Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 08-13 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STUDY SESSION AUGUST 13, 1981 1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes : July 30, 1981 4. Chairman'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. Roberts Construction, Inc. 81055 Request for plan review approval to construct two overhead doors on the east wall of the Spec. III Industrial Building to allow drive-through by Chemlawn trucks. 6. Jo Ann Jorgenson 81056 Request for Subdivision approval to divide the parcel at 6610 Colfax Avenue North into two lots, one 71 .88' wide, the other 60.1 ' wide. 7. Jo Ann Jorgenson 81057 Request for a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance and 15-106 of the Subdivision Ordinance to create two lots substandard in width and one lot being substandard in area. 8 ienson's Ethan Allen Galleries 81050 A. Request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow +. a canopy sign in addition to a freestanding identification sign. This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its July 30, 1981 meeting with direction to prepare ordinance language. That language is attached for the Commission's review. 9. Other Business 10. Discussion Item a) Convenience Food Restaurants. 11 . Adjournment a i • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81055 Applicant: Roberts Construction, Inc. Location: 1800 Freeway Boulevard Request: Plan Review The applicant seeks approval to construct two overhead doors along the east wall of the Spec. III Industrial Building (McCulloch Building) at 1800 Freeway Boulevard. The property in question is bounded by James Avenue North on the east, Freeway Boulevard on the south, Shingle Creek Parkway on the west, and the Northwestern Bell property to the north. The overhead doors will face James Avenue North rather than being hidden from public view. Such overhead doors already exist at the Coachman building at the southeast corner of 67th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway and at the MTC bus garage. These openings were acknowledged through previous plan approvals. The applicant's proposal results in the loss of seven (7) parking stalls on the site. However, there is no threat to the ordinance requirement for parking stalls. 216 parking spaces are provided on the site and an office/industrial use of 96,000 sq. ft. with 10% office space requires 156 stalls. However, staff would recommend instead of simply striping the entrance area that concrete curb be installed as a continuation of existing curb to delineate the openings and parking area along the east side of the building. As to the Spec. III building itself, the City stills holds a bond for improvements to the site which goes back to 1971 . Required landscaping and other improvements have been installed and the bond can be released at any time. Staff do not recom- mend any further site improvements as part of this application. The application is brought before the Planning Commission primarily as a vehicle to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the proposal. Staff do not feel that overhead doors should proliferate along walls which face public right-of-way, particularly major thoroughfares such as Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. This is a purely aesthetic judgment on our part. To control such openings, plan review has been required. This building, when originally approved, was designed so that the loading service and truck activity areas were confined to the inside of this somewhat u-shaped building. Other requests for overhead doors along street right-of-way have been addressed either at the time of the original site plan approval or as an amendment to the plan approval requiring Planning Commission review and City Council approval . It is hoped that the Planning Com- mission will discuss the aesthetic aspect of the application and begin to formulate a policy for the approval of overhead doors . It is recommended that a condition of approval be that no such overhead doors will be comprehended along the building walls of this building that face Shingle Creek Parkway or Freeway Boulevard. It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance at present does not allow loading berths to be located within yard setback areas bordering streets (See Section 35- 600 attached) . Overhead doors are not considered loading docks, however. We mention this only as it relates indirectly to aesthetic considerations. The doors in question will be used as a pass-through for Chemlawn trucks (Chemlawn proposes to occupy this space) so as to save space within the building by not requiring two extra doors on the west side of the east wing of the building and making trucks turn around within the building. 8-13-81 -1- Application No. 81055 continued Subject to some slight modification, the plans seem to be in order and approval is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The plans shall be modified to indicate B-6 curb to delineate the entrance area serving the overhead doors and the parking area on the east side of the building. 3. There shall be no overhead doors or loading berths along the building walls of this building facing Shingle Creek Parkway or Freeway Boulevard. 