planning and 'Inspection responded that a written agreement between the City and Federal Lumber Company calls for Federal Lumber to provide adequate parking somewhere else on the site if off- street parking cannot be provided. The Acting City Manager pointed out that the applicant is aware of the parking problem and is also aware that parking must be provided on the site if no off - site parking is available. He added that the applicant feels that it is better at this time to use the Mn /DOT property for off -site parking rather than provide the parking somewhere else. Councilman Kuefler, referring to the site plan, pointed out that it looked like some trees might have to be removed to provide the parking area. He inquired if the applicant intended to attempt to save as many trees as possible, or possibly an replace trees that ht be lost due to the P Y might parking lot construction. Mayor Cohen recognized the applicant, Mr. Rosenbaum, who responded to Councilman Kuefler by stating that Federal Lumber wants to maintain as many existing trees as possible and that if any trees must be removed they plan to replace them. He added that they will be providing 40 off - street parking spaces which exceeds the requirement for off -site parking and that they may well block off areas in an attempt to preserve existing trees. Mr. Rosenbaum then stated that he had nothing further to add to the application. Action Approving Following a brief discussion there was a motion Amendment to Planning by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Commission Application Kuefler to approve the amendments to Planning Nos. 76062 and 76066 Commission Application Nos. 76062 and 76066 (Federal Lumber Co.) submitted by Federal Lumber Company subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading and drainage plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. The approved site improvements shall be comprehended under the performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee executed by the applicant on December 28, 1976 under Application No. 76062. -7- 8 -22 -77 3. The parking provisions agreement entered into by the applicant on December 27, 1976 and by the City on January 24, 1977 shall be appropriately amended to reflect the authorized use of public owned land as an alternative to the pre - viously approved use of private property owned by Cook Paint Company. 4. A rolled bituminous curb, as approved by the City Engineer, shall be provided along Lilac Drive to inhibit parking on the 15 foot boulevard greenstrip adjacent to the approved parking lot. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. In consideration of persons in attendance the Acting City Manager recommended that the Council next consider Planning Commission Application Nos.. 77033, 77034, and 77035, submitted by Richard Rockstad. The Director of Planning and Inspection Planning Commission proceeded with a review of Planning Commission Application No. 77033 Application No. 77033 submitted by Richard (Richard Rockstad) Rockstad and the Planning Commission action at its August 11, 1977 meeting. He stated that the applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval for the property consisting of approx imately .7 acres located at the northeast corner of 70th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that the proposed plat presented a consolidation of two unplatted parcels and the dedication of the north 30 feet of 70th Avenue North as it abutted the property. He pointed out that Application Nos. 77034 and 77035 also relate to this property but recommended that the Council give consideration to this application prior to proceeding with a review of the other two applications. The Director of Planning and Inspection then reviewed the preliminary plat with members of the City Council and a.brief discussion ensued relative to the application. Following a brief discussion there was a motion Action Approving by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Planning Commission Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application No.77033 Application No. 77033 submitted by Richard (Richard Rockstad) Rockstad subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the require - ments of Chapter 15 of the City ordinances. 8 -22 -77 -8- �I . i Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against :none The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded Application Nos. 77034 with a review of Planning Commission Application and 77035(Richard Nos. 77034 and 77035 submitted by Richard Rockstad Rockstad) and the Planning Commission action at its August 11,1977 meeting. He stated that Application No. 77034 consists of a request for a variance from Section 35 -411 (4) which provides that, in the C -1 district, no parking shall be permitted within 35 feet of any major thoroughfare right -of -way and the 35 foot area shall be• maintained as a greenstrip. He stated that this greenstrip requirement was also reflected in Section 35 -700 of the ordinance and the applicant proposes to use a portion of the 35 foot greenstrip for short term visitor parking for a proposed office building. He further stated that Application No. 77035 was a request for a special use permit for a service/ office use on the same property which is zoned R -5. He explained that the City Council recently amended the ordinance to permit certain service/ office uses in the R -5 zoning district, and the ordinance requires that such service /office uses shall be subject to C -1 zoning district require - ments. He stated that the specific variance would ° be for 15 feet since a 20 foot greenstrip is indicated on the site and building plans. He added that the applicant proposed six parallel parking spaces in front of the building intended for short term customer or visitor parking. He pointed out that the plans indicate adequate parking was provided to the rear of the building and, therefore, the variance related parking was not essential to comply with the ordinance parking standards. The Director of Planning and Inspection then proceeded with a review of Application No. 77035 which consists of a request for special use site and building plan approval for the approximate 2,700 square foot office building. He explained that the applicant had presented two site plans to the Planning Commission, one of which comprehended approval of the variance as requested under Application No. 77034 showing parking in front of the building which encroached into the-35 foot greenstrip. He also explained that the applicant proposes a garage on the east side of the property which would provide screening from the adjacent R -1 land, and which would provide an enclosed stall for trash disposal facilities, as well as real estate sign storage. He added that the ordinance also requires a six foot opaque wall or fence, or a Council- approved substitute, for screening open parking from adjacent residential land. -9- 8- -22 -77 The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the Planning Commission had held a public hearing on Application Nos. 77034 and 77035 and had recognized the residents of 7015 Kyle Avenue North and 7014 Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that one of the residents did not agree with the concept of permitting office buildings in the R -5 zoning district had stated that the proposed building appeared to be too large for the site and objected to the proposed parking in front of the building. He added that the other resident, who had recently moved into his home, objected to the proposed use and to the variance request and had stated his concern about potential effects the commercial development might have on the residential uses in the area. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of Application No. 77034 (the variance request) on the basis that the application did not meet the ordinance standards for granting a variance, particularly with respect to uniqueness and hardship and also on the basis that granting the variance would establish an undesirable precedent with respect to the remaining developable C -1 and R -5 land similarly situated. He further reported that the Planning Commission had recommended approval of Application No. 77035 which consisted of an alternate site plan which conformed with the ordinance greenstrip requirements. He pointed out that the applicant, at the Planning Commission meeting, had stated that he was not proposing the "alternate" site plan which conformed with the ordinance greenstrip requirements. He explained that the proposed plan presumed a variance allowing parking in front of the building and that it was Mr. Rockstad's intent to only build according to a plan which permitted the temporary parking. Councilman Fignar inquired as to when the require - ment for the 35 foot greenstrip in the C -1 zone was instituted. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that the 35 foot greenstrip has been a requirement in the C -1 zone at least as far back as 1968 when the City's current Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance were adopted. He added that the 35 foot greenstrip could well have been a requirement prior to 1968 but that he was not certain of this fact. Mayor Cohen commented that he thought some variances from this 35 foot greenstrip requirement were granted along Brooklyn Boulevard in the past due to the widening °of the then Osseo Road. He stated that it might be beneficial to further research this matter to see if there were indeed variances granted and the reasons for their granting. 8 -22 -77 -10- The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property in question pointing out the proposed street dedication for widening 70th Avenue North; the neighboring property to the south which was affected by highway taking and which has no greenstrip; the properties to the north with an approximate 50 foot setback; and the R -1 property to the east. He also reviewed slides depicting the area and a brief discussion ensued. Councilman Kuefler inquired if the parking proposed for the rear of the building is sufficient accord - ing to ordinance requirements. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that it was. Councilman Kuefler further inquired if the building could be shifted further back on the property to thus allow parking in front of the building which would not affect the setback and greenstrip require- ments. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that the building could be shifted back further on the property to allow parking in front of the building but-pointed out that this would only be a matter of shifting some of the parking spaces proposed for the rear'of the property to the front of the property, and would not really accomplish what the applicant is proposing which is to have approximately 6 additional parking spaces in.the front of the building for the con - venience of their customers. Recess The Brooklyn Center City Council recessed at 9:02 p.m. and resumed at 9:28 p.m. Planning Commission In response to a Council inquiry the Director of Application Nos. Planning and Inspection explained that the 77034 and 77035 ordinance requires a 35 foot greenstrip only in continued the C-1 and C -lA zoning districts, while it only specifies a minimum 15 foot greenstrip in the other zoning districts such as the R -5 district. He stated that a recent ordinance amendment permits C -1 uses in the R -5 district by special use permit but that the ordinance specifies that any service/ office use must conform with the C -1 district requirements which include the requirement for a 35 foot greenstrip. Councilman Britts inquired if there still would be a curbcut onto Brooklyn Boulevard in front of the applicant's proposed building if the variance request is denied. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that if the variance request was denied there would be no curbcut onto Brooklyn Boulevard. Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. Richard Larson, architect for the applicant Mr. Richard Rockstad. Mr. Larson stated that the variance is being requested because they feel the proposed office building (real estate) is somewhat unique in terms of its use. He ex- plained that during the majority of the time the building is open, employees of the real estate company would not be there at the same time except for occasional staff meetings. He further explained -11- j 8 -22 -77 that it is their proposal that the short term- visitor parking be for customers with appoint- ments or who are coming to the office for closings, etc. He pointed out that real estate salesmen work primarily on weekends, in the afternoons, and in the evenings, and not during what is considered normal business hours, and that the short term parking would be available to accommodate their customers or clients. He further stated that the ordinance requires a 50 foot setback and also a 35 foot greenstrip in this particular instance and that in effect there is approximately 15 feet of unused area. Their request is that they be given a variance to provide customer parking in front of the building and, thus, provide only a 20 foot greenstrip rather than the 35 foot greenstrip. He noted that there are other businesses along Brooklyn Boulevard that do not have a 35 foot greenstrip. Mr. Larson then explained that they feel the short term parking is essential to their business and that if the City Council does not grant the variance, they do not wish to submit the alternate plan recommended by the Planning Commission, but would rather have to review the matter further. He reiterated that the proposed parking in front of the building would not be used for long term parking and also would not be used a great deal of the time. He added that without this short term customer parking it is possible that at certain times, such as during a staff meeting when the parking lot in back would be full, the customers would have to find other parking and perhaps would have to do so in residential areas. Councilman Fignar inquired of Mr. Larson if it would be feasible to route traffic so that it would not have to go onto Brooklyn Boulevard if the variance request was approved. Mr. Larson responded that he doubted if this could be done, indicating that to do so would mean cutting into the proposed building. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Lhotka, Mr. Larson stated that the parking in the rear of the proposed building would be used primarily by salesmen who would generally utilize the office building in the afternoons, evenings, and weekends. Mayor Cohen inquired as to how much of the building would be used for administrative purposes. Mr. Larson responded that the whole second floor in addition to some portions of the first floor would be used for administrative purposes. He added that approximately 1,600 square feet is proposed to be available for office rental purposes. Mayor Cohen opened the meeting for purposes of a Public Hearing public hearing regarding Application Nos. 77034 (variance) and 77035 (special use permit) and recognized Mr. James Skiff, 7014 Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Skiff noted the requirement that parking areas in C -1 districts must be screened. He pointed out that the proposed screening, as indicated by the plans, does not completely screen the parking 8 -22 -77 -12- lot from view from his property. He stated that he would like to see more screening of the parking lot area so that it cannot be seen from his property. Regarding the variance, Mr. Skiff stated that it is proposed that there be a curbcut for traffic using the temporary short term parking that would be available at the front of the office building to go out onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed out that this curbcut would funnel traffic right by his driveway which he did not favor. Councilman Fignar requested clarification of the screening problem from Mr. Skiff. Mr. Skiff stated that the plans indicate that the parking lot would not be entirely screened from his property and that more screening, should be required. He added that there is also a door proposed on the north side of the building which may well generate pedestrian traffic and that there might be merit in requiring screening for the entire building. Mayor Cohen then recognized Marcella Hagen, 7015 Kyle Avenue North. 