Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 04-11 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 11, 1991 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7: 30 p.m. 2 . Roll Call 3 . Approval of Minutes - February 28, 1991 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. Sunlite Properties 91006 Request for approval of a variance to allow a 15 ' buffer strip between its parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North and the Berean Evangelical Free Church property to the east. 6. Other Business 7. Discussion Items 8. Adjournment Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91006 Applicant: Sunlite Properties Location: 1601 67th Avenue North Request: Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance to allow a 15 ' buffer strip between its parking lot and the Berean Evangelical Free Church property to the east. There is presently a 50 ' buffer which was allowed by variance in 1977 from the ordinance requirement of 1001 . The property in question is an industrial/office building that is zoned I-1 and is bounded on the north by the Spec. 7 industrial building (TCR et al) , on the east by the Berean Evangelical Free Church, on the south by Hoffmann Engineering parking lot, and on the west by the Hoffmann Engineering parking to and the 67th Avenue North cul-de-sac. The church to the east is zoned R1. Under section 35-413 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, when an I-1 or I-2 use abuts an R1, R2, or R3 use at a property line, a 100 ' landscaped buffer is required of the industrial property. In this case, a variance was granted in 1977 to allow a 50' buffer for both building and parking. The applicant wishes to add 7 parking stalls in the green area east of the existing parking lot on the north side of the site (see site plan, attached) . Background The 1977 variance for this property (Application No. 77052) was based on six findings which are listed below: "1. The standards for variance listed in Section 35-240 are met, especially with respect to uniqueness and hardship. 2. The direct abutment of the I-1 zoned site to the R1 property is unique in the I-1 district. 3 . The ordinance buffering standard, where I-1 sites directly abut R1 property can be reduced in this instance due to the proposed I-1 site layout and the special use institutional character of the R1 property. 4. Screen fencing of the parking lot only is within the intent of the ordinance buffering requirements due to the location of the church parking facilities and due to the orientation of the I-1 development to the west. 5. The variances and circumstances are similar to those considered and approved under Application No. 74044. 6. No objection to the variance request was made by adjacent property owners or other parties. " • 4-11-91 1 . Application No. 74044 was a request for site and building plan approval for the Spec. 7 industrial building to the north of this site which comprehended a buffer variance from the church property which, at that time, extended westward, including the property presently occupied by this industrial building. In 1977, approximately the west half of the church property was rezoned from R1 to I-1 and the industrial building at 1601 67th Avenue North was subsequently approved. Application No. 74044 comprehended a buffer variance along the south side of the Spec. 7 property adjacent to what was then the R1 church property. The variance acknowledged a greenstrip which would vary from 59 ' to 221 , thus a maximum variance of 78 ' from the required 100 ' buffer. The bases for the variance were enumerated as follows: "1. Due to the particular physical surroundings of the specific parcel of land involved a hardship would be realized if the strict letter of the buffer requirements were carried out. 2. The conditions of the application are unique in the specific parcel and are not common generally, to other property in the I-1 district. 3. The alleged hardship is related to ordinance requirements, the established R1 parcel, so zoned because of an existing special use, and to the dedicated, but undeveloped street right-of-way. 4. The proposed variance is not deemed to be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to neighboring properties. 5. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is retained in conjunction with the site and building plan approval considerations for appropriate screening. " A key consideration in both variances appears to have been the institutional nature of the adjacent R1 use and the fact that it, too, has a parking lot located west of the church building. The church was built in 1961, about the same time as the older apartments to the north. This was before the City adopted its first Comprehensive Plan and before the Industrial Park was planned, zoned, and developed. The R1 zoning of the church property probably existed from the City's first Zoning Ordinance and was left in place, because of the church use, after surrounding property was zoned industrial and multi-family. Variance Standards The applicant's representative, Mr. Janis Blumentals, has submitted a letter (attached) in which he addresses the Standards for Variance contained in Section 35-240 (also attached) . A recitation 4-11-91 2 I of those standards and Mr. Blumentals' arguments and staff comments follow below: (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: "Because this particular parcel of land is located next to a church property, the setbacks for the parking is different than all the other adjacent industrial properties. The question of zoning of the church property is reviewed under Qualification B. "The existing industrial building on this property was built in 1978/79 as a multi-use, multi-tenant building. Office uses were located in the northeast corner of the building with one door to the north and the other door to the east (For reference: The church is east of this building) . Industrial uses are located in the balance of the building with entrances and loading away from the church property. "Office uses (approximately 5, 000 sq. ft. ) were planned to be multi-tenant spaces for several small office tenants. Due to market changes there is not the demand for such spaces and the owner has the possibility to lease out the space only to two larger tenants where each tenant would have their own private