8-13-80 -2- Section 35-530 (continued) { 2 . Accessory buildings may not be erected within the side yard adjacent to the street of a corner lot. 3. No accessory building shall exceed 15 feet in height. 4. No basement, cellar, garage, tent, trailer or accessory building shall at any time be used as a residence or dwelling, temporarily or permanently. Section 35-540 . COMBINATION OF LAND PARCELS. Multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent and which are proposed to serve a single development use and which are under common ownership shall be combined into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey. Section 35-560 . VISIBILITY AT INTERSECTIONS. In order to preserve and promote the public safety , nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, maintained, or allowed to grow on a corner lot in any district in such a manner as materially to impede vision between a height of two and one-half and ten feet above the center- line grades of the intersection streets in the triangle bounded by the property lines of such corner lot and a straight line joining points on such property lines 25 feet from their intersection of the property lines. y Section 3 5-6 00 o OFF-STREET LOADING. In connection with any use which is to be established or substantially altered and which requires the receipt of distri- bution of materials or merchandise by trucks or similar vehicles , there shall be provided off-street loading space on the basis of the following minimum requirements: 1 . Minimum Number of Berths Required (a) For retail commerce, wholesale commerce, manufacturing and ware- housing: Sq. Ft. of Aggregate Minimum Required Gross Floor Area Number of Berths Under 10,000 0 10,000 to 25 ,000 1 25,000 to 40,000 2 40,000 to 100,000 3 100 ,000 to 250, 000 4 Each additional 200,000 1 Section 35-600, 1 (continued) r (b) For other uses:, Space adequate for the convenient and•uncongested loading and unloading of materials . 2. Location All loading berths shall be 25 feet or more from the intersection of two street right-of-way lines . Loading berths shall not occupy any yard requirements bordering a street. 3. Size The first berth required shall not be less than 12 feet in width and 50 feet in length. Additional berths shall not be less than 12 feet in width and 25 feet in length. All loading berths shall maintain a height of 14 feet or more, 4. Access Each loading berth shall be located so as to provide convenient access to a public street or alley in a manner which will least interfere with traffic. 5. Accessory Uses Any area designated as a required loading berth or access drive so as to comply with the terms of this ordinance shall not be used for storage of goods or inoperable vehicles nor shall such area be included as a part of the area necessary to meet the off-street parking area. Section 35-700 . OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided in all districts in accordance with the require- ments of this ordinance. There shall be no off-street parking, storage of vehicles nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 15 feet of any street right-of-way and this 15 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip. In the case of Cl and CIA districts, there shall be no off-street parking nor perimeter parking lot driveway within 35 feet of any major thoroughfare right-of-way and this 35 foot strip shall be planted and maintained as a green strip, Off-street parking in any residence district may i • -> a "� HLaz,'fI NI Jill IT 17 fv�j • v t � ' LL4iJ L_ _ __ R 4 2 f E,9 TN VC coon rY C2 ;. "R 5 c 2 <;NCE S SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY I- a 67 +� ,,-- OPEN SPACE 7 _ .... 6 H AVk z BROOKLYN HIGH CL > a APPLICATION NO. 81055 r t 1 w � U � Q FREEWAY BLVD. 6 J U C2 :.ENTRAL FAfi � °--- PROPOSED ROADWAYS © 94L `p PROPOSED BRIDGES T Y / � I , °?/ p R7 i, SUMmIT . C' I A / s • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81056, 81057 Applicant: JoAnn M. Jorgenson on behalf of Stephen William Fignar and Carlton J. Jorgenson Location: 6610 Colfax Avenue North Request: Subdivision and Variance from Section 35-400 The applicant requests subdivision approval to divide the property at 6610 Colfax Avenue North into two substandard lots . The existing lot is 131 .4' wide by 133.24' deep for a total of 17,500 sq . ft. of area. The proposed lots would be 71 .3' wide (9,500 sq. ft. in area) and 60.1 ' wide (8,000 sq . ft. in area) . The larger of the two proposed lots has an existing two-storey house and detached garage and is proposed to be described as Lot 2, Block 1, B. and C. Addition. The smaller of the two lots lies to the north, is vacant and is proposed to be described as Lot 1 , Block 1 , B. and C. Addition. Both of the proposed lots are substandard as to width (the ordinance requirement is a minimum of 75 ' for an interior R1 lot as per Section 35-400) and the proposed Lot 1 is also substandard as to area (the requirement is 9,500 sq. ft. , also Section 35-400) . Along with the request for plat approval, the applicant requests a variance from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which establishes the minimum lot dimensions for subdivisions . (See Section 35-400, Table of Minimum District Requirements attached) . The property in question is zoned R1 and is surrounded by single-family. homes . The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a Variance. The applicant makes the following points: 1 ) The Auditor's Subdivision which created the existing lot provided larger lot areas than required under current ordinance. 