'Mrs. Hagen stated that during the previous Planning Commission and City Council review of Mr. Rockstad's proposal, that Mr. Rockstad had indicated that the office building would generate very little traffic in the evenings or on weekends. She pointed out that Mr. Larson now seems to indicate that the majority of the traffic utilizing the office building will be in the evenings and on weekends. She questioned what the case would be. Mr. Larson clarified that he did not say there would be a lot of traffic but only that the times salesmen would be using the building was in the afternoons, evenings, and on weekends when real estate traffic is more common. He added that a real estate office does not generate a great density of traffic. He pointed out that Mr. Rockstad may have inferred that there would be less traffic at this office building than there would be if an R -5 type of apartment was developed on the site but that he was not present when Mr. Rockstad made the statement. He stated that he felt there would be much less traffic generated by the real estate office building than there would be if an apartment building were developed. Councilman Fignar stated that he agreed with Mrs. Hagen's comment relating to the applicant indicating that there would be less traffic in the evenings and on weekends. Mrs. Hagen also stated that she favored screening of the entire office building from the properties to the north and east. Close Public Hearing Following further discussion there was a motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Lhotka to close the public hearing on Application Nos. 77034 (variance) and 77035 (special use permit). Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against none. The motion passed unanimously. -13- 8 -22 -77 i Mayor Cohen commented that some questions have been raised regarding possible setback or green- , strip variances that might have been granted due to highway taking on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that he felt there was a need for further research to determine if there were any such variances granted. If so, what was the rationale for granting them, and whether or not the circumstances surrounding the granting of the variances are similar to those in this application. He noted that the Planning Commission had determined that there was not sufficient reason, based on what the applicant presented, to recommend the granting of a variance with regards to Application No. 77034 and that the Commission feels a variance from the ordinance requirement would not be the proper way to handle the problem but rather, if there is just - itication, possibly amend the ordinance so that all similar cases could be addressed in the same manner. He questioned whether there were justifications for an ordinance amendment such as the fact that only a 15 foot greenstrip is required in the R -5 district while a 35 foot greenstrip is required in the C -1 district and that the City Council, through an ordinance amendment, has determined the R -5 and C -1 uses to be compatible by allowing C -1 uses in the R -5 district by special use permit. The City Attorney commented that if a City Council continues to grant variances where there is no real hardship and a particular property is not unique in that hardship (criteria for permitting a variance) the Council has in effect changed the zoning ordinance by not main- taining standards for a variance. He recommended that it would be better to seek further review of the matter to determine if there are justifications for modifying the ordinance rather than permitting a variance when the standards are not clearly met. He added that if in the past highway taking was used as grounds for granting variances similar in nature to the variance in question, it might then be grounds for granting a variance in this instance. He pointed out that Further research of this possibility would be needed before a determination could be made. Mayor Cohen inquired if it would be legal to have different greenstrip requirements such as the 15 foot requirement in the R -5 district and a 35 foot requirement in the C -1 district, although these districts have been determined to be compatible and the uses permitted by special use permit. The City Attorney responded that he felt that different setbacks could be required stating that he felt the density of a particular piece of property is not necessarily related to setbacks. Councilman Lhotka inquired if highway taking would be _a unique situation which would permit the granting of a variance. The City Attorney - responded that highway taking would be unique only to those parcels already platted at the time of taking which would be too small for further development. He added that in such an instance there would then be a hardship to the property owner.,._.: 8-22-77, -14- Councilman Kuefler stated that he agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the variance request in Application No. 77034. He further stated that based on the information present relating to this application he did not feel that the Council should act on the variance request. He pointed out that he understands the applicant's point about other building setbacks along Brooklyn Boulevard that are less than that required by the zoning ordinance, particularly the buildings just south of 70th Avenue on Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that this situation is not really what the Council sees as being a desirable standard but could perhaps be alleviated if there is any re- development of the area. He concluded by stating that he felt there was reason for further review to determine if other variances were granted similar to the applicant's request or if there were justifications to amend the zoning ordinance. Mayor Cohen suggested that the Acting City Manager and City Attorney further research the matter to see if highway taking might be grounds for a variance and if there is possible justification for an ordinance amendment, with this info rmation being presented to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. Councilman Kuefler inquired if it would be appro- priate to approve the special use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission in their recommendation to approve Application No. 77035 and to defer the variance request in Application No. 77034. Mayor Cohen stated that he felt such action would be appropriate. Councilman Britts, referring to the applicant's variance request and his proposal that there be a curbcut onto Brooklyn Boulevard, stated that he felt it would be better to have traffic enter and exit the area via 70th Avenue North rather than Brooklyn Boulevard. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out that if the Council does not approve the variance request, there would be no curbcut allowing traffic to exit onto Brooklyn Boulevard from the site. Councilman Fignar stated that he felt the Council had done the proper thing when it had determined the compatibility of the C -1 and R -5 zoning districts. He further stated though that he did not favor the variance request and at this time would vote against the variance, but that he did favor the alternate plan reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission as the plan which the special use permit should be granted for. Mayor Cohen inquired of Councilman Fignar if he would favor further Planning Commission review in terms of possible ordinance amendments to affect this situation and similar situations and to also look at the possibility of variance inconsistencies. Councilman Fignar responded that he had no object- ions to such a review. He futhere stated that he felt the Council should approve Application No. 77035 as recommended by the Planning Commission with an additional stipulation that there be further screening of the site from the properties 1 to the north. -1 c�N B -2 -77 councilman Lhotka stated that he agreed with Councilman Fignar's suggestion that there be further screening and that he also agreed that there should be further Planning Commission review but that he does not see the necessity in this application for requiring the 6 short term parking spaces. Following further discussion there was a motion Action Tabling by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Planning