Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 07-14 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 JULY 14, 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Wallace Bernards, Mike Nelson and Bertil Johnson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioners Malecki and Ainas were unable to attend and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 16, 1988 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to approve the minutes of the June 16, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Bernards, Nelson and Johnson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Lucht. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 88008 (John Werner) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a transfer of land by metes and bounds subdivision at 6811 and 6827 Colfax Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88008 attached). Commissioner Nelson asked what the purpose of the land transfer was. The Secretary answered that he thought it was to square out the lots. Commissioner Nelson asked whether it was to get around any setback requirement. The Secretary responded in the negative. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the lots would be more square when the rear lot lines would no longer be the same as the front lot lines. The Secretary explained that the joint property line between 6811 and 6827 Colfax Avenue North would be more square with the location of the houses. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. John Werner of 6827 Colfax Avenue North explained that the land was platted many years ago when the area was farm land. He explained that he owns both lots at present and has a garden partially on the 6811 property. He stated that the land transfer would put all of that garden on the 6827 lot. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 88008) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Seeing that there was no one present to speak regarding the application, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to close the public hearing on Application No. 88008. The motion passed unanimously. 7-14-88 -1- The Secretary explained to the Commission that the Subdivision Ordinance requires platting of land and does not recognize divisions by metes and bounds description. He explained that that was the reason a variance was required to accomplish a division of land by metes and bounds. He explained that metes and bounds divisions were only allowed in the case of land transfers and that new buildable lots would have to be platted. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88008 (John Werner) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend approval of Application No. 88008, subject to the following condition: 1. The City Council directs the City Assessor to amend the legal description of 6811 and 6827 Colfax Avenue North to reflect the land transfer upon filing with the County of the proposed division. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards, Nelson and Johnson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 88007 (Robert Zappa) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval by Robert Zappa to construct a 12 unit apartment building on the land presently occupied by a four plex addressed as 6637 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88007 attached) and also reviewed the location of the site and briefly the proposed site plan. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Robert Zappa then addressed the Commission. He stated that there is a great need for three- bedroom apartments in Brooklyn Center, perhaps because of the ordinance limitation restricting three-bedroom apartments to no more than 10% of a multiple-family complex. He pointed out that other cities do not limit three bedroom apartments. He also pointed out that there are few multiple-family zoned lots remaining in Brooklyn Center. He stated that 11 more three-bedroom apartment units will not affect the City adversely. Mr. Zappa went on to explain that he has looked at the cost of changing the project to a two-bedroom unit complex. He stated that rents would be substantially lower and that a two-bedroom complex would have cash flow problems and that this would hurt maintenance of the property. He stated that there is a definite demand for three- bedroom apartment units in the Metro area. The Secretary explained that there hasn't been much apartment development in the City since the moratorium on apartment construction in 1973 and 1974. He added that most apartments in the City were built before the limitation on three-bedroom units and that few three bedroom units were built when there was no limitation on them. Chairman Lucht stated that if a complex were destroyed by fire, the complex could be rebuilt with all three-bedroom units if there was no limitation on the number of three-bedroom units. The Secretary agreed, though he noted that there would be a slightly greater land requirement. Commissioner Johnson asked whether there has been any documentation of the need for three-bedroom apartments. The Secretary answered that the Metropolitan Council ,has indicated that there is a need for three-bedroom apartment units for large family subsidized housing. He explained that, right now, this demand is being met primarily by single-family homes. 7-14-88 -2- Chairman Lucht asked the Secretary how best to proceed. The Secretary answered that the applicant could submit a variance if he is unwilling to change the design of the apartment complex. He added, however, that he did not think the Standards for a Variance would be met. He stated the other two options would be to table the application and direct the applicant to change the design or to recommend denial. Mr. Zappa explained that a two-bedroom apartment complex is not financially feasible. He asked whether some allowance could be made for the fact that the other building on the site requires 3,600 sq. ft. per unit as opposed to 2,700 sq. ft. per unit for the units in the three-storey building. There followed a brief discussion of the land requirements in which the Secretary explained that greater land area is required for each unit in a two-storey building than in a three-storey building. Chairman Lucht stated that the main problem was that the ordinance allows only 10%of the units to be three bedroom. The Secretary then referred to the site plan and pointed out that although a three-storey building requires less land area per unit, three-bedroom units require slightly more than one or two-bedroom units in the same building. He explained that part of the reason for this requirement was to provide for recreation space on the site. He stated that there is very little recreation area on the site as proposed. Commissioner Bernards agreed and referred to the dicussion of the Planning Commission at the previous meeting in which recreational space was strongly emphasized. Mr. Zappa stated that he would provide a play area on the site. Chairman Lucht asked the Commission for its comments. Commissioner Nelson stated that it is a choice between denying the application or revising the plans and that it is up to the applicant which of these he wants. Mr. Zappa asked whether the Planning Commission would be open to a variance application on a one time basis. Chairman Lucht stated that such a variance would create a precedent for other developments. Commissioner Nelson stated that he doubted the Standards for a Variance would be met. The Secretary added that it appeared the Planning Commission wanted to stay with the present ordinance with the limitation on three-bedroom units. He stated that a one time exception to this policy would be a bad choice. He told the applicant that he has the right to submit a variance request, but added that he did not feel the situation was unique and that the hardship was being created by the applicant, rather than by the ordinance. He stated that the standards do not seem to be met. Commissioner Nelson stated that the applicant would have to make his case to the City Council for an ordinance amendment. There followed a brief discussion of procedures. Mr. Zappa asked whether other cities indicated that there were too many three-bedroom units when they were surveyed as to their ordinance requirements. The Planner stated that they were not asked specifically this question, but that none of them did indicate that they had too many three-bedroom units. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88007 (Robert Zappa) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend denial of Application No. 88007 submitted by Robert Zappa, on the grounds that the Zoning Ordinance requirements relating to three bedroom apartment units were not met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards, Nelson and Johnson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM a) Southwest Quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and I-94 The Secretary then addressed the Commission briefly regarding the vacant property 7-14-88 -3- at the southwest quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and I-94. He noted that the site was the site of the proposed Church on the Move which was proposed about three years ago. He explained that there had been a rezoning application from R5 to C1 for the property which the Planning Commission had recommended, but which the City Council did not approve. He noted that the Church on the Move and an office condominium development had been proposed for the property within the last five years, but that neither had been built. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan recommends mid- density residential or office development on the site. He explained, however, that if there is a conflict between the zoning of the property and the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning prevails. This would mean that an R5 development such as a three-storey apartment complex could be proposed and approved for the site even though it does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary explained that the strategy for Brooklyn Boulevard has been to not rezone property unless a major development plan is proposed. He acknowledged that there is risk- involved with this strategy, that the land could be developed as zoned rather than in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend three-storey apartment buildings in this area as it is presently zoned. He added that there are very difficult access problems and soil problems with the site which may make any sort of development difficult. The Secretary stated that the City Council, at its June 27, 1988 meeting, discussed the property and decided that they did not want to buy houses at this time to improve the access to the large vacant property, but indicated a preference for rezoning the property to either Cl or R3. Chairman Lucht noted that an R3 zoning would allow for an office condominium development. Commissioner Nelson noted that the Church on the Move included a rezoning to Cl which was denied by the City Council. The Secretary explained that the rezoning was not actually denied by the City Council. He explained that the Cl zoning was recommended because it fit within the Comprehensive Plan and also allowed for "religious uses" which would certainly include churches. The City Council, however, balked at some of the service uses allowed in the Cl zone and asked for an amendment to allow churches in the R5 zone instead of the rezoning. The church eventually went elsewhere because of the soil and access problems on the site. Commissioner Johnson inquired as to the state statute mentioned earlier. The Secretary explained that the Comprehensive Plan may recommend one thing, but that the zoning prevails which may allow something else. The Secretary explained that the R5 zone allows both offices and townhouses which are recommended by the Comprehensive Plan, but a permitted use - such as a three-storey apartment building - is not recommended under the Comprehensive Plan. In response to a question from Chairman Lucht regarding the Lescault property, the Secretary explained that that property was recommended for Cl zoning. However, he went on, it was not rezoned because it would make the home nonconforming. He cited the example of the Bush's who wanted to add a porch onto their single-family home which was zoned Cl in an area of Brooklyn Boulevard not far from the Lescault residence. He explained that the Cl zoning prevented the expansion of a nonconforming use. Commissioner Johnson asked what would happen with the R1 houses. The Secretary answered that if they were burned down, they could be rebuilt. Commissioner Johnson asked whether that was what the City wanted. The Secretary explained that Cl uses along Brooklyn Boulevard require one acre of land and that the strategy has been to allow single-family uses to continueuntil a major development plan comes along which would incorporate service/office uses on one acre parcels. 7-14-88 -4- Commissioner Bernards asked what were the concerns of the neighbors at I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that one of the concerns was the possibility of access being gained off Indiana Avenue to the west. He pointed out that the City has taken a strong position that access must be a right-in/right-out I access off Brooklyn Boulevard and that no access will be allowed off Indiana Avenue. The City Engineer pointed out that drainage from the site would be difficult because of a small storm sewer line leading to the south. The Secretary also commented that the church would be a tax-exempt use. Commissioner Nelson stated that it might be tax-exempt, but that another use would very possibly involve a City subsidy and so the City would wind up paying either way. The Secretary stated that the staff would bring back a rezoning application and asked for the Commission's suggestions as to what zone it should be. Chairman Lucht pointed out that an R3 zoning would limit office developments to 1 1/2 stories and that this might be preferable to the neighborhood. The Secretary pointed out that the Cl zoning district would allow offices up to three stories in height. Commissioner Nelson stated that there are parcels to look at along Brooklyn Boulevard and that the City should get involved financially in purchasing some of these older homes to prevent blight. On a different matter, Commissioner Johnson asked how much the City received from Hennepin County for improving the City's lakes. He stated that they spend 94% of their money on Lake Minnetonka. The City Engineer stated that he did not know what organization administers those funds. The Secretary added that the County controls lakes that cross jurisdictional lines and that there are not that many in Hennepin County. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Chairman 7-14-88 -5- � + 1 1