Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 08-13 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 I AUGUST 13, 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7: 33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman William Hawes, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, Nancy Manson, Mary Simmons, George Lucht and Lowell Ainas. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant Director of Public Works James Grube, and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 30 , 1981 Motion by Commissioner Ma ecki. seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the July 30 , 1981 Planning Commission meet- ing as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman. Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, *Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. Not Voting: Commissioner Lucht, as he was not at that meeting. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81055 (Roberts Construction, Inc.) Following the Chairman s explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for plan review approval to construct two overhead doors on the east wall of the Spec. III Industrial Building at 1800 Freeway Boulevard for a drive-through by Chemlawn trucks. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Appli- cation No. 81055 attached) . Chairman Hawes noted that companies with overhead doors often leave them open in the summertime to allow for ventilation and that noise' often can be a problem in such cases. He asked if there was a way to control this behavior. The Secretary stated that there was no real way to require that the doors be closed. He stated that he simply recommended that these doors not be allowed along Freeway Boulevard or Shingle Creek Parkway. i Commissioner Simmons noted that the landscaping would screen the doors from view along James Avenue North and might well do so along Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek PaAway. She stated she could not. see the adverse aesthetic impact of allowing over- head doors on these other streets. The Secretary stated that generally, such overhead doors or loading docks have not been placed along the sides of buildings visible from public right- of-way. He stated that in a few other cases, overhead doors have been acknowledged through plan approvals. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not see a problem with the proposal at hand, but suggested that perhaps an ordinance is needed- to prohibit such overhead doors on walls facing major thoroughfares, so that plan review in the future would be simplified or unnecessary. The Secretary answered that this was an option, but that previous overhead doors have been approved through a plan review process. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt a restriction on the dis- 8-13-81 -1- tance from a principle street is needed. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that screening is already required and that loading areas are already visible along Shingle Creek Parkway at the Spec. XI building. Chairman Hawes stated that he felt the proposal represented some- thing of a variance, though not technically an ordinance variance. He stated that it should be approved with caution and with an eye to the precedent that will be set with other door openings facing public streets. Commissioner Lucht stated that the precedent set with this application would involve prohibiting doors on Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. This precedent should be continued for other buildings, he said. Commissioner Manson stated that she felt the proposal was fairly unique and should not be overlooked or standardized through an ordinance amendment. Com- missioner Theis stated that he felt the ro osed p p door openings amounted to an amendment to the site and building plans approved earlier and, as such, should be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council, Mr. Clifford Lund, of Roberts Construction, stated that the purpose of the doors was to allow a flow-through for the trucks which would enter from the back side of the building and exit out the front. 'A representative of Chemlawn, explained the procedure of washing and filling the trucks for service while they are in the building and pointed to the example of the Coachman Building as a precedent for the overhead doors. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes, Mr. Lund stated that the width of the building was 128 feet. Chair- man Hawes asked whether additional doors were needed on the front of the building if trucks would be backing around inside. The representative of Chemlawn answered that the trucks would not be backing or turning around inside the building, but would be moved straight forward. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the doors would be left open. ' The Chemlawn representative answered that they would be down 903 of the time. In answer to a question from Chairman Hawes, he also explained that there would be approximately 30 trucks and 35 employees working in the tenant space for Chemlawn. Commissioner Theis asked whether Roberts Construction anticipated any need for further openings in the Spec. III Industrial Building. Mr. Lund answered in the negative. There was a brief discussion of the requirement to install curb at the entrance of the overhead doors. The Secretary explained that straight B-6 curb would be allowed since that is what exists on the site at present. He also advised the applicants to modify the plans to bring the curbing around to a point that would shield the parking stalls on either side of the overhead doors. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81055 (Roberts Construction, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 81055, subject to the fol- lowing 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. 8-13-81 -2- 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. i Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The I motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 81056 and 81057 (Jo Ann Jorgenson on behalf , of Stephen William Fignar and Carlton J. Jorgenson) The Secretary introduced a next two items of usiness, a request for subdivision approval to divide the parcel at 6610 Colfax Avenue North into two lots; one 71. 88 feet wide, the other 60. 