Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 04-16 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 16, 1992 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7 : 30 p.m. 2 . Roll- Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - March 26, 1992 4 . Chairperson' s Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Budgetel Inn 92007 Request for approval of a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a storage shed 3 ' from the right-of-way line of Shingle Creek Parkway. 6. Other Business 7 . Discussion Items 8 . Adjournment I . PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 92007 Applicant: Budgetel Inn Location: 6415 James Circle North Request: Variance The applicant requests variance approval to construct a 121x20 ' storage building 3 ' from Shingle Creek Parkway right-of-way instead of the 25 ' required by the Zoning Ordinance. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded on the north by the Econolodge inn, on the east by James Circle and vacant C2 zoned property, on the south by I94 , and on the west by Shingle Creek Parkway. The storage building would be situated about midway between the southwest and northwest corners of the site, in the greenstrip adjacent to Shingle Creek Parkway. Of note is the fact that the grade drops off cosiderably from the level of Shingle Creek Parkway to the level of the parking lot. The Minnesota Department of Transportation owns the Shingle Creek Parkway right-of-way in this area, including a large area (Tract I) that is devoted to the slope between the street and the Budgetel property. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. The applicant, in the person of Mr. Ken Garvin, has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the standards for a variance (also attached) . A recitation of those standards and the applicant' s arguments as well as staff comments follow: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land -involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. Applicant: "At the present time the only area to place a storage shed without seeking a variance would be on the west side of the motel, located in the grass area between the motel and the curbing. This would require the removal of mature landscaping and the storage shed would be placed right outside of guest room windows. If located in this area, the building would be very visible from Shingle Creek Parkway. " Staff: Visibility is a key concern of the applicant. Budgetel wishes the storage building to be as invisible as possible. The proposed location in the greenstrip adjacent to Shingle Creek Parkway, at the bottom of the slope is out of sight as any location on the property. We concur that limiting visibility of the storage April 16, 1992 1 building is in the public interest. The applicant states that placing the building in the green area on the west side of the motel constitutes a hardship. The Commission must judge whether this constitutes a hardship and whether the public objective of setting buildings back from public right-of-way outweighs in this case the objective of keeping the building as out of sight as possible. In this case, the right-of-way adjacent to the west side of the Budgetel site is taken up with a slope which separates the Budgetel site considerably from the street and would tend to hide the proposed structure from view on Shingle Creek Parkway. We agree that the proposed location serves a public purpose without doing violence to the purpose of the setback requirement which is to create visual space along rights-of-way and allow proper functioning of sites. It should be pointed out that no access to the Budgetel site is allowed from Shingle Creek Parkway. Therefore, the second purpose for the setback is not really applicable here. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "The storage shed is proposed to be placed on the west edge of our property line. Between our property line and Shingle Creek Parkway is a large slope. When driving on Shingle Creek Parkway this slope will help hide the storage shed from public view. " Staff: The large slope within the right-of-way adjacent to the side of the Budgetel site where the storage shed is to be built is a relatively unique condition, although there are a some other parcels adjacent to the freeway with similar slope conditions adjacent to them. It would, in our opinion, certainly be appropriate to consider similar variances for other properties in similar situations, provided the impact on the visual corridor is similarly negligible and there is no access along that side of the property. We do not recommend an ordinance amendment at this time, pending consideration by the City Council. An ordinance amendment might be difficult to draft, trying to take into account unique situations that may arise in the future. We believe it may be more appropriate to look at each situation on its own merits. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. Applicant: "The hardship is related to the required setback from Shingle Creek Parkway or the piece of ground labeled Tract I. " Staff: The applicant refers to Tract I which is part of the April 16, 1992 2 Shingle Creek Parkway right-of-way. Tract I was created in the 1970s to define the land which would contain the slope between the roadway and the Budgetel property. It has no function except to contain the slope. If Tract I were a privately owned parcel, the required setback for the storage shed would be the 3 ' which the applicant proposes in this case. The hardship in this case results from the extra right-of-way needed for the slope, a fact which was not created by the property owner. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Applicant: "By granting this variance it will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land improvements in the neighborhood. The placing of the storage shed in the proposed area would be the ideal location because of accessibility to the hotel staff and would be hidden from public view because of the - slope of the land. Once again the only piece of ground the shed would border is Tract I . This ground I believe is owned by the Minnesota Highway Dept. " Staff: The proposed storage shed will have minimal visual impact on the Shingle Creek Parkway corridor. In fact, it would probably be more visible, both to motel occupants and drivers, if it were located near the building in observance of the setback requirement. We do not believe that the proposed storage shed poses any threat to the public welfare in the location proposed. The applicant concludes his letter by stating that there is a need for additional storage space and that not having it creates severe managing problems, fire hazards, and a very disorganized placing of motel supplies. An alternative to the storage building, of course, is to take one of the guest rooms and turn it into a storage room. The applicant has indicated that the motel is often full and that the elimination of one room would constitute a hardship. We doubt that this would meet the definition of a hardship as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. However, we do not see the proposed variance as doing any real harm to the public welfare. It may be a case where the public benefits from observing the setback requirement are exceeded by the private costs of compliance with the ordinance standard. Conclusion and Recommendation In conclusion, we believe that the standards for a variance can be met in this case. We recommend that the application be approved, in light of the following findings: 1. The extra right-of-way adjacent to the Budgetel site and the slope within that right-of-way (of Shingle Creek Parkway) obviate the need for the proposed storage shed April 16, 1992 3 r to meet setback requirements. The proposed building location actually reduces its impact on the visual corridor of Shingle Creek Parkway. To require compliance with the required setback would, therefore, constitute an unnecessary hardship in this case. 2 . The circumstance of a steep slope within the right-of-way adjacent to the Budgetel site is fairly unique. Similar situations may be entitled to similar treatment if it can be shown that the variance standards are met. 3 . The circumstance of extra right-of-way containing a steep slope has been caused by the public agencies which have created the Shingle Creek Parkway interchange and has not been caused by anyone presently or formerly having an interest in the Budgetel site. 4 . The proposed storage shed, in the location proposed by the applicant, will not have an adverse impact on other - property or improvements in the neighborhood. Submitted by, p �� C ""l Gary Shallcross Planner A roved by, Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections April 16, 1992 4 y t I LPLILIL INN 7815 Nicollet Ave.So./Bloomington,IVIN 55420 612-881-7311 3/ 17 /92 To Whom it may concern : This letter is regarding the application for a variance for a storage shed for the Brooklyn Center Budgetel Inn . Evidence of qualifications are as follows : A . At the present time the only area to place a storage shed without seeking a variance would be on the west side of the motel , located in the grass area between the motel and the curbing . This would require the removal of mature landscaping and the storage shed would be placed right outside of guest room windows . If located in this area , the building would be very visible from Shingle Creek Parkway . B . The