Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 03-13 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 March 13, 1980 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 14, 1980 Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded .by Commissioner Lucht to approve the minutes of the February 14, 1980 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Malecki and Manson. The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 28, 1980 Commissioner Manson noted the proper spelling of the name Wallerstedt on page 2 of the February 28, 1980 minutes. Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the February 28 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Manson, Lucht and Simmons. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Erickson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 80009 (Peter Ulmaniec) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary reviewed Staff Report No. 80009 regarding the resubdivision of two pre-existing lots between Bryant ' and Colfax Avenues North in the 5900 block owned by Mr. Peter Ulmaniec. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 80009 attached) Following the presentation of the information sheet, there were no questions by the Planning Commission members. Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There being no comments on the application from those in attendance, there was a motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Manson Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80009 (Peter Ulmaniec) Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 80009 submitted by Peter Ulmaniec to resubdivide two pre-existing lots between Bryant Avenue North and Colfax Avenue North in the 5900 block subject to the following conditions: 3-13-80 -1- 1 . The resubdivision is subject to the approval of the City Engineer-,,and the City Assessor prior to the filing with the County. 2. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action pertaining to the use of the property.. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 80008 (Jerry Harrington) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for a special use permit for a satellite office and storage facility for the dispersal of school buses on the property located at 4455 - 68th Avenue North (the corner of 68th and Lee Avenues North). The Secretary reviewed Staff Report No. 80008. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 80008 attached). The Secretary added that the approval of the wholesale distribution concept under Application No. 78043 involved a restrictive covenant by:the City on the middle building of the complex for use as a parking garage should a retail use occupy the other two buildings on the site. Commissioner Simmons observed that the proposed use does not really fit into the C-2 zone, but that surrounding uses, also in the C-2 zone, are just as intense as the proposed bus garage. She suggested that the proposed use might fit physically into its surroundings, though it would not comply under the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary responded that under Appli- cation No. 78043, the City Council in making its finding that a wholesale distri- bution use was similar in nature to other C-2 uses in the area, in effect, said the land in question was not necessarily prime retail property and that, there- fore, some flexibility in the use permitted for the site should be shown. The Secretary next reviewed the surrounding uses including NSP .to the west which was approved in 1965 when the property was zoned B-3, a general commerce zone. He also noted the Post Office which has a quasi-retail function with traffic patterns similar to some retail uses. The Secretary stated that in the approval of' Ap�pli-qation No. 78043, the Planning Commission did not feel that a rezoning of the property was appropriate even though surrounding uses might not be con- sidered typical commercial uses. He noted that the other uses in the immediate area are not nonconforming commercial uses. The NSP facility is the North Division office and is a service/office facility. The Post Office also is service oriented in addition to having some retail aspects. Iten Chevrolet is in the business of retail sales of automobiles, a use which is permitted in the C-2 zone through a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Simmons commented that Iten Chevrolet, to the east of the proposed site, seems to be a use no worse than the proposed use, but added that she is concerned about the implications of approving the bus garage. The Secretary stated that the lanning staff originally looked at the proposed use as a "public transportation terminal " which could be permitted as a special use in the C-2 zone. However, further research revealed that the proposed use was not a "public transportation terminal " under the ordinance definition, and that the MTC bus garage was not approved as a "public transportation terminal " but as a use similar in nature to other permitted uses in the Industrial Park. 3-13-80 -2- There followed a discussion of the Ordinance definition for a "public transport- ation terminal" and the Secretary raised the option that the Planning Commission could recommend a change in the ordinance definition as away of allowing the bus garage to be included in the C-2 zone He recommended against this, however, because of the implications for other C-2 properties. In response to a comment by Commissioner Simmons regarding traffic volumes, the Planning Assistant added that while the traffic numbers for the bus garage use would not be greater than some of the surrounding uses, the type of traffic, consisting of large vehicles similar to those found in the industrial district, is one basis for classifying the bus garage as an industrial as opposed to a commercial use. Commissioners Lucht, Manson and Malecki all