1 feet wide; and for a variance from Section 35-400 and Section 15-106 of the City Ordinances to create two substandard lots. The Secretary re- viewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 81056 and 81057 attached) . Chairman Hawes noted that if 19 feet of additional land were acquired from the property from the north to make two standard size lots out of the property in question, the garage on the property to the north would likely be substandard as to setback. The Secretary acknowledged this and stated that a variance would technically be required from the Zoning Ordinance if this avenue were pursued. He noted that part of the garage is set back far enough from the property line that the sale of 18 feet or 19 feet might not result in a substandard setback. He also acknowledged that additional land could be acquired from the property to the south; and that such an acquisition coupled with additional land to the north would make both lots standard as to width and area. Chairman Hawes called on the applicant to speak. Mr. James Merila, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Merila began by saying that substandard lots need not be a detriment to the community, but can be considered a benefit by adding land for needed housing in the City. He acknowledged that to grant a variance in this case would likely lead to the possibility of other large lots in the City being granted similar variances. He questioned, however, whether this would really be bad or whether the lots created might be considered a benefit to the community. Mr. Merila cited two other applications for variances in 1975, the Brand-Nel and Brandvold-Woods subdivisions , which each con- tained lots less than 60 feet in width and just over 7,000 sq. ft. in area. He also cited the Sellars Addition, which contained a substandard corner lot. He stated that there had been few denials of lot width variances in the past five years. The Secretary acknowledged this, adding that there have been few requests for such variances. Referring to the Yesnes case, Mr. Merila stated that it was addressed to an outlot which, by definition, is un- buildable, rather than a substandard lot which is granted build- ability through the variance procedure. Noting the three criteria cited by staff as being bases for granting variances for sub- standard lots, Mr. Merila stated that he was not sure how much 8-13-81 -3- �AWL- this criteria had been used in the past. He stated that the need at present was to define a housing policy for the City's future which might include the use of substandard size lots. The Secretary pointed out that the subdivisions cited by Mr. Merila were not variance applications according to City records, rather, he said, these applications more nearly represented what are presently known as "resubdivisions". That is, he said, the lots existed prior to the platting action which simply redrew property lines on or near previously established property lines for lots which had been combined for tax purposes. Mr. Merila briefly re- viewed some slides of the lot in question and the surrounding area. He showed the Planning Commission a transparency of the possible layout of the house on the proposed northerly lot. Mr. Merila also reviewed slides of other smaller lots within the City. Commissioner Simmons stated that the slide show is impressive, but that the Standards for a Variance, as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, have not been addressed. She stated that the parcel, is not unique, but is a standard parcel within that block. She stated also that there was no hardship to leaving the lot as is since many other people have and maintain similar size lots. She -. also stated that it was very possible that there would be a detri- ment to surrounding properties as a result of the development of a smaller lot. Mr. Merila noted that the block in which the lot is located is unique in having all large parcels and that, therefore, the lot, being within the block, is also unique. Commissioner Simmons answered that if there were an entire block of such lots, the lot itself could not be unique. She went on to state that there are a number of other lots in the City that are extra large in area and that these lots are beneficial to the community. Mr. Merila and Commissioner Simmons continued to discuss the variance standards. Mr. Merila admitted that the variance does not meet the variance standards very well, but stated that the request is in line with a number of past cases and stated that he felt the proposal would be good for the City. Commissioner Simmons asked Mr. Merila whether he would suggest an ordinance change. Mr. Merila answered that that was a possibility. Chairman Hawes asked how maintenance would be improved by the addition of another house in the neighborhood. Mr. Merila an- swered that the new owner of the house at 6610 Colfax Avenue North would have less to maintain and could, therefore, do it better. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. William Matta of 6601 Colfax Avenue North, 'stated that in 1970 the Planning Commission had turned down a similar variance for two lots at 6600 Colfax, before the present house was built. He explained that the reason the current house at 6610 Colfax Avenue North has not been maintained is because of the physical condition of the owner prior to her sale of the house. Mr. Tony Gass, of 6607 Colfax Avenue North, briefly addressed the Commission. He stated that he formerly lived in Minneapolis on a smaller lot. He stated that he moved to Brooklyn Center precisely to escape this overcrowded atmosphere and that the new lot would destroy the 75 feet lot requirement. He also stated that he did not 5--13-81 -4- believe that the property would necessarily get rundown just because it is larger than the average lot; rather, he said, it depends who is maintaining the property. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING airman Hawes asked whether anyone else wished to speak to the application. No one else spoke relating to the application. Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission discussed with Mr. Merila and Mrs. Jorgenson the application in question and how it relates to surrounding properties. Commissioner Malecki asked Mrs. Jorgenson whether she would be willing to approach the property owner to the north to acquire more land. 