2) The existing home is situated on the lot so that a separate lot can feasibly be created. 3) The 17,500 sq. ft. lot is too much for one owner to maintain adequately. Two lots would be better maintained. 4) There are less than 100 single-family lots available in Brooklyn Center. The new lot would add needed housing. 5) The parcel is fairly unique in that there are few lots within the City with a similar situation. Other lots of similar size are - occupied by older homes that, in some cases , are poorly maintained. A variance as is being requested might provide the incentive for rehabilitating the existing homes . 6) Neighboring property owners indicate they are not opposed to the split and look forward to rehabilitation of the existing house. One point in the letter that perhaps needs some clarification is the size of the lots lying on the west side of Colfax Avenue where homes were built approximately 10 to 13 years ago. These lots have a minimum frontage of 76' in width, riot the approximate 66' in width that the letter seems to imply. The Zoning Ordinance authorizes variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 8-13-81 -1- Application Nos. 81056, 81057 a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topo- graphical 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 neighbor- hood in which the parcel of land is located. The past precedent for approving substandard lots has evolved over the years to support a stricter reading of the ordinance requirements. Prior to 1968, a number of variances were granted under a "70% rule" which allowed for variances from ordinance requirements for lot width and area as long as 70% of the requirement could be met. This rule gravely undercut the City's lot standards and was elimi- nated during the 1960's in response to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. During the late 1960's and early 1970's , the City was often confronted with variance requests to build on substandard size lots of prior legal record. This lead in 1976 to an ordinance amendment which declared all lots of legal record prior to January 1 , 1976 buildable if they are at least 40' in width and 5,000 square feet in area, and if all setback requirements can be met. Since 1976, few requests for variancesfrom subdivision requirements have been filed with the Planning Commission. However, outlots (by definition unbuildable) larger than 40' in width and 5,000 sq. ft. in area have been denied building permits because they were not legal buildable lots prior to 1976. This interpretation was upheld by the court in the case of Yesnes vs. City of Brooklyn Center (Application No. 77022) . Legal status and not relative frontage or area of a lot in question was found to be of paramount importance. The Planning Commission should, therefore, evaluate the proposed variance on its own merits without regard to other smaller lots in the City. Generally, past precedent seems to suggest that at least three things must apply before such a variance is considered for approval : 1 ) The variance(s) have been minimized to the maximum extent possible. 2) There is no excess land available on adjacent lots to meet the strict letter of the ordinance. 3) The proposed lot or lots meet at least one of the requirements for either frontage or lot area, especially lot area. Beyond these general conditions, the request must be reasonable and justified in light of the Standards for a Variance. The variance requested meets only one of the three general conditions outlined above (namely #1 ) , but does not meet the next is two conditions . In this case, there is excess land available both to the south and to the north which could make both lots standard as to width and area. Lot 2 of the proposed subdivision does meet the area requirement of 9,500 sq. ft. for single family lots, but Lot 1 is substandard by 14.9 feet in frontage and 1 ,500 sq. ft. in area. A garage on the property at 6624 Colfax Avenue North is 20.6' north of 8-13-81 -2- r Application Nos . 81056, 81057 the north property line of the proposed Lot 1 which is ample space to allow for a transfer of 15 feet of property to make the proposed Lot 1 standard as to both width and area. A hedgerow and accessory building on the property to the south I would make acquisition of land in that direction more costly. The existing lots to both the north and south are over 130' wide and can easily accommodate the sale of necessary land to make both proposed parcels standard. As to whether this request for a variance is reasonable and justified based on the Standards for a Variance, it is staff's opinion that it falls short. The . hardship of maintaining a large lot is not a denial of the reasonable use of the property by the ordinance. It is an inconvenience for the current owner which may become an opportunity for a large garden for the next owner. Nor is any guarantee established by such