Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 08-12 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLA14NING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 12, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7: 36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair n. eA.rge Lucht, Commissioners Carl Sandstrom, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary stated that Commissioners Malecki and Ainas called to say that they would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and asked to be excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 15, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to approve the minutes of the July 15, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 82030 (Marie Reyes) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a two car garage to be set back 25 ' 6" from the front property line at 5700 Camden Avenue North, rather than the normally required 351 . The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82030 attached) . He added that he felt Application No. 78064 regarding a carport erected within the front setback, superseded the previous case in 1968 which allowed a garage to be built closer than 35 ' from the property line. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the proposed recreation room - in the space currently part of the existing garage was too close to the north side property line to meet ordinance standards. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. He explained that living space must normally be set back 101 , or 5 ' if there are no windows or doors along the wall or in the space that it encroaches into the normal 10 ' setback area. He explained that the existing garage :.. is 3' 3" and therefore, living space would be brought closer than the minimum of 5 ' from the north side property line. He added shat garages are allowed to be 3 ' from the side property line. " r�- In response to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom regarding =,N the grade behind the existing garage, tht-- Secretary observed that there was some dropoff, but' that the ext9ting garage could be expanded both toward'+Camden Avenue North and to the rear toward the back yard. He explained that such an attached garage would require a foundation anyway and that, therefore, a footing would have to go down into the ground beneath the existing grade. He also stated that tandem garages have been built in the City. He. stated that staff had considered the option of building`:a`' tached ` 8-12-82 -1- garage behind the house, but admitted that because of the dropoff in the back yard and the existence of some trees, it would be difficult to build a detached garage in the back yard. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether houses and garages are set back 35 ' on Camden Avenue North. Commissioner Simmons answered that she believed they are set back the normal 35 ' on this block. 'The Secretary stated that the existence of other houses on the block- less than 35 ' from the front property line would be a poor reason for granting a variance, in his opinion. He explained that the City Council formally used an average formula to grant setback ,f. variances in the front yard. He stated that this practice eroded the ordinance and was..abandoned many years ago. PUBLIC HEARING xvw, Chairman Luc t then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Harvey Stenquist, an architect representing the applicant, explained to the Planning Commission that the existing garage is only 11' wide on the outside dimensions and that a 40 ' long garage of this width would be extremely difficult to work with. He added that there were apple trees in the back yard which would make it a hardship for tha owner to put a detached garage in back. He stated that he considered the situation unique because there are very few homes in the City which have access taken away from them on two sides. Mr. x Stenquist showed the Planning Commissioners pictures of the elevat- ions of the house and stated that the applicant will make the siding on the house uniform rather than the patchwork construction that exists now. He stated that the narrowness of the existing garage would make a tandem garage difficult to work with. He pointed out that a long circuitous drive around the back of the house to get out of the back of a tandem garage would probably be necessary. Otherwise, the residents would always have to be jockeying their cars to get in and out. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not feel that was a unique situation. She added that there are other garages that are in the same situation and that granting 'a variance in this case would have implications for those cases as well. Mr. Stenquist stated that the existing garage could be used for storage space and could even be part of the new garage. He stated that the possibility of converting the space to a rec room had been raised by staff and was , therefore, added as a possibility on the plans, but that it did not have to be converted to a rec room. Commissioner Simmons asked which street the house fronted on. The ,£ Secretary stated that the front of the lot was considered to be Camden and that a 35 ' setback was required froA--the street. He added that because the-parcel was� a lot of record prior to 1997, u the owner was entitled't6.A 15 ' side corner setback on the south side of the house. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that most people only have one street access, not two or three. She stated she did not see that losing a couple of accesses was a particular hardship or made the property unique. She pointed out that the proposal would allow for two cars in the garage and two additional cars to be parked in the proposed turn-around area. She added that she had seen trucks parked at that location before. Mr. Stenquist observed that the applicant does have a business and occasionally parks commercial vehicles on his property. The Secretary pointed out that the applicant has been tagged for too many commercial vehicles on residential property in the past. 8=12-82 -2- Mr: Robert Brantner, of 5712 Camden Avenue North, next addressed­ _.