'Mrs. Jorgenson admitted that she had not done so, but would be willing. Chairman Hawes polled the Commission for their feelings. All the - Commissioners stated that the Standards for a Variance are not met and that the variance was unacceptable. Commissioner Theis did allow for the possibility of an ordinance amendment to allow for the redevelopment of large parcels, but opposed the variance. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81057 (Jo Ann Jorgenson on behalf of Stephen William -Fignar "and Carlton J. Jorgenson) Motion by i.Commissioner Malec seconded y Commissioner Theis to recommend denial of Application No. 81057 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81056 (JQ Ann Jorgenson on behalf of Stephen William Fignar and Carlton J. Jorgenson) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded y Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 81056 on the basis that the minimum lot standards of the Zoning Ordinance are not met. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Hawes suggested that the applicants pursue the purchase of more land to the north. RECESS T e P anning Commission recessed at 9 :29 p.m. and resumed at 9 :53 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 81050 (Swenson's Ethan Allen Galleries) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow a canopy sign in addition to a freestanding identification sign on the Swenson's Ethan Allen Galleries Store at 2300 Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed very briefly the action of the previous Plan- ning Commission meeting tabling the application and calling for language to amend the Sign Ordinance. He then reviewed the ordi- nance language prepared for the Planning Commission's review. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed ordinance amendment at some length asking for clarification regarding the type of canopy which would be considered eligible for a canopy sign. Com- missioner Simmons suggested that the language be changed so that a canopy structure which is attached to a building wall and deemed by the Building Official to be afttheawapart to which ituisdattached". substituted for "integral part 8-13-81 -5- Chairman Hawes called on Mr. Duane Swenson, the applicant, to speak. Mr. Swenson stated that he preferred the ordinance amend- ment to an approval of a variance. Commissioner Manson expressed some confusion over the term "temp- orary cover for entrances." After some discussion, Commissioner Simmons suggested that the word "temporary" be scratched from the definition of a canopy. The Secretary agreed with this suggestion. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81050 (Swenson`s Ethan Allen Galleries) Motion by Comma ssi.oner Theis seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 81050 on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Ordinance Variance are not met. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE CHANGE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Theis seconde2l by Commissioner Luc t to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances regarding canopy signs. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM (Convenience-Food Restaurants) The secretary Eriefly reviewed with the Planning Commission the definition contained in the proposed Comprehensive Plan for a con- venience-food restaurant. He suggested that the Planning Commission consider making ,a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the ordinance change regarding convenience-food restaurants prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that there have been inquiries regarding the establishment of convenience-food restaurants in areas that would be prohibited by the proposed Com- prehensive Plan. He noted that such a proposal would lead to a conflict regarding whether or not such a use should be permitted and a later adoption of the Comprehensive Plan would create a non- conforming situation. He explained that presently the ordinance regulates drive-up restaurants, but not convenience-food restaurants. He explained that the procedure would be to set up the classification of convenience-food restaurants as a special use within the C2 zone and then to add a definition for convenience-food restaurants in the definition section of the Zoning Ordinance. He added that if the Commission feels strongly that the provisions should be adopted, it would be appropriate to make a recommendation at this time. Commissioner Theis noted that the ordinance change would not allow any convenience-food restaurant at K-Mart. The Secretary agreed, pointing out that there is R1 property surrounding K-Mart at either a property line or a street line. Commissioner Theis stated that he considered Brooklyn Boulevard a major enough road, that abutment with Brooklyn Boulevard should not count against a convenience-food restaurant if abutting residential across the boulevard. The Secre- tary stated that the ordinance would apply to R2 and R3 property as well. He explained that the purpose is not to drive out convenience food restaurants that exist, but to protect the residential property of the City and to ensure that a nonconforming situation does not aria Chairman Hawes asked what was the significance of the Rl, R2 and R3 zones from the standpoint of disallowing other uses to abut these zones. The Secretary answered that certain uses such as gas stations, etc. cannot abut the R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. Chairman Hawes asked what the difference is between a fast food restaurant and a drive-up bank which draws a substantial amount of traffic. The Secretary answered that litter, noise, smell and traffic all are problems associated with convenience-food restaurants which are not associated with a drive-up bank. ACTION RECOMMENDING ORDINANCE CHANGE REGARDING CONVENIENCE-FOOD RESTAURANTS Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of an ordinance language amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding convenience-food restaurants, estab- lishing them as a special use, not permitted to abut Rl, R2 or R3 property. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary briefly mentioned to the Planning Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is close to completion, that Metro Council should finish its review once the materials prepared by staff are submitted. ADJOURNMENT Motion by—Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10 :47 p.m. IV Chairman { f i } r t r t i i t 8-13-81 -7- 1 1