a subdivision that the house in question will be better main- tained. The situation is not particularly unique as there are very few substandard lots in the Northeast Neighborhood, yet quite a number of oversized lots. Just within this immediate block (bounded by Colfax on the west and Bryant on the east) there are five other lots in excess of 130 feet in width, that could under similar circumstances, demand the same consideration. The difficulty which the present owner faces is a result, not of the Zoning Ordinance, but of actions taken by those previously having an interest in the parcel of land. Finally, we would cite the potentially negative impact such a variance could have on property values generally by watering down significantly the standards by which most other lots in the City have been created. On this point, we would quote the 1968 edition of Principles and Practice of Urban Planning page 467: "One of the more common situations in which variances are sought is where a developer divides his land into the greatest possible number of lots barely meeting minimum requirements and then seeks permission to create substandard lots out of the resulting remnants of land. The plat approval agency should remember that the subdivision regulations are intended to set forth minimum standards for develop- ment, not maximums. The intent of the regulations is clearly that these remnants of land should be used to increase the area of other lots rather than to "break" the mimimum requirements. Every time that a variance is granted allowing a substandard lot, it weakens the legal position of the approval agency in the event the agency is galled upon to defend its general standards ." (emphasis added) Rather than a remnant, in this case we have an oversize parcel . Nevertheless, the extra land in this case does not justify the creation of a substandard lot and we believe that the past actions of the City do not give the applicant a "right" to a second lot within the limits of her property. Based on the foregoing, we recommend that the variance application be denied on the grounds that the Standards for a variance are not met. Consequently, the subdivision application should also be denied on the basis that the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. 8-13-81 -3- July 31 , 1981 City Council City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Property located at 6610 Colfax Avenue North Dear Council Members: We have recently purchased the property at 6610 Colfax Avenue North, and are rehabilitating the existing 36 year old house. The property is 131 .4 feet wide and 133.25 feet deep, with a total area of approximately 17,500 square feet. It is nearly twice the size of individual lots across the street on which homes were built on 10 - 13 years ago. We are requesting to split the parcel into two lots consisting of a 60.1 foot wide and 8,000 square foot area lot, and a 71 .3 foot wide lot with a 9,500 square foot area. The existing house would be on the 9,500 square foot lot. In order to do this we are requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance for 3.7 feet on one lot and 14.9 feet on the other lot in frontage width, and an area variance of 1 ,500 square feet on the smaller lot. The variance is being requested for the following reasons: 1 . The existing house is situated on a large parcel of land which was subdivided by an old Auditor's Subdivision in 1942. The old subdivision provided lot sizes much larger than the current ordinance requirements and individual needs. 2. The existing home sets on a portion of the lot that provides for the physical capability of dividing the lot into two smaller lots. A new house can be built on the second lot with all of the setback requirements met for both lots. 3. The existing area of 17,500 square feet is an excessive amount of area to be maintained by future property owners of the existing old house. Therefore, the creation of a second parcel will conceivably provide better maintenance of the exterior area of the existing property. 4. According to the City staff of Brooklyn Center, there are only less than 100 R-1 single family home sites remaining within the corporate limits. The subdivision of this lot provides additional housing within the City in the R-1 single family type of setting and atmosphere. 5. There are only a few lots within the City of Brooklyn Center which have a similar situation as this parcel of land. In most cases the • parcels are occupied by older homes and in some cases would provide the incentive for rehabilitation of the existing homes. � s City Council City of Brooklyn Center Re: 6610 Colfax Avenue North Page 2 6. Discussions with neighboring property owners indicate they are not in opposition to a lot split on this parcel of land and are very pleased with the rehabilitation of the existing house and site. It is our feeling that the granting of the variances for subdivision will be a benefit to the City of Brooklyn Center by way of providing additional single family housing units within the City and providing independent rehabilitation of old homes within the City of Brooklyn Center while not being detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. We would appreciate very much a favorable consideration on the above request. Thank you. Sil�erely • oann Jorgenson V C) Cn JA W n Cum n O O O O d 'r.3} .n Iu Q o CD (D CD m En (D O r+ E3 .1 (w co C/) (U'D m m CO CO a a a a a a rt (D a Is t� C/? CA Cn Cn C/) co CA CO CA `G `C `C 'C 'G 'C O O.. p O cJ (D (D (D O (D (D (D (D (D a (? n C) 0 C] n C) C) Q v H w w W W w w W w w w O (D O (D (D (D O cn Cn cn Cn (n Cn Cn cn Cn Cn +h ►-r r f-+ r+ r �-+ r r r r �q tQ tq �G2 O tQ N � O W W N v v O O O O O KO rt r+ O O (CD C. CD r N rte- .y O O Al O O �3 Z zo O P+ p N p t-' vi v O -.