storage shed is proposed to be placed on the west edge of our property line . Between our property line and Shingle Creek Parkway is a large slope . When driving on Shingle Creek Parkway this slope will help hide the storage shed from public view. C . The hardship is related to the required setback from Shingle Creek Parkway or the piece of ground labeled Tract I . D . By granting this variance it will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land improvements in the neighborhood . The placing of the storage shed in the proposed area would be the ideal location because of accessibility to the hotel staff and would be hidden from public view because of the slope of the land . Once again the only piece of ground the shed would border is Tract I . This ground I believe is owned by the Minnesota Highway Dept . In reviewing our variance application , I hope you will see the motels need for the additional storage space . By not having the additional space it has created severe managing problems , fire hazards , and a very disorganized placing of motel supplies . If you should happen to need additional information , please feel free to contact me at the number listed above . Sinc rely , � 1 Qty en G ruin District Director STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCES CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY Anyone contemplating a request for a variance from the Zoning Ordinance should consult with the Planning staff, prior to submitting an Application to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, for the purposes of familiarization with applicable ordinance standards and evaluation of the particular circumstances. A prospective applicant shall provide documents and information, as requested by the Secretary, to the Board of Adjustments and Appeals or to the City Council. An application must be submitted fourteen ( 14) days prior to the regular meeting of the Board. In instances where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of this zoning ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to an individual property under consideration, the City Council shall have the power to grant variances, in keeping with the spirit and intent of this ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the property must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or his predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. However, the Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the granting of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. P/I Form No. 20 -OVER- \ NO - - Musson - a• aa - � - �a a �� ■ �a as �� as a : ■■■■■■■■■ �- ■ . IS ■- as ■■ ■■® sm - - - -- molls■■■■■ �� ■■ 1■� as -a Sa a ■ o � � ii as ,•\�`� IN MIN moons so WSW 1■■� � � a '� - _ . , as ' . �a a aia � a • - ■ ■ _iU , aaa� a ala ai • , Aw as ♦O 1 aM as - a as - � ;• � = a as mile ■■__ - a as - - _ - � - 1 •. °�_ � .. � �♦� .> >��, as D a /i--.ti•.o ., / as - a- - as �a S�I r' - Sri as as - '�?' a �a ��-'/ � �� ������ as ate • ,��,',.��% • , -a aEd as 1•a as Maw - aaa �I�// �■ �a -� as -a a- 4i - • � �- is � �■ �� /.�� � � •. aa �aaaaaae - ���♦ as �a .a a as i L� $o Rt Y OV r 9 1 � Q m $ . 4 , loop c A p cl o z a G A a ' Y , ^1: .F. 4 R k 1 Y � K f tt'�'i' Z• ' y r" Ft•--iri y- t � 1 4p �y� f i - - �-'�4 ��.. y _ '� '� .tee. '. ` ��► . a ,t :•: r � r r- �'% � •+DfAr '4'1MZq+MM ty I'Aky *ki)�.[ Z irk its"+� •/ td r a�e.u.- �, ��t� : � Ki3 .. r N' l■ 3 err `� ref�rr r ,�.,,a v ♦ 44: �'�1,��„.>n. G 7..� a `C s i o►`'f0.11a.as.�� ."'� ' J . r T C.•e4&W e. 1W.-826.61 ei 4L _ 14 IL %�N,,.A;•---' � l 'Y �iMV PROPOSED -DRAINAGE b �— `, , .1. v • A! UTILITY EASEMENT ILI - { ••� �-�: �t stns 'a �DIRC / .: ,j[� \3 \•\!i0A ER t• ! yl�.S'_ °�. F°7w,` 2e�s. N "'�SG��E l 't7EETley1 •� Its. C.wee a`.o j fD Q �'Mrd w` _.' ``' `�• "•i,� 7� r,_. I e„r�Cu -!( •/y7, l WQ/: 1�^} fp pa+ '.-� _ � ,:.` n •�-.1.. /. y •!.. '•-I of ' _i X � t.. ����°•;�,-` ,,, t �,r .•�� pry;,;�;�` f�"moo (a.;., h• � $'t �' 1: ` ut1l,�♦, "l �` o 4v r/ A4_ pi t,. J✓��. . _ i *. "� rn_ �� { c moo: + , qhy�O i � J ➢Mee•Lua I CRt'f - �~ .. 1! J-T �\•o 1, {•. � O~ � dRN-_ f r - ti}�T, r `'hy"�) P r t �. •� + _ 1.'T p rr•_ ✓. ► ° 4r ...� ay,•..e4a♦ a •t. � f A:•. lBq,. _-� I - Q_ �4ial t .. t3�• �. .rya -. , •tee)• :,Q.3Q .�, ;+ .abtx � �,.�, }Er.,,;^,. way s`„. ;` h• �, .. ; - ` za V. k/ aq : • \ f is.a, oRa / D,♦w•a. RS°_=:i c • ' .e va;'aw::*r. r :-,., j� was 1 •. „a� a_ •� 1.;01T 1 V N ;40Tps�FC• " �` _ ! .208 t•?8e'�' '• ,8 R i UST rr \t 6' rases_ �---- �•-,,,�/ ^�r°�1 �. d3,3 •� as�e\ •e /�_ `_.... '� `�,,"�.r C•ae u„i�T.M1''?LN,rJa,l`.'' aF aM • /ea s _ ' ✓r' l ' ,' TRACT c AN 6413 1 • T " TIC/rYS EN4e `Q r.e.04i.:e {f qy, sir! INV.ete.ee ._ �la'�--•.�.� Mohr• - �, ^ • of O h S + • ,r ,