commission Britts to table Planning Commission Application Application No. 74`- No. 77034 for further review by the Acting City (Richard Rocksta Manager and the City Attorney regarding: 1) Any previous greenstrip variances granted for prop- erties abutting Brooklyn and whether the grounds for any such variances included taking of land by the Highway Department; 2) Possible ordinance inconsistencies among greenstrip requirements for different zoning districts; 3) Whether this information and the circumstances of this application merit amendment of ordinance greenstrip standards, with the' information to be reviewed and commented on by the Planning Commission. Following the motion and the second thereof a brief discussion ensued with Councilman Britts inquiring if it would be better to deny the variance request rather than to table it. Councilman Kuefler responded that it is conceivable, upon further review and research, that there might be grounds for granting the variance and that for this reason he felt the variance request by the applicant should be left open. He added if there are no reasons for granting the variance, the Planning Commission's recommendation could then again be considered by the City Council. Following the discussion a vote was taken on the motion Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, and T�hotka. Voting against: Councilman Fignar. The motion passed. Following further discussion there was a motion Action Approving by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Planning Commission Fignar to approve Planning Commission Application Application No. 77 No. 77035 submitted by Richard Rockstad subject (Richard Rockstad) to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by-the City Manager) shall' be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 8 -22 -77 -16- 4. The property shall be replatted- according to the requirements of the City subdivision ordinance, and said plat shall be filed prior to occupancy, 5. All rooftop mechanical equipment and out- side trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. 6. Approved parking areas and the proposed office building shall be screened from abutting residential properties on the north side with a six foot high opaque vertical board fence: 7. The,approved site plan comprehends the landscape and planting detail reflected on page 1 of the submitted plans including the treatment specified in the west yard area. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery and sculpture, The Acting City Manager stated that if the Planning Commission should recommend the granting of a variance following the review and research of the subject or if it recommends an ordinance change, further review of the plans would be required as well as plan modifications. Following the discussion a vote was taken on the motion. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission The Acting City Manager introduced the next item Application No. 77022 of business on the agenda, that of Planning (L.W. Joel Company) Commission Application No. 77022 submitted by the L. W. Joel Company. He stated that the application consists of an appeal per Section 35 -251 of the City ordinances from an administrative denial of a building permit for construction on a substandard outlot at 5325 - 63rd Avenue North. He explained that this application was considered by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1977 at which time they adopted a resolution recommending denial of the appeal. He added that the application was briefly reviewed by the City Council on June 20, 1977 and was continued until the next convenient City Council agenda because the applicant and /or his representative were not present at the meeting. He reported that the applicant is present and the matter is now before * the City Council. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with a review of Planning Commission Application No. 77022 and the Planning Commission action at its June 9, 1977 meeting. He stated that the appeal is from a ruling made by the Planning and Inspection' Department denying a March 25,1977 building permit application as submitted by Mr. Erwin Yesnes' for a single family dwelling on the property described as Outlot 1, Bergstrom's Lynside Manor Third Addition, addressed as 5325 - 63rd Avenue North. -17- 8 -22 -77 He explained that the basis of the ruling is that the survey with the building permit application indicated the property is a 45 foot wide, 6,075 square foot outlot. He further stated that the outlot was so designated at the time of the subdivision in 1958 because the parcel is sub - standard as to width and area and because there is adjacent land which may be combined with the outlot to render it buildable. He reported that the applicant's appeal contends that, not withstanding the outlot designation, the parcel is a lot of record within the meaning of Section 35 -500 of the zoning ordinance which provides that lots or parcels of legal record as of January 1, 1976 which do not meet the requirements of the ordinance as to width or area, may nevertheless be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes provided the width is not less than 40 feet at the property line; the lot area is not less than 5,000 square feet; and provided that the yard setback require- ments for single family detached dwellings ate met. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that the intent of the designation as an outlot effectively differentiates it from other sub- standard platted lots or parcels of record such as those commonly found in the southeast area of the City; and, to allow construction on such an outlot when there is available adjacent land to increase its width and area would be against the spirit and intent of>the City's subdivision and zoning ordinances. He explained that there have been several other outlots originally platted in the same subdivision which had, since 1958, been combined with adjacent unplatted land to create buildable single family residential lots. He reported that this outlot had not been combined with the adjacent unplatted corner parcel and had been forfeited for taxes in 1972. He stated that the outlot was subsequently purchased in December, 1976 by Mr. Yesnes. The Director of Planning and Inspection further reported that the applicant contends that the denial of the permit was unwarranted since the property was buildable within the context of Section 35 -500 of the City ordinances. He explained that the applicant proposed to build a three bedroom rambler on the lot which exceeds the 40 foot minimum by 5 feet and exceeds the area requirement by approximately 1,000 square feet and also that the plot plan indicated all minimum yard setback requirements would be met. He reported that the building permit denial was based on the fact that it was not the intent of the ordinance that outlots, such as the one in question which are substandard in size, are buildable lots. 8 -22 -77 -18- The Director of Planning and Inspection then summarized the reasons expressed by the applicant for filing the appeal which include the following: 1. The ordinance fails to state that an out - lot is not a lot or parcel and Section 35 500, which speaks to substandard lots and parcels of record does not exclude outlots. The applicants contends that the City's claim of intent regarding creation of outlots when the original subdivision was approved in 1958 is not relevant since the language adopted in Section 35 -500 last year effectively supersedes the earlier intent. 2. The applicant is an experienced business- man in the construction trade with the intent of making a profit and that, prior to purchasing the tax forfeit property in December, 1976, he routinely checked with the Planning and Inspection Department as to the buildability of the substandard property. The applicant claims he recalls at least one contact with the Director of Planning and Inspection, and while there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the status,of the property as an outlot, he nevertheless believed this property fell within the provisions of Section 35- 500 of the zoning ordinance. The applicant claims he was never told he could not build on the property until he received the April 7, 1977 letter from the Director of Planning and Inspection in response to the March 25, 1977 application for building permit. Based upon that belief Mr. Yesnes had expended $141 for soil tests; $60 for a Veteran's Administrative appraisal; and $100 for a site survey. 