� O C j .s d CD H .r- -33 - ;U CD H t f 1 1 1 r r N W Cn o) 0) OD V O (D .Q (D � CD CD 1 1 1 1 1 rtj FA co V (n �N N N V Cn Cn a i1 O O O O O O O Cn O O O hh O O O O O O O O O O O �t v C; C C !r � C G !✓ sr C !✓ � r � r r- r r• r- r• r r• r- r- w y t'h rt C'f' rt rt r+ t-t rt rt ri' rt a M (D z N H _ a C/] O Cn i O O a O O cn Cn O O o V o cn ui o C) n C •- a CD r (D r+ En O CD r} w on w w W w w w w w W w w w w w :3- 0, cn O cn (n cn O O cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn On O i � rr K CD r• cn Cn O O O O O O Cl O 1 O 1 Cn 1 Cn CD Q, d r+ En V! :3 CD CD v v w rt rt n r 'C N r r r+ F""ti N N r r 1 t-+ r r ►-+ r r CA N O� O O O O O O O Cn O ! O O O O O O r+ CD r b V r 0 O u v v v v v 0 CA) O ::r O Cn v 0 En N Cn N N N Cn Cn N N N N N N N N N (� C_n (D En rr .n O Cn Cn to O O w to Cn Cn to to cn Cn Cn O CD �P v i rT1 1' v � � I ���: •�� ��.t•1 - -�'- .- ..._.._...846--- -- - - -- _ .rFV• LOT I d C (�T ,..•- t3l. ' 35' AO' 1 65? �J44 ga�i� Q'�'1 ap5' o -- /33.25- IN B Q 1 I , � � 36.0• �0' m \ � 1 , 1 _ �• BJS.4 Z � m t X11 axe' ' `m �VX16TiN,•- 2-sH LOT 2 LYN i 184.0 ��s�� •`-�`�1I'� M-4' Gc�<aGE I --�- r-- �Lr--z_�r-i..r-'�c—'rN�93°513•'`�"l'{�-_-�.—ti--�zt -.,. .� i � t 1 t \ Li I ` ! \ 7.0 lY5-1 Wsn 0 I / 7/ / � I Gnt;nGG I ' I a ` I N ' i bx w © Z > > 7. a N >L 67 a N 67 Til AVE N. -- > a ` RIVERBR00K CT. c°`z _ a O RZ Z ! BROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL r'. V ATM nVE ,a. APPLICATION NOS, FIREHOUSE 81056 and 81057 PAR z SIR d C2 .. , ST A. 1 w AVE ° r a 9 4 W.B. — _ - -- --<— -- 94 4 7-- 694 E9. _ ^ oaly - - l® 9q E8• ,�� COURT !!!i �it _ 62 M4 AVE M t ; t- fj 61 ST N J r F1 L Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 81050 Applicant: Swenson's Ethan Allen Galleries • location: 2300 Freeway Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant has requested a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a canopy sign in addition to a freestanding sign on the property at 2300 Freeway Boulevard. This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its July 30, 1981 meeting with direction to staff to prepare language for an ordinance amendment. That language is attached. The Planning Commission is urged to review the language and make further recommendations if necessary. As previously stated at the last meeting, it is recommended that the variance application be denied on the grounds that the Sign Ordinance Variance Standards are not met and the ordinance amendment recommended for Council adoption. i 8-13-81 A V . 14 '` t � .sar_sa:x"ar..r:rt+opa&ir�:ra.".ara5 :ax. r sva mrmi�:s:.- :nsx:-n• -- ..r• { ''�/�" CITY a:.! a4••^ MAINTENANCE ' I BUILDING ' f �_....'t�.. �i✓}✓'i ViiA; SHINGLE CREEK PA OPEN SPACE w 1 Z/ Y ^S Q Q ll APPLICATION NO. 81050 Y ` w r; TO BE CLOSED � t ' C E N T M L AV E ✓ �:r -� ---- PROPOSED ROADWAYS cy PROPOSED BRIDGES GAtDEN PARK ✓,�. �;/> . / i V utiIMIT OR t DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Section 34-110 is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Canopy - An accessory roof-like structure, either attached to or. detached from a permitted building, open on all sides, other than where attached; which is - located over and desicned to provide tom_ cover for entrances , exits, walkways, and approved off-street vehicle service areas such as asoline stations , drive in establishments , and 1 oadi n berths Sign, Canopy - An identification sign affixed to a canopy or marquee. Such identi - fication signery shall be considered a type of wall sign provided the canopy (or marquee) and the sign upon it meet the requirements of Section 34-140:3 of the Sign Ordinance. In other cases, canopy signs shall be considered either roof signs or freestanding signs and are interchangeable with such signs. Section 34-140:3A is hereby amended by the addition of the following: Canopy Signs Canopy identification signs may be allowed at both individual and clustered establishments if the following conditions are met: Sa) The canopy meets building wall setback requirements from respective property. lines . (b� The canopy structure is attached to the building wall and is deemed by the Building Official to be an inte ral- part of the • (c) * The primary function of the canopy is to provide an outside shelter for pedestrians as opposed to automobiles . Such canopies may have signs affixed to them subject to the following restrictions: No canopy sign shall extend above the top of the canopy. Canopy identification signs shall only be placed on that elevation of the canopy which is parallel to the wall to which it is attached. The area of the canopy sign shall be limited to 30% of the canopy face or elevation which is parallel to the wall to which it is attached.