agreed that bus garages should not be considered as a C-2 use because of the implications of such a- classification on other C-2 properties in the City. Chairman Hawes called on Mr. Harrington to address the Commission. Mr. Harrington -maintained that the proposed bus garage would not be similar to Iten Chevrolet. He stated that retail uses would not even consider the parcel because of NSP to the west and Iten Chevrolet to the east. He noted that the City restricted one of the buildings approved under Application No. 78043 for parking. He did not see any difference between the substance of that decision and the substance of the proposed bus garage. He argued that the bus garage would not be any worse than NSP, Iten Chevrolet, or the Post Office. He stated that the C-2 zone is very vague as to permitted uses and that, therefore, the staff had to invent a . solution to the problem of how to use the parcel and came up with "wholesale distribution. " It did not make sense, he said, that the staff is now quibbling over grey areas of definition. Mr. Harrington then briefly described the bus garage use as an office service facility and indicated that the bus garage would have little traffic conflict with the NSP service use. He expressed shock that the activity of washing the buses would actually be viewed as an aggrevating factor in assessing the proper use classification. Commissioner Lucht observed that the Osseo Brooklyn Bus Company site in Osseo is rather cluttered and unsightly. fir. , Harrington answered that this was one of the reasons the bus company needs a satellite facility, because of_expansion. Commissioner Simmons noted that using one of the buildings for a bus garage would not help the parking situation for the other two buil':dings should they be used for retail . The Secretary added that in 1978 when the site and building plan was approved, the concern of the Planning Commission and City Council was over the intensity of use of this property. He added that the MTC Bus Garage is really the only example of the proposed use existing in the City at this time and that was found to be industrial in the approval for the MTC Garage in 1975. He stated that a bus garage cannot be similar to an industrial and a commercial use at the same time. He argued that the land is appropriately zoned C-2 and that there is not the latitude in approving special uses as there is in approving uses which are similar in nature to permitted uses in the C-2 District. A discussion ensued relative to whether the bus garage could be considered commercial or industrial . In answer to Chairman Hawes, Mr. Harrington stated that the bus garage proposal is a substitute idea to his commercial condominium concept. He stated that in either case the use of one building as a bus garage would not threaten the other two buildings with a parking problem. If the buildings were used for retail use, he said, the bus garage would be forced to move out to allow space for parking associated with the retail uses. And, if the commercial condominium were adopted, the bylaws for the Owners Association might prevent the bus garage from continuing as well as preventing any retail use. 3-13-80 -3- Commissioner Simmons questioned whether the bus garage could be considered "equipment rental . " She commented that the bus garage use does not seem to fit under any term in the list of C-2 zone uses. She added that one bus garage might not be offensive, but that two or three could become a problem. Mr. Harrington asked why, if the bus garage proves to be a good tenant, it should be prevented from expanding. It was the consensus of the Commission that a bus garage was not considered "equipment rental . " Commissioner Lucht stated that although there seemed to be grey areas in con sidering the nature of the proposed use, it does not appear in the final analysis that a bus garage can be considered a special use in the C-2 zone. Commissioner Erickson stated that he did not feel there really was any grey area from a zoning standpoint. He stated that the record clearly indicates that a bus garage has been considered by the City to be an industrial and not a com- mercial use. He added that he sympathizes with the concept of decentralizing the bus operation, but could not approve the use in a commercial zone. Com- missioner Hawes announced a public hearing on the application. There being no one present to speak on the application, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons.. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 80009 (Jerry Harrington) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconde y Commissioner Erickson to recommend denial of Application No. 80009 submitted by Jerry Harrington for a special use permit to operate a bus garage on the property known as 4455 - 68th Avenue North for the following reasons: 1 . The proposed use is neither a recognized permitted or special use in the C-2 Zoning District per Section 35-322 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use is not deemed similar in nature to other recognized C-2 Zoning District uses per Section 35-322 (j) of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed use is deemed industrial in nature and should, therefore, only be permitted in the I-1 (Industrial Park) and I-2 (General Industry) Zoning Districts. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki , Manson, Lucht, and Erickson. Voting against: Commissioner Simmons. Commissioner Simmons explained her vote by saying that she simply does not consider the issue to be as black and white as the motion indicates. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Lucht to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commis- sioners Malecki , Manson, Lucht, Erickson and Simmons. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commissioner adjourned at 9:24 p.m. Chairman 3-13-80 -4-