3. Regarding the reference in the April 7, 1977 letter from the City as to the inter - ests of the owner of the adjacent unplatted corner parcel, the applicant did contact the owner to discuss acquisition of the additional land. The party apparently was aware of the applicant's predicament, and the stated price for the additional land was "unreasonable and outrageous, leading the applicant to the conclusion that it would not be feasible to acquire the land since the proposed development would not be as profitable. The Director of Planning and Inspection then re- viewed Planning Commission Resolution No. 77 -6 recommending denial of Application No. 77022 submitted by the L. W. Joel Company. -19- 8 -22 -77 The Director of Planning and Inspection reviewed a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property in question and a brief discussion ensued. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Britts, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that approximately 30 feet would have to be provided to the applicant's lot to make it a buildable parcel. He added that there is adequate land adjacent to the parcel which would not cause any complications due to the location of the existing house on the other property. He also reviewed slides depicting the property and the surrounding area. Councilman Lhotka left the table at 10:50 p.m. and returned at 10:51 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the parcel in question was specifically designated as an outlot which is substandard in size for a dwelling and could become a buildable lot by combining other remnant parcels to the existing lot. He further explained that it is the applicant's contention that this outlot is a lot of record that is substandard and could be built upon under the present ordinance. He added that the building permit was not issued because it was the feeling that it was not the City Council's intention that an outlot fall under the definition of a buildable lot contained in the 1976 amendment to the zoning ordinance. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Britts, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that if the City Council deems this to be a lot as included in the 1976 ordinance amendment, there would be no need for a variance. Councilman Lhotka stated that he would assume this parcel is by its size an unbuildable lot and added whether or not the applicant could buy additional land should not be considered a hardship. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Fignar, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that there are less than a half dozen parcels similar to this that are substandard outlots. Mayor Cohen recognized Mr. George Seltz, attorney for the applicant the L. W. Joel Company and its president Mr. Erwin Yesnes.' Mr. Seltz stated that the Planning Commission minutes reviewed previously by the Director. of Planning and Inspection accurately address the legal argument that his client is putting forth. He stated that basically there are two reasons for the appeal, the first being their contention that the substandard lot in question falls within the meaning of Section 35 -500 of the City zoning ordinance. He pointed out that the City's zoning ordinance doesn't define what an outlot is and does not explicitly exclude an outlot as being a buildable lot. He added that Minnesota Statutes do not define what an outlot is either. He stated that based on these facts someone reading the City's zoning ordinance 8- 22 -77 -20 would not be given any indication to believe that the lot in question is not a legal lot and, there- fore, subject to the provisions of Section 35 -500. He pointed out that his client had inquired of the adjoining landowner about the purchase of additional property; but that the landowner's selling price of $5,000 is considered unreasonable by his client for making it profitable to acquire and build a single family home on the property. Mr. Seltz stated that the second reason for appealing the administrative denial of a building permit is that his client was led to believe that it was a build - able lot within the meaning of Section 35 -500 based upon representations made to him by the Director of Planning and Inspection. He concluded by stating that there are both legal and equitable reasons for the City Council to reverse the denial of the building permit. Councilman Lhotka inquired if at the time of the initial inquiry about the property Mr. Seltz's client had given tho address of the property. Mr. Seltz responded that he believed that the legal description of the property was known at the time of the first inquiry. Councilman Kuefler commented that Mr. Yesnes had apparently paid approximately $5,000 for the 45 foot outlot and that an additional investment of $5,000 for purchasing approximately 30 feet of property to combine with the outlot for a total of approximately $9,000 or $10,000 for the entire lot does not seem excessive in light of the costs for lots in the City. Further discussion ensued relative to the lot in question with the Acting City Manager explaining that there is water and sewer available in the street but that stubs to service this lot were not put in place because this outlot was not considered a buildable lot. The Acting City Manager also reviewed the circumstances surrounding the 1976 ordinance amendment. He stated that at that time there were a number of requests, particularly in the southeast area of the City, for building on 45 foot substandard lots. He stated that rather than address these requests by a variance, the Council had amended the ordinance. He added that there are a number of 45 foot lots in the southeast area of the City but that in the area of Unity and 63rd Avenue North all of the lots are 75 feet with the exception of the 45 foot outlots that have not been allowed to be built upon. Councilman Lhotka requested the Director of Planning and Inspection to give his recollection of what transpired in the way of conversations with Mr. Yesnes P rior to the administrative denial of the e:Director of Plannin building permit. Th Q and Q P Inspection responded he had received an inquiry regarding whether or not a lot of similar dimensions_ could be built upon. He explained that based on that question he had informed the caller that it might be possible to build on the lot given the ordinance amendment. He pointed out that he did not know the location of the lot.until he received -21- 8 -22 -77 a call later from the L. W. Joel Company at which time the address and legal description .were given. He further stated that in reviewing the request it-was brought to his attention that the subject parcel was an outlot. He explained that he had reviewed the matter with the then City Manager who stated that it was not the intent of the ordinance amendment to include outlots as part of a lot of legal record as contained in the ordinance amendment. He explained that he then informed the L. W. Joel Company of this determination and that a building permit for the outlot would not be issued. Councilman Kuefler left the table at 11:15 p.m. and returned at 11:18 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection also explained that in the same period that the application was being reviewed, an inquiry was made by a party representing the ownership of the adjacent unplatted corner parcel as to subdivision possibilities for that parcel. In response to further inquiry by Councilman Lhotka the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that he was not aware of the exact location of the property at the time he had received the first inquiry about the possibility of building on a lot of certain dimensions. He further stated that it is his department's policy not to give specific answers to hypothetical questions as was the case in this instance. He pointed out that he had only referred to ordinance language and had not given a specific answer as to the buildability of the property in question. He added that he was not aware of the exact location ' of the property until the building permit was applied for, and that following the application for the building permit the applicant was spec - ifically told of the nature of the outlot. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Close Public Hearing Councilman Fignar to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Councilman Kuefler spoke in favor of the staff's interpretation and the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the appeal contained in Application No. 77022. He stated that it was his opinion that it was not the City Council's intention to permit 45 foot lots as buildable lots in areas predominated by 75 foot lots. He further stated that in the neighborhood in question the 75 foot lot is the standard for that neigh- borhood and that to approve a 45 lot in this neighborhood would be a bad precedent and some- thing that the Council ought not to do. He added that there is available land to the west of this parcel which could be combined with the outlot to make a buildable lot and that this is primarily a matter of negotiation between the applicant and that landowner. 8- 22-77 -22- The City Attorney reported that generally it has been his recommendation that matters such as this be treated as a planning consideration and not as a legal matter when being reviewed. He pointed out that the Planning Commission recommendation for denial for this application is based on that type of consideration. He pointed out that it is his understanding that the southeast area of the City has different planning considerations than that of other areas of the City and that the ordinance in question primarily deals with that area of the City. He further stated that the case in question might be different and consideration beyond the planning aspects to the legal aspects might well be in order. He reported that it is true that the City ordinance does not contain a definition for outlots and that his research indicates there is very little case law relating to outlots. He pointed out that old time engineers tend to agree with the City's interpretation of what an outlot is, that being a piece of property deficient in size which could be combined with adjacent land to make it a standard size lot and, thus, permit construction of a single family home or land designated as outlots for some future subdivision. He further reported that the ordinance language must be looked at to see if it says what the City's intention is. He explained that it is true that there is no language in the ordinance that would significantly declare to a person reading it what the City Council's intention is regarding an outlot. He pointed out that the definition could be cleared up through an ordinance amendment but that it could not be done so as to affect the case in question. Mayor Cohen inquired if it was possible that there could be a problem with the property to the west of the property in question such as a request to subdivide making a substandard outlot and then a request to build on that outlot. The City Attorney responded that he did not feel the subdivision regulations would allow someone with 25 or 30 feet of extra property to split the lot into two sub- standard lots. In response to an inquiry by Councilman Kuefler the City Attorney stated that the Council will have to determine what the intent of the ordinance is and how it is conveyed in the language of that ordinance He added that the City Council can protect its interests through an ordinance change but that it would not affect the case in question. Mayor Cohen inquired about the public interest of those already living in the neighborhood in question who have thought all lots in that area would be 75 foot lots rather than a 45 foot lot proposed by the applicant. The City Attorney responded that this might make some difference in that the Council should be concerned about protecting the public good. Mayor Cohen recommended tabling further consideration of this application for further review and comment. -23- 8- 22--77 following further discussion there was a Action Tabling motion by Councilman Britts and seconded Planning Commission 'y Councilman Fignar to table Planning Application No. 77022 Commission Application No. 77022 submitted (L. W. Joel Company) by the L. W. Joel Company until September 12, 1977 for further review by the Acting City Manager and the City Attorney for pur- poses of a report on how to proceed with the application. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Ghotka. voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager introduced the next Planning Commission item of business on the agenda, that of Application Nos. Planning Commission Application Nos. 77023 77023 and 77030 and 77030 submitted by Cepco, Inc. (Cepco, Inc.) The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with a review of Planning Commission Application Nos. 77023 and 77030 and the Planning Commission action at its August 11, 1977 meeting. Councilman Fignar left the table at 11:38 p.m. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that Application No. 77023 consisted of a preliminary plat proposing a resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 2, Ewing Lane Addition. He explained that the property is bounded by 63rd Avenue on the north, Ewing Lane on the east, and France Avenue North on the west. He further stated that the south 160 feet of the property is zoned R -2 whereas the remainder is zoned R -4. He explained that the replatting would establish a formal lot line at the present zoning line and would also create two 80 foot wide lots within the R -2 zone. He further explained that there is a deficiency for each of the proposed R -2 lot areas caused by the zoning line which was established by the City in 1968. He stated the deficiency per lot is approximately 215 square feet for R -2 uses and this could be viewed as negligible since the lots exceed the ordinance with respect to width and depth. The Director of Planning and Inspection reported that Application No. 77030 consists of site and building plans for the construction of a 19 unit townhouse project on the R -4 property. He noted that the zoning ordinance permits R -3 density townhouses in the R -4 zone. He also stated that the applicant was seeking approval of two site plans, one of which reflects possible construction of garages. Councilman Fignar returned to the table at 11:40 p.m. 8 -22 -77 -24- The Director of Planning and Inspection next reviewed a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property and various slides depicting the area in question. He also reviewed site plans, which included plans for the garages. He pointed out that it has not been determined yet if these garages will be included in the develop - ment. He referred to screening of the parking areas from residential areas and also to the handi- cap units which will be available in the project. He pointed out that these will be rental units and will not be individually platted. Councilman Britts stated that.he realizes that a public hearing is not called for in regard to the applications in question. He added that he likes the plans that he has seen for the develop - ment bdt that he has received some calls about this property and the proposed project. He inquired if residents were informed of the proposed project and if not, would it not be beneficial to give residents living in the area, particularly along Janet Lane and Joyce Vane, a chance to comment on the proposal. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that because no public hearing was required no notices were sent. He stated that he has received no contacts or calls regarding the project but pointed out that one citizen who was • at the Planning Commission at the time this application was considered, because of another Planning Commission application, commented briefly on the project. Mayor Cohen recognized Cecilia Scott, Chairman of the Planning Commission, who stated that she had contacted all of the residents around the project particularly on Janet and Joyce Lanes before the Planning Commission meeting and that she had received no response to her contacts. Mayor Cohen recognized Ron Blake, 3812 Janet Lane, who.stated that he had no objection to the project and that the plans were better than a possible two story apartment building. He further stated that persons living in the neighborhood know that this vacant land would not remain undeveloped indefinitely and that they prefer this development over some other type of development. He added that he has not heard a lot of neighborhood objections to the project. Mayor Cohen commented that .there was an article in the March 31, 1977 edition of the Brooklyn Center Post which referred to the project and also there had been notices of the Metro Council review of the project and various press releases. He added that there has been ample opportunity for concerned individuals to see the plans and to comment on them. Action Approving Following further discussion there was a motion by Planning Commission Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman approve Planning . Application No. 77023 Kuefler to pp� g Commission Application b Ce co Inc. ub to the e c Inc.) o. 77023 submitted 7 C o Cep co, P •) following conditions: -25- 8 -22 -77 1. Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka, Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Following a brief discussion there was a motion Action Approving by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Planning Commissi Kuefler to approve Planning Commission Application Application No. 7 0 No. 77030 submitted by Cepco, Inc. subject to (Cepco, Inc.) the following conditions 1. Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes. 2. Grading, drainage, utility, and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of site improvements. 4. Adequate measures, as approved by the Planning and Inspection Department, shall be taken during the construction period to provide security screening for the purpose of inhibiting unauthorized access to the construction site. 5. All outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against:none. The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager introduced the next item Planning Commission of business, that of Planning Commission Application No. 77041 Application No. 77041 submitted by Charles (Charles Boese) Boese. The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with a review of Planning Commission Application No. 77041 and the Planning Commission action at its August 11, 1977 meeting. Mayor Cohen left the table at 12:08 a.m. 8 -22 -77 -26- The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for a proposed four unit garage at 4210 Lakebreeze Avenue North. He explained that the proposed work included an upgrading of a deteriorated parking area behind 4210 rakebreeze Avenue North, which was shared by the residents of four- plexes at 4216 Lakebreeze -and Twin Lake Avenue North. He further explained that the common parking area was apparently approved when the three dwell - ings were build by the same developer in 1960 and that a private joint parking easement was drawn between the three original owners setting forth the access rights and responsibilities for mainten- ance. He commented that the owner of each of the other dwellings, as well as the applicant, had been informed by the Housing Inspector that the parking lot must be upgraded according to the provisions of the Housing Maintenance Code. He added that the proposed work related to this application would substantially upgrade the paving surface as well as the drainage and delineation of the parking lot. He noted that the ordinance in effect at the time the buildings were built required one parking space per unit for a total of 12 spaces; whereas the present ordinance requires two spaces per unit. He stated that the applicant's plan did not propose any additional spaces. He also noted that interest had been expressed by the applicant and adjacent property owners to the east about upgrading and paving the alley. The Director of Planning and Inspection then reviewed a transparency showing the location and configuration of the property in question and various slides depicting the area. Mayor Cohen returned to the table at 12 :13 a.m. He next reviewed the site plans and a brief discussion ensued relative to the parking with the Director of Planning and Inspection explaining that the parking could be treated as deferred parking. Action Approving Following further discussion there was a motion by Planning Commission Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Lhotka Application No. 77041 to approve Planning Commission Application No (Charles Boese) 77041 submitted by Charles Boese subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes. 2. Drainage and grading plans are subject to approval by the City Engineer. -27- 8 -22 -77 I 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. All outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager introduced the next item Planning Commis n of business, that of Planning Commission Application Application No. 7724 No. 77042 submitted by Ronald Blake. (Ronald Blake) The Director of Planning and Inspection proceeded with a review of Planning Commission Application No. 77042 and the Planning Commission action at its August 11, 1977 meeting. He stated that the applicant has filed an appeal according to the provisions of the zoning ordinance where a ruling has been made by the Building Official resulting in denial of a building permit for a proposed second accessory building in the applicant's rear yard. He stated that the proposed accessory building is consistent with the zoning ordinance side yard and rear yard setbacks, and the applicant is permitted a second accessory building of the proposed size. He added, however, that the structure is located less than six feet from the existing accessory structure, and the Building Official has applied a longstanding City policy that the minimum separation between all buildings in the R -1 and R -2 districts should be at least six feet. He reported that the applicant contends that the City ordinance does not specify this minimum six foot separation between buildings, and furthermore the Uniform Building Code comprehends structures which are less than six feet apart by specifying special fire resistive materials whenever structures are located less than three feet from one another. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the Building Official's position is that the six foot minimum requirement, while not formally written into the ordinance has been established City policy within the intent of the ordinance. He further stated that the zoning ordinance does require that accessory buildings must be at least three feet from the property line, thereby resulting in a minimum separation between the two buildings, each on a separate lot, of at least six feet from wall to wall. He stated the zoning ordinance also specifies that accessory buildings must be a minimum of eight feet from the dwelling building. He commented that the intent of these ordinance provisions is one of fire safety and emergency access, and that the Uniform Building Code requires that such structures must have extra fire protection provided through the use of 8 -22 -77 -28- special fire resistive materials whenever buildings are closer than three feet at any point which includes overhangs. He pointed out that the extra fire resistive materials required when buildings are closer than three feet represents an excessive cost with respect to residential accessory buildings. He noted that the applicant had revised his site plan, and indicated the buildings would be further than three feet apart at the closest point, but would still be closer than six feet from wall to wall. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that the existing ordinance standards were developed at a time when new houses were being erected on vacant lots, and when a single accessory detached building was being erected at the same time or after the dwelling had been built. He commented that now that the community has developed, there are numerous requests for remodeling and for additions such as the applicant's. He added that the staff concern goes beyond the immediate application particularly since.the applicant has made a good faith effort to revise the building design'so that it technically conforms with the Uniform Building Code minimum separation and so that it conforms with the written zoning ordinance setback standards. He explained that the Planning Commission had also recommended the adoption of a draft ordinance amendment which would specifically provide for the minimum six foot separation between.accessory buildings. The Director of Planning and Inspection then proceeded to review various slides depicting the accessory building in question and a brief discussion ensued relative to the appeal. Action Approving Following the discussion there was a motion by Planning Commission Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Lhotka Application No. 77042 to approve Planning Commission Application No. (Ronald Blake) 77042 submitted by Mr. Ronald Blake, citing the applicant's plans which conformed with written code and ordinance requirements; citing the Planning Commission and Council's support of a proposed ordinance amendment which would incor- porate the minimum building separation into the zoning standards; and provided the applicant's proposed building is a minimum three feet at the closest point from the other building. - voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. i RESOLUTION Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following 77 -162 resolution and moved its adoption: .RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING STREET SURFACING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1977 -14 AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS I r E -29- 8 -22 -77 r • The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Gene Lhotka, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britts, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was duly passed and adopted. The Acting City Manager introduced the next Minimum Building item of business, that of an ordinance recommend- Separations ed for the purpose of more clearly defining the minimum distance between a principal building and an accessory building, as well as stipulating that no accessory building shall be erected, altered, or moved within six feet of another accessory building. He explained that this ordinance is the result of the review of Planning Commission Application No. 77042 which the Council had previously approved at this evening's meeting. He added that the recommended ordinance was reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission at their August 11, 1977 meeting. Following a brief discussion there was a motion ORDINANCE by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman First Reading Lhotka.to offer for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 35 relative to minimum building separations in the R -1 and R -2 districts. ' Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion was passed unanimously. The Acting City Manager introduced the next item Dutch Elm Disease of business on the agenda, that of an ordinance Control recommended for the purpose of amending Section 19 -1504 to the extent of deleting reference to "registered" mail for notices and also changing the compliance period from 10 to 20 days to conform with State Statutes. He reported that this recommendation refers to the Dutch elm disease control ordinance and explained in more detail the effects of the provisions. He stated that the City has.had to send out a great deal of registered mail regarding notices of diseased elm trees at a considerable cost. He reported that it is felt that notices could be sent via regular mail and that it would be the tree inspector's policy to send second notices regarding diseased elm trees via registered mail if it is needed. Regarding the change of the compliance period from 10 to 20 days, he stated that this _ would conform to the requirements that are contained in the State Statutes relating to the control of Dutch elm disease. Following a brief discussion there was a motion ORDINANCE by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman First Reading Fignar to offer for first reading an ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the City ordinances relative to the detection and control of Dutch elm disease_ Voting in favor Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. 8 -22 -77 -30- Licenses Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Britts to approve the following licenses: HOUSE MOVER'S LICENSE Prodger Housemovers 236 Cleveland Redi Bilt 5615 County Road 18 ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Brooklyn Center Mrs. Jaycees 6218 Lee Ave. No. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS LICENSE Daytons Bluff Sheet Metal, Inc. 1400 East Hwy 36 Palen Kimball Company 2505 University Ave RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE Initial: Investors Diversified Services Riverwood Townhomes Mr. & Mrs. Herman Green 6401 Bryant Ave.No. Elsie M. Raumer 1215,17 54th Ave.N. _ Gladys E. Olson 3806 72nd Ave. No. Renewal: Alfred & Myrtle Herlitz 7018 Emerson Ave.N. M. P. Evanson 711 69th Ave. No. Alfred & Myrtle Herlitz 1713 72nd Ave. No. Transfer: Bernard J. Harrington Hi Crest Apartments TEMPORARY ON -SALE NONINTOXICATING LIQUOR LICENSE Brooklyn Center Mrs. Jaycees 5646 Girard Ave.No. Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against:none. The motion passed unanimously. FI -94 Noise Variance The Acting City Manager reported that a pollution Hearing control hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 1, 1977, at Folwell Park, 1615 Dowling Avenue North, Minneapolis, beginning at 1:00 p.m. He explained that the hearing has to do with a matter of an application by the Minnesota Department of Trans- portation for a variance from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency noise regulations for construction and operation of Interstate 94 through north Minneapolis and Brooklyn Center. He explainer further that the variance deals with a request that there be no noise.abatement walls by industrial areas and also that there be a variance from Minnesota Pollution Control Agency nighttime noise requirements which are higher than the Federal noise standards and would require noise abatement walls along FI -94 to be higher than already proposed. He added that Mn /DOT representatives have asked Mayor Cohen, on behalf of the City to testify in favor of the variance request. Mayor Cohen commented that he planned to testify at the hearing and that he felt the variance request was reasonable since he did not think abutting residentF would tolerate any higher noise abatement walls. -31- 8 -22 -77 t' Councilman Lhotka stated that due to the Open Forum Subcommittee lateness of the hour, the open forum Report subcommittee report would be deferred until the September 12, 1977 City Council meeting. The Acting City Manager reported that an Revenue Sharing Proposed administrative hearing regarding proposed Use Hearing uses of Revenue Sharing Funds is scheduled for next Monday, August 29, 1977, at 1:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. He explained that the hearing is an administrative hearing and does not require the attendance of the City Council. The Director of Planning and Inspection Planning Commission reported that the Planning Commission has Public Hearings scheduled public hearings relating to Howe Fertilizer, Inc., the Jesus People Church, and the Dietrich Townhouse Project Phase II at 69th and Unity Avenues for Thursday evening, August 25, 1977. Councilman Lhotka inquired as to the status of Police Pension Plan the police pension plan. The Acting City Manager responded that this is an item that should be handled by the new City Manager and that it has been his policy to take no action on items that change the current operating program such as the police pension plan. The Director of Finance reported that the actuarial is completed. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded Adjournment by Councilman Fignar to adjourn the meeting.' Voting in favor: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center City Council adjourned at 12:47 a.m. Clerk Mayor G 8 -22 -77 -32-