- the Commission.. He stated that he was all for the proposal and that other neighbors on. the street are in favor of it as well. He stated that the house looks tacky in its present configuration, that the house had been there when he was a young man himself many years ago and that it should, therefore, be grandfathered and allowed to be approved. The Chairman and the Secretary both responded that the property could be upgraded within setback restrictions. Commissioner Simmons stated that she agreed with the staff position and felt-that jockeying of cars is an inconvenience only, that other people must put up with this if they have only one car driveways. Mr. Reyes addressed the Commission and stated that he had trou`b`��e with his existing garage. He stated that it is only used for storage and it would not help him get his cars off his driveway. Following further brief discussions, Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else _present wished to apeak to the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. rt CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom, seconded by Commissioner Simmons, to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there was any other violation besides allowing a closer setback. The Secretary answered that there was no other violation if the existing garage were not con- verted to living space and the turn-around area allowed for at least a 15' greenstrip in front. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that garages are needed in Minnesota weather and he stated that a tandem garage presents particular difficulties. Chairman Lucht stated that he considered the tandem garage to be an inconvenience, but not a hardship as far as the ordinance is concerned. Commis- sioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the situation was peculiar wA the access changed from West River Road to Camden and that the im- provements ought to be allowed to improve the aesthetics of the dwelling and improve the neighborhood. Commissioner Simmons sted 'i� _ that she agreed with the idea of improving the aesthetics and cony_-'-r'•. ceded that the plan was rather an ambitious one. She added, howq�er, that the existing garage could be expanded to the south and the kitchen to the west to allow for a wider garage and still allow expansion of the kitchen. Commissioner Manson stated that she was not- in favor of the varianm. She understood the parking problems, she said, but felt that there are alternatives in designing an expansion of the garage that should be pursued before a variance is granted. Commissioner Versteeg stated that he favored keeping the alignment uniform along Camden Avenue and, therefore, the variance should be denied. Chairman Lucht stated his understanding was that the 1978 variance case gave a clear policy signal from the City Council regarding the importance of the front setback. He stated. that it may be incon- venient to look at the alternatives, but he felt that the setback,,._,-,-.�` was more important than apple- trees or other inconveniences. Mr. Stenquist pointed out that the kitchen floor is 48" above the garage floor and that 48" of concrete foundation would have to be removed in order to expand the garage southward. This, he said, was more than a slight inconvenience. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82030 (Marie Reyes) oti on b Commissioner Simmons seconded y Commissioner Manson to M � Y he recommend denial of Application No. 82030 on the grounds that t Standards for a Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons and Versteeg. Voting against: Com- missioner Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO 82033 (Advance Carter Company) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approvar to expand the existing recreation. center at` 1280 Brookdale Shopping'-Center, 'the Piccadilly Circus. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Plann- ing Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82033 attached) . In reviewing the conditions of approval the Secretary explained that Section 23-2115 applies to the operation of amusement centers. Commissioner Simmons noted that one of the doors leading out of the new tenant space would lead directly to the outside. The Secretary explained that the door was an exit-only door and would not be used for access to the recreation center. Commissioner Simmons asked how late the recreation center would be open. The Secretary re- sponded that it would be the same as the general Brookdale Mall hours, that the only establishment within Brookdale that- is open after hours, to his knowledge, is the Rocky Rococo's Restaurant. Mr. Dan Heilicher, representing Advance Carter, stated that the door to the outside is an emergency exit which was requested by the Fire. Department. He reiterated that the hours of the recreation center would be the same as those for the mall. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether there would be employees on the premises after hours. Mr. Heilicher answered that employees would be on the premises occasionally during evenings and weekends, after hours or before hours. He added that food and drink would be prohibited in, the recreation center. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION N0. 82033 (Advance Carter Company) Mgtion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconde by Commissioner —le-- to recommend approval of Application No. 82033, subject to the following conditions: j 1. The special use permit shall be issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The special use is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, including Section 23-2115 and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 8-12-82 -4 3. House rules and hours of local curfew regulations , shall be clearly posted in the establishment and' rigorously enforced. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Vers'teeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 82020 , 82031 and 82032 (Hussman Investment Company) The Secretary then introduced the next three items of business con- currently, a request to rezone from R1 to R3 two parcels of land on the south side in the 800 block of 70th Avenue North, and a request for site and building plan and preliminary plat approval for an 8 unit townhouse project on the same property. The Secretary reviewed the staff report beginning with the information sheet for Appli- cation No. 82020 (attached) . The Secretary also reviewed the reasons for rezoning contained in the draft resolution (also attached) . The Secretary also reviewed the information sheet regarding the site plan and plat (Application Nos. 82031 and 82032, attached) . The Secretary stated that he recommended fencing along the whole east property line and in the portion of the south property line not yet screened in the landscape plan. He added that such screening cannot come within 10 ' of public right-of-way. During his review of the recommended conditions of approval, the Secretary explained that the landscape plans have been certified by Mr. Jim Merila, a registered engineer. He stated that landscape plans, under the strict provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, must be prepared by a registered architect, not an engineer. He added, however, that landscape plans have been submitted by engineers in the past. He stated that the Planning Commission should decide whether it is appropriate to accept the plans as presently certified. In response to questions from Commissioner Simmons regarding visitor parking, the Secretary explained that two stalls have been moved to serve the northerly five units of the project and in order to save three larger cottonwood trees. Regarding the certification of plans, the Secretary stated that the ordinance requires site and building plans, including landscape plans to be prepared by a registered architect. However, he went on, the City has accepted plans in the past from engineers. He added that the City has also accepted plans which were not certified on the condition that they be certified prior to the issuance of building permits. He explained that the requirement for architectural certification was intended to save the City the expense of hiring an architect to review plans . Commissioner Manson asked whether land- scape architects have submitted landscape plans in the past. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Manson asked if other plans have been accepted from other design professionals before. The Secretary again responded in the affirmative. Commis- sioner Sandstrom asked what the City prefers. The Secretary answered that he preferred certification by a registered professional. Chair- man Lucht stated that he felt it was simpler to require certification by an architect in accordance with the -letter of the ordinance. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the City's experience and that of local businesses with landscape architects has been satisfactory: The Secretary responded in the affirmative. In answer to a question from Commissioner Simmons, the Secretary explained that drawings 8-12-82 -5- for two family dwellings do not need to be certified either under the City Ordinance or State Building Code. He stated that the Building Official can still require certification if he has questions about the design. Mr. Jim Merila then addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. Regarding the screening plan, he asked that the Commis ¢ ., sion accept both fencing and vegetation rather than strictly fencing 'along the east and south property lines of the project. Commissioner Simmons asked Mr. Merida why the applicant wished to use vegetation as well as fencing. Mr. Merila answered that he preferred the aesthetic advantages of the landscape treatment., Chairman Lucht asked what materials the applicant would use in providing vegetative screening along the east property line. Mr. Merila responded that they would use the same materials shown in the landscaping along the south property line, namely Russian Olives,. Sumac and Spruce.- Commissioner Simmons suggested that both fencing and landscaping could be installed along the east property line and that the land- scaping would soften the appearance of the stockade fence. Mr. Merila acknowledged that this could be done, but requested that. the applicant be allowed to alternate the fence and the shrubs to provide screening along the east and south property lines. - Chairman Lucht stated that such a proposal was acceptable to him in that landscaping has been allowed in the past and he added that he did not care for stockade fence. During further discussion on the screening issue, the Planning Assistant asked what plantings would be used to provide screening so that the Planning Commission could make a judgment that the proposed treatment is acceptable. Mr. Merila stated that the same nodules that were indicated along the south property line would be installed along the east property line as well. Chairman Lucht asked that the landscape plan be revised prior to consideration by the City Council. There was also a brief discussion regarding the certification of the plans by a. registered architect. Mr. Merila stated that he would accept the condition listed in the information sheet.. Mr. Russell Fierst then briefly addressed the Commission regarding the building plans and floor layout for the proposed townhouses. Mr. Fierst explained that the bearing walls would all be on the "outside walls of the units and that interior floor plans could be built to 'suit any prospective buyer. Regarding the landscape plan, Mr. Fierst stated that a Mr. Van Gable had designed the land- scape plan and that, although Mr. Van Gable was not a registered architect himself, there would be no problem having plans certified. Asked about the second deck shown on the plans and about the price range for the units, Mr. Fierst stated that the deck off the bedroom is an optional feature and the price range of the units would probably be in the high $50 ,000 's to mid $60,000 's, depending on construction costs and landscaping costs. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the public hearing for the plat, Appli- cation No. 82032. No one present spoke on the application. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 8-12-82 -6 ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82031 (Hussman Investment Company) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by-Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 82031, subject to 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. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City , Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5 . Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all common parking and driving areas. 7. The landscape plans shall be certified by a registered architect prior to Council consideration. 