Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 08-16 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 16, 1990 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Johnson had called to say he would be unable to attend and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 26 1990 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the July 26, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioner Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairperson Malecki. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90021 (Brenda Noyed) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a home hair care salon in the basement of the residence at 4013 58th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90021 attached) . Commissioner Bernards inquired as to the limit of 10 persons in the basement. The Planner explained that this came from a. Building Code limit, that over 10 occupants would require a second means of egress. The Secretary added that this was because of the commercial nature of the use in the basement. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to an egress window. The Secretary responded that one is not needed though it would not be discouraged either. Commissioner Holmes inquired as to the permits and the required ventilation for the beauty shop area. The Planner answered that there are state requirements for ventilation which must be met when a state inspector reviews the premises for compliance for the shop license requirements. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether she had anything to add and whether she could comment on the ventilation requirements. Ms. Noyed responded that the state simply requires "proper 8-16-90 1 I f ventilation". She stated that she would check into those requirements. Commissioner Bernards asked Ms. Noyed whether she worked in a shop right now. Ms. Noyed responded that she did work in a shop in Brooklyn Park. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the sink existed in the basement at this time. Ms. Noyed responded that it was not in at present, but would be added if the permit is granted. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90021) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. s commissioner Holmes stated that Pais main concern was parking. He noted Ithat the City Council had recently looked at home occupations and asked where that discussion was going. The Secretary responded that staff have not been directed to prepare any ordinance changes. He stated that the subject was discussed at a Council meeting in July and that an article appeared in the Brooklyn Center Post News recently. He stated that any direction to alter the ordinance would come through the Planning Commission for review. He added that there is a lot of history behind the City's home occupation ordinance, that it regulates what people can do with their property. He stated that the City's ordinance is a compromise between an extreme on the one hand of doing what anyone wants with one's property or on the other extreme of allowing no business use at all within a residential district. He stated that he had seen many beauty shops come and go over the years and that he had only heard complaints once. He stated that he did not think the proposed beauty shop would pose a problem. Commissioner Sander asked whether there would be an employee. The Secretary responded that an employee was not comprehended by this application and that Ms. Noyed would have to bring an application back to the Planning Commission and City Council for an amendment to the special use permit if she ever wished to add an employee. Commissioner Sander expressed concern regarding possible traffic problems if an employee were part of the business. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 90021 (Brenda No ed Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend approval of Application No. 99021, subject to the following conditions: 8-16-90 2 1. The special use permit is granted only for a home beauty/barber shop with a single operator. The use may not be altered or expanded in any way without first securing an amendment to this special use permit. 2 . The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations. Any violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. 3 . All parking associated with the home occupation shall be on improved space provided by the applicant. On-street parking is expressly prohibited. 4. The applicant shall provide a turnaround space on her property prior to issuance of the special use permit. 5. The hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 8: 00 p.m. , Tuesday through Thursday and from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. , Friday and Saturday. Customers shall be served on an appointment-only basis. 6. The total number of occupants in the basement at any one time shall not exceed 10. 7. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits and complete all required building improvements prior to issuance of the special use permit. 8. The applicant shall install a smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the area of the home occupation prior to issuance of the special use permit. 9. A current copy of the applicant's state shop license shall be submitted prior to issuance of the special use permit. voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 90023 (Alan Chazin) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request by Alan Chazin for a lot area or density variance at the North Lyn Apartments at 6511-6521 Humboldt Avenue North to allow the existing 102 unit complex on a smaller land parcel in order to subdivide off .7 acre of land for an office development. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90023 attached) . The Secretary added a number of other points during and after his review of the staff report. He noted that he had talked with the City Assessor and that the City Assessor questioned whether the tax 8-16-90 3 1 benefit from the proposed office development would be $40, 000 to $50,000 per year. He stated that he had also talked with the City Attorney who has expressed some concern about whether the Standards for a variance are met in this case. He stated that staff have not evaluated the Planned Unit Development idea to any great extent. He stated that the City Attorney had expressed concern that the I` standards may not be met and that possibly a PUD should be considered. The Secretary went on to state that he did not believe anything larger than a 9,300 sq. ft. office building should be allowed even if a variance is granted. Noting other comparable situations around the City, the Secretary acknowledged that a number of other variances might be granted. He asked what affect this would have on the rights of other apartment owners who are living within the density requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted the three-plex at 4010 65th Avenue North which has been an enforcement problem almost since it was built because they have tried to add a fourth unit on land which is only large enough for three dwelling units. He stated that he did not want to complicate that situation by granting a variance here. He stated that he was not sure how to look at this proposal as a PUD, but that perhaps that needs further consideration. Commissioner Mann asked how many excess units if the land were subdivided off and the variance granted. The Planner responded that it would be 10 or 11 units over the allowable maximum. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, the Secretary stated that if a variance were granted, the apartment complex would be allowed to continue without being a nonconforming use. Commissioner Bernards asked what recreational facilities existed on the site. The Secretary responded that he was not aware of any. Mr. Alan Chazin pointed out that there is an outdoor pool on the property. Chairperson Malecki noted the objective of consolidating land along Brooklyn Boulevard and requiring a minimum of one acre of land for office developments. She asked whether this would be a requirement here. The Secretary acknowledged that the .7 acre parcel would be less than the acre requirement, but that the one acre area is required in the C1 zone, not the R5 zone. He recommended that the Commission not take an acre of land from the apartment site. Commissioner Sander summarized some of the requests being sought, namely a variance on density, a ,special use permit for offices, and a special use for shared parking. The Secretary stated that he did not recommend that shared parking be allowed. He stated that if the variance were granted he would recommend no shared parking. The Secretary stated that he did not believe that the apartment complex was overcrowded on its main site. He stated that his impression as he traveled by and through the property that the .7 acre area of land is not integral to the apartment complex.- 8-16-90 4 I The Planner reported to the Secretary and the Commission that Section 35-314 of the Zoning Ordinance does in fact require office developments within the R5 zone to meet the C1 district requirements and that this means that 1 acre of land is in fact required. He added, however, that he did not recommend taking more land away from the apartment complex than is proposed by the applicant. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. David Sellergren, representative for the applicant, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated that the office proposal has been discussed with the Secretary and the Planner for about two years. He acknowledged that they had felt that the proposal was for too much office space. He agreed not to push for an 11,700 sq. ft. office building tonight, but showed the Commission a layout for a 9,300 sq. ft. office building which would fit on the property. Mr. Sellergren stated that the owners, the Chazins, have looked at the land area left over by their development for 20 years since it was originally built. He stated that they wished to make use of it in some economical way. He then showed the Commission a schematic drawing of an office building which they would like to build on the site. He added that the Chazins own about 500 apartment units within the City and they have been a good citizen, keeping their properties well maintained. Mr. Sellergren went on to state that he had ideas for an ordinance amendment in the past, but that staff recommended a variance request as a vehicle for getting the matter considered by the Planning Commission. He stated that the land in question does not really serve the apartment complex. He stated that there would be practical benefits to developing the property. He also stated that he had contacted Barton-Aschman to analyze whether shared parking would work and that Barton-Aschman had concluded that it would work in this case. Mr. Sellergren stated that he felt that the Standards for a Variance can be met in this case and that he would work with the City Attorney on fashioning appropriate language if the Commission was open to a variance action. Mr. Sellergren stated that an office building would be an asset to the community and he urged approval of the variance. He noted the concern regarding precedent and that a PUD may be an option in this case. Commissioner Ainas stated that he personally favored the concept of an office building, but that he did not favor a PUD. He admitted that the letter of the PUD ordinance might permit the type of arrangement proposed by the applicant, but that he did not believe it would meet the intent of the ordinance. He stated that while the 9, 300 sq. ft. building would generate less revenue, this would be offset by lower costs. 