entrances. "The tenant that would use the east entrance requires parking near this entrance. The new seven parking spaces would provide the necessary parking instead of using existing spaces that are over 100 feet away and would have a conflict with the parking for the other tenant. " Staff: We regard the impediment to more convenient parking to be an inconvenience and not a hardship as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. If there is an uncontrollable factor affecting the use of the applicant's property, it is the zoning of the property to the east containing the church and the parsonage. The Rl zoning of the church property imposes burdens on this site which other industrial properties in this area do not face since they abut R5 property. Perhaps the protection afforded by the buffer is not as critical in this case, given the institutional nature of the adjacent R1 use. However, the 50 ' buffer was apparently deemed to be an acceptable compromise when the building was built and the circumstances which have changed since then do not seem to meet the definition of a "hardship. " (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the 4-11-91 3 variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Applicant: "This particular parcel of land is located in the industrial area (I-1 zone) that is adjacent to multi-residential area (R5 zone) . Directly east of this property is Berean Evangelical Free Church. The church property is zoned R1. Typically, all churches are zoned R1 so that they can be located in the neighborhoods of one family residences. In this location that is not true: if the church would not be there, this church property would be zoned R5 just like the adjacent properties are. The variance applied for complies with setbacks for the R5 zone. " Staff: This property is unique in the I-1 zone in abutting an R1 parcel directly. The Palmer Lake Plaza site provided the required 50 ' buffer along Shingle Creek Parkway when it was developed across the street from what was, at the time, R3 zoned property. It seems useless, however, to excuse a property owner from an ordinance requirement in the one case where it applies. The City might as well change its ordinance. Perhaps it is more a matter of the church being unique in being located in an area surrounded by multi-family dwellings and industrial buildings rather than, as the applicant states, in a single-family neighborhood. (It should be noted that, under the Zoning Ordinance, churches are to be located such that they have primary access off collector or arterial streets. ) Another way of allowing a lesser buffer in this case would be to rezone the church property to R5 (churches are now a special use in the R5 zone) . However, this would make the existing parsonage a nonconforming use and would also open up the possibility of future multi-family development on the church property. The abundance of apartments in this area lessens the need for more. A church is a somewhat unique use in the R1 zone and there may be some justification in considering a lesser buffer adjacent to a church. However, as we have noted above, the buffer question was considered in 1977 and the present 50' buffer was approved by variance. The changes which have taken place since then are minor and do not make this situation any more unique than it was then. (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: "To no fault by anybody the adjacent church property is spot zoned: R1 property located in the R5 zone that is adjacent to industrial area. See Qualification B. " Staff: The applicant alleges that the church property is "spot zoned. " We would point out that there is R1 property across the street (Brooklyn Center Jr.-Sr. High School) and that the R1 4-11-91 4 zoning, while somewhat isolated, is consistent with the City's original and updated Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the church property is always an option, but that should be pursued by the church. There is also the possibility that the church could sell additional land to Sunlite Properties to become part of the industrial site and maintain a minimum of a 50 ' buffer. This would involve a replat and a rezoning. We have suggested this option to the applicant's representative, but they have pursued the variance instead. Perhaps the church is not interested in selling any land; or perhaps the applicant simply regards this option as too expensive. The current situation has been brought about by the previous owner of the industrial site (the church) who pursued a rezoning of the property to I-1 and by the present owner and by the City which agreed to a 50 ' buffer in 1977. If the isolated R1 zoning creates a hardship, that zoning should perhaps be reviewed in consultation with the church. The zoning of the church property and that of surrounding land have been established by the City. The R1 zoning, in all likelihood, existed prior to the adjacent industrial and multi-family zones and is simply a leftover zoning that is consistent with the current use of the property and with the Comprehensive Plan. (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: "The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare in any way because it would provide the same setbacks as for all other adjacent industrial properties and would not provide any precedent for any other property that is located next to a church because this is a very unique case. "The variance will not be detrimental to the Berean Evangelical Free Church because: "1. The new seven parking spaces by layout will be limited to car parking only (no trucks) and further will be limited to the office hours. 2. The new seven parking spaces will be screened as per Zoning Ordinance and the visibility of the cars will be considerably less than the truck parking on the property to the south. 