8. Plan approval acknowledges some vegetative screening along with opaque fencing along the southerly and easterly boundary of the site. The plans shall be modified to reflect this mix of screening prior to consideration by the City Council. 9 . Building permits for the project will not be issued until the plat has been given final approval by the City Council and filed with the County. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82032 (Hussman Investment Company) Motion by Commissioner Versteeg seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 82032, subject to,�-tho following conditions : 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 3. Homeowners Association documents shall be subject to 8-12-82 -7- review and approval by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 82-3 ,Following a suggestion that any reference to the school district be stricken from Point No. 2 supporting the rezoning, member Simmons introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 82020 SUBMITTED BY HUSSMAN INVESTMENT COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Sandstrom,. and upon vote being taken thereon the . following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Lucht, 'Commissioners Sandstrom, Simmons, Manson and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10 :01 p.m. and resumed at 10:32 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM (City Maintenance Garage) Following thr recess, the Secretary introduced a discussion of the possibility of having outside storage at the City Maintenance Garage at 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary explained that the City Maintenance Garage is located in the I-1 Zoning District which does not permit outside storage. He explained that outside storage is allowed in the I-1 and C2 Zoning Districts. He suggested that possibly an ordinance amendment to allow outside storage under certain conditions in the I-.1 zone should be drafted. The Secretary referred to the large outside storage yard which Northern States Power Company has between 68th Avenue North and the freeway and also referred to the above-ground fuel tanks that are allowed in the I-1 District provided they are screened from public view and approved by the City Council. The Secretary explained that the City wants to move its "bone yard" to the City Garage in order to get it out of the residential neigh- borhood where it is presently located at Dupont and 69th Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the City acquired some R4 property be- tween West River Road and Camden Avenue North through tax forfeiture and has tentative plans to use that site for a water treatment plant. He stated that the outside storage could be pursued at the R4 property between West River Road and Camden or at the City Maint- enance Garage. He stated that there was a need for outside storage in the I-1 zone. The question, he pointed out, was how to treat such storage under the ordinance. He mentioned that the salt storage building at the City Garage had been approved since 1978. The Secretary stated that he favored taking the storage of gravel, sand and other materials out of the Rl zone. He stated that the storage could be 'transferred to the R4 property, the City Garage, or an I-2 zone site if the City acquired such property. The Assistant City Engineer then reviewed with the Planning Commis- sion in more detail the specific construction proposed. He stated 8-12-82 -8 that the intent of the move was to put the street and public utilities crews in one place. He stated that the materials would be placed in a cold storage area within an expanded salt storage building and behind a masonry wall which would extend 8 ' above the 5 ' high berm. along the greenstrip north of 69th Avenue North. Within the storage area would be wood plank walls 4 ' to 6 ' in height. He explained that there would be a protective shield around the walls extending . up to 4 ' to prevent gouging and damaging the main wall with loading equipment. The Assistant City Engineer showed the Planning Commission some pictures and slides of similar types of storage bays in other cities. Commissioner Simmons stated that the primary goal was not to have visible outside storage. The Secretary reviewed some instances of outside loading docks which have been oriented away from public right-of-way so as to minimize their visibility. He asked the Planning Commission whether they were opposed to allowing storage in the I-1 zone or whether they felt it could be allowed under certain conditions. Commissioner Manson stated that there had been some concern over outside storage with the Classic Electric Car application in 1981. She stated that it would have been diffi- cult to deny Classic Car the right to store cars and other materials outside if the City had approved outside storage at the City Garage prior to that application. The Secretary acknowledged that this was a possibility, but went on to suggest that perhaps public uses could be distinguished from other uses in determining what kinds of activity can be permitted in the I-1 Zoning District. Commissioner Simmons suggested that any ordinance allowing outside storage narrow down the type of storage so as to minimize the possibility of other businesses devoting much space to outside storage. The Secretary stated that by being the first to conduct outside storage in the I-1 Zoning District, the City could set the standard for required screening. The Secretary stated that any outside storage should be totally screened from public view and should constitute a use on the site accessory to a principal use housed within a building. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that it is generally acknowledged that cities, representing the general public, have certain rights that other uses are not entitled to. Commissioner Simmons expressed some concern with any noise that might be associated with outside storage such as from the machinery used to deliver and pick up materials stored outside. It was the consensus of the Commission that outside storage in certain limited situations might be acceptable in the I-1 Zoning District and directed the staff to prepare draft ordinance language for their review. ADJOURNMENT Following further brief discussion of the matter, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Co ssion adjourned at :33 p.m. airm 8-12-82 -9- 1 1