8-16-90 5 The Secretary stated that the staff's discussions with the applicant have not been adversarial, but that both parties have been trying to look at a way to work something out if possible. He asked the Planning Commission direction and added that more time may be needed to arrive at some resolution of the issue. Mr. Sellergren added that the variance request is simply an avenue for getting the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and need not be the vehicle for allowing the development. Chairperson Malecki asked Mr. Chazin whether he had anything to add. Mr. Alan Chazin, an owner of the property, pointed out that he and his father owned other properties in the City. He stated that they would build and manage the office building as they have the apartment units in the City. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90023) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one else present to comment regarding the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not feel a PUD should be considered, that it would be an abuse in this case. He also stated that he opposed shared parking between the apartment complex and the office building. He stated that he would be in favor of whatever variances would be legal. Chairperson Malecki asked Commissioner Ainas whether the Standards for a Variance are met. Commissioner Ainas responded in the affirmative, but added that he felt the development should be limited to 9,300 sq. ft. of office space. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt that it was unfortunate that when the building was built the site had the appendages. He noted that creates problems for the property owner down the line, but stated that he was not too sympathetic with the variance request. He stated that he felt the property owner would have to live with the previous decision and that he did not feel that the Standards for a Variance were met. He stated that he did not know whether a PUD was appropriate either, but that a variance was not the way he preferred to go. Commissioner Mann stated that she was concerned about setting a precedent. She preferred to make the 5.7 acre parcel conforming by reducing the number of units and that perhaps recreational facilities could be added within the building in place of the units. I 8-16-90 6 Commissioner Holmes stated that he tended to side with Commissioner Ainas. He stated he could see the development possibilities for the site, but he asked whether the City would be getting into a pandora's box by setting a precedent that would be repeated elsewhere. The Secretary stated that this could be a concern. He added that the City could take another look at the request and perhaps approach it from a different angle. He again stated that the Planning Commission does not have to act at this meeting. He stated that he would like to talk to the City Attorney further if a variance was to be granted. He pointed out that the situation up on 69th Avenue North with the Humboldt Court Apartments would allow for the arm of land to be added to another parcel and developed. He stated that the City Attorney had asked him what the City would do if the North Lyn Apartments were being proposed now. He stated that he answered that he would discourage the creation of the arm of land around the service station. He stated that the North Lyn Apartments complex was a good complex and he did not feel that there would be a real problem if the underutilized area in question were developed. He stated that the staff can take another look at the issue and bring something back. He stated that the vacant land area in question has been an issue waiting to happen and that it would have to be addressed someday. He added that he, too, did not want to abuse the PUD ordinance. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was not proposing to grant a variance tonight. He acknowledged that there was work to be done, but stated that he did not like using the PUD option in this case. Mr. Sellergren stated that he was not trying to force an action by the Planning Commission immediately, but asked whether the Planning Commission wanted the applicant and the staff to explore the use of land. Commissioner Sander stated that if a variance is granted, it would open up a can of worms for other properties in town. She stated that she did not feel it met the Standards for a Variance at this time and recommended that staff work on the matter some more. Commissioner Ainas pointed out that the City could consider an ordinance change on the density requirement. Chairperson Malecki stated that that would be chipping away at the City's standards. She added that she was afraid that developers would abuse the situation if they know that a variance might be granted down the road if unutilized areas are left on a site plan. She stated that she was not opposed to the development, but did not want to chip away at the ordinance. The Planner then reminded the Commission that Brooklyn Center is a developed community facing many of the same problems that Minneapolis faces with underutilized land. He stated that there are very few vacant lots left in the City and that the City has to make the best of what it has left at this time. He noted that a recent lot variance in the R2 zone on 'Morgan Avenue and stated that the City will be dealing with other infill situations much more in the future than it has in the past. 8-16-90 7 Chairperson Malecki stated that some people are concerned with the PUD option. The Secretary responded that the staff have not looked at that possibility closely. He stated that variances are intended to deal with these kinds of situations as the report points out. He noted a couple of other similar arms of land in the community and stated that variances might be warranted in those situations also. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was also concerned about setting a precedent, but that he felt a variance was a lesser of two evils. He stated that using a PUD in this situation might be an abuse of the ordinance. Commissioner Bernards stated that he had reservations about the proposal. He stated that he was thinking of the residents near the Garden City Court Apartments and their concern about recreational facilities. He suggested that staff also look at the possibility of utilizing the area for some recreational purpose that might benefit the apartments. The Secretary agreed. He pointed out that both apartment complexes were built at the same density, but that the North Lyn Apartment complex seems to have a better layout even without the .7 acre area of land that the applicants wish to divide off. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 90023 (Alan Chazin) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to table Application No. 90023 and direct staff to study further possible options for the property in question. Commissioner Bernards asked whether one of the options to be considered was the option he had discussed of adding recreational facilities to the area. The Secretary stated that that was his understanding that that was an option to be considered. Voting in favor of the above motion: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:02 p.m. and resumed at 9:07 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 90022 (City of Brooklyn Center The Secretary then introduced the last item of business, a request by the City of Brooklyn Center to rezone from I-1 to C1A six parcels of land between I94 and Summit Drive and between Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90022 attached) . The Secretary added that the concern of the City Council regarding the C2 zoning application submitted last year was that it would allow a retail use in the area in question. He stated that the City really does not want retail on the vacant parcels south of the freeway. He stated that 8-16-90 8 the C1A zoning would preserve the service/office character of this area. He added that an ordinance amendment passed early this year took most of the C2 uses out of the I-1 zone. Therefore, he concluded, the only uses being taken away now from these parcels with the rezoning were industrial uses. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the property owners had been notified. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. The Planner stated that he had received one call from Ryan Construction Company and that after explaining the application, they had stated there was no objection. Commissioner Mann asked about how the rezoning would affect the possible location of group homes and other institutional uses. The Secretary pointed out some of the vacant industrial sites north of the freeway. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the area in question was within the tax increment financing district. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the proposed rezoning would accelerate or slow down the development of the property. The Secretary stated that neither would happen, but that the market would determine when the property was developed. Commissioner Bernards concluded that it would take more time for the proper development. The Secretary stated that the City did not want to see a shopping center on these vacant parcels north of Summit Drive and south of the freeway. He explained that that was the reason why these parcels were removed from the C2 rezoning initiated last year. The Planner added that last year there was still some market for retail development, though the office market was fairly dead. He added that the entire real estate market is depressed. The Secretary reminded the Commission that one of the concerns last year was about the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard, that there might be a proposal to develop that area with a motel and a fast food restaurant. He stated that such a development was not in the City's plan for this area, but that the City did not feel it could deny a special use permit for that kind of use. As a result, the ordinance had to be changed to limit what could be allowed in the I-1 zone. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 900221 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and noted that there was no one present to comment on the application. She called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Mann expressed that high-rise development adjacent to the freeway might tend to bury the Earle Brown Farm. The Secretary explained that that possibility was looked at when the Farm was 8-16-90 9 developed and that models of office buildings in the area were presented which would show the possible site lines to the Earle Brown Farm. He stated that the glass office buildings would reflect the Farm and were considered, on balance, positive. Commissioner Mann asked whether a shopping mall would be allowed in the I-1 zone. The Secretary answered that it used to be until eight months ago. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 90-2 REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90022 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-2. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against; none. The motion passed. The Commission and staff briefly discussed upcoming business. The Secretary also discussed with the Commission the action on the Teasdale application. He explained that further study would be needed on the Housing Policy issues presented by that application. Commissioner Ainas noted that new apartments have to have 3 ' wide doors and be accessible to the handicapped. The Planner also informed the Commission that a rezoning application might be submitted in the near future by H and E Homes to rezone the Soo Line property from I-2 to R2 to allow for single-family development. ADJOURNMENT Following further brief discussion of various questions there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Chairperson 8-16-90 10