3 . The new seven parking spaces are not required parking, but are additional parking above the required parking. " 4-11-91 5 Staff: Mr. David Roop, Trustee Board Chairman of the Berean Evangelical Free Church, has submitted a letter (attached) informing Mr. Jerry Steffens of Sunlite Properties that the Trustee Board of the church has given its consent to the expanded parking area as long as the area is screened by an opaque fence. The absence of any truck traffic is certainly a point in favor of any action approving the expanded parking area. In substance, the parking lot should cause no noticeable harm to the church since it has a parking lot on its own property. Parking lots are generally separated by at least 10 ' of green area. That would be exceeded here. It should also be pointed out, however, that there is also a parsonage dwelling on the church property. Adjacent to single- family development, the minimum buffer for office (Cl) uses is 151 , for retail (C2) uses is 351 , and for industrial (I-1 and I-2) uses is 100 ' . Opaque fencing is required in all cases. The parking spaces proposed would service an office tenant in an industrial building on land zoned I-1. Conclusion Although there are some practical arguments for the requested variance, it appears to us that not all the standards for a variance are met in this case. A more appropriate resolution of this issue would probably involve some rezoning of land -- either the church site as a whole to R5 or a portion of the church site to I-1 to be transferred by platting to the Sunlite Properties site. If the Commission wishes, following a public hearing and discussion of the matter, the application could be tabled and a resolution brought back outlining the Commission's reasoning either for or against the variance. Submitted by, Gary Shallcross Planner Approved by, ,000�---4 a- CAJ Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 4-11-91 6 Blumentalsf 6205 Earle Brown Drive • Suite 120 • Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 (612)561-5757 March 13, 1991 EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR STEFFENS BUILDING, 67TH AVENUE NORTH BROOKLYN CENTER QUALIFICATION A QUESTION: Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of I and i n vo I ved, a part i cu I ar hardsh i p to the owner wou i d resu I t, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. EVIDENCE: Because this particular parcel of land is located next to a church property, the setbacks for the parking is different than all the other adjacent industrial properties. The question of zoning of the church property is reviewed under Qualification B. The . existing industrial building on this property was built in 1978/79 as multi use, multi tenant building. Office uses were located in northeast corner of the building with one door to north and the other door to east (For reference: The church is east of this building). Industrial uses are located in the balance of the building with entrances and loading away from the church property. Office uses (approx. 5,000 sq. ft.) were planned to be multi tenant spaces for several small office tenants. Due to market changes there is not the demand for such spaces and the Owner has the poss l b i I i ty to lease out the space only to two larger tenants where each tenant would have their own private entrances. The tenant that would use the east entrance requires parking near this entrance. The new seven parking spaces would provide the necessary parking instead of using existing spaces that are over 100 feet away and wou I d have a conf I ict with the parking for the other tenant. QUALIFICATION B QUESTION: 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 . EVIDENCE: This particular parcel of land is located in the industrial area ( 1 -1 zone) that is adjacent to multi residential area (R-5 zone). Directly east of this property is Berean Ev. Free Church. The church property is zoned R-1 . Typically, all churches are zoned R- 1 so that they can be located in the neighborhoods of one family residences. In this location that is not true: if the church would not be there this church property would be zoned R-5 just like the adjacent properties are. The variance applied for complies with setbacks for R-5 zone. QUALIFICATION C QUESTION: 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. EVIDENCE: To no fault by anybody the adjacent church property is snot zon-ed: R-1 property located in R-5 zone that is adjacent to industrial area. See Qualification B. QUALIFICATION D QUESTION: 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. EVIDENCE: The variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare in any way because It would provide the same setbacks as for all other adjacent industrial properties and would not provide any precedent for any other property that is located next to a church because this is a very unique case. The variance will not be detrimental to the Berean Ev. Free Church because: 1 . The new seven parking spaces by Iayout will be limited to car parking only (no trucks) and further will be limited to the office hours . 2. The new seven parking spaces will be screened as per zoning ordinance and the visibility of the cars will be considerably less than the truck parking on the property to the south . 3. The new seven parking spaces are not required parking but are additional parking above the required parking . 2 HE114���s i ° E�IW(�EL/��1Lf�U Church Office:6121561.3556 9`4 p �OQ�'`FOR c EVEti? vQw��L5U�L:.1L5 ALAN JOHNSON.Pastor Residence:612/425-1388 l2WM MIWM 6625 HUMBOLDT AVENUE NORTH t: MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55430 i i� v March 14, 1991 t' Jerry Steffens Sunlite Properties 208 - 73rd Ave. No. Minneapolis, MN 55430 Dear Jerry r `y The Trustee Board of Berean Evangelical Free Church oks the plan for an easement on the property at 1601 - 67th Ave. No. . fi in Brooklyn Center, MN for the purpose of adding 7 more parking r spaces and on the bases that Sunlite Properties matains the wooden fence between your property and ours. Sincerely, " q_ z David A. Roop Trustee Board Chairman DAR/gbd `t� /✓`Y all monsoon ►, N NN NN N1 Bill NN NN N� N NN NN Na i` Bill OPEN SPACE APPLICATION 1 ♦� NN • 11 . ♦� �N .� BROOKLYN CENTER ♦�i NN .` ♦♦ ��� VI131111 HIGH SCHOOL 'N �• �►L'� , �♦♦ ♦♦� _,�►Y�s�_ ���s � NN NN NN = NN /�Il/� t e1 NN N NN F� NN NN NN NN 01111111 111B11111 1II111111 � _ NN O q N NN BIDS NN NN NN NN p NN NN ' � ♦ NN NN NN Rib i� y" 1 ► � NN NN N_ NN �1$ t ��� L.- � j♦ � NN NN cam mob' NN �yZ` N NN NN � NN - �'i re. NN NN SN NN � a I M -Bill �- NN N� r NN NN NN NN NI NN 111MOR 1INNOMEN IIII111101 mm NN NN I I _1 I � v i I III to �� � 1 11 1 I CA co cn m ZA --I 1 7 .r m�� - rng6 r-- _ r I 0 Z 4 0 fC I I I s3 �� a CL z p w - 3 4 ��dal MAN o J(A fit OZ F-j U� ►i I 10L x lll! u1; i M Q `= Ul 1 i i - S�� - -L o- _ Z ,9tt171 bE L,1X� to 3t1 c