Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 10-14 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 OCTOBER 14, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7: 30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. f APPROVAL OF MINUTES - September 16, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom secon ed by Commissioner Simmons to approve the minutes of the September 16, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Malecki and Ainas. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 82037 (Northport Properties) Fo lowing the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R1 to Cl the land at 5415 Brooklyn Boulevard where the Northport Medical Clinic is located. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82037 attached) . The Secretary reminded the Commission that the new Comprehensive Plan recommended service office development in the land from the Brooklyn Law Center offices at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard, on the north, down to and including the Northport Medical Clinic at 5415 Brooklyn Boulevard, on the south. Commissioner Simmons noted that the primary reason behind the re- zoning request is to guarantee the right to rebuild the Clinic if it were burned down. She asked whether the owner could sell the property under its current zoning. The Secretary answered that the property could be sold and continue to be used as a medical clinic under the nonconforming use provisions of the City Ordinance. Com- missioner Simmons asked whether the building could be used for any- thing other than a medical clinic under its current zoning. The Secretary suggested that the building could possibly be used for ' something less intense, such as a real estate office, because of parking requirements, etc. He stated that a more intense use would not be allowed. Commissioner Malecki asked whether a change of ownership was bringing about the rezoning request. The Secretary answered that he did not think so. , Commissioner Manson arrived at 7 :40 p.m. 4 j Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether private covenants would pro- ' hibit commercial use on the property in question. The Secretary answered that he was not aware of any private covenant limiting the use of the site although he acknowledged it was a possibility. He ex- plained, however, that the City 's right to zone or rezone property i 10-14-82 -1- 1 t is not affected by private covenants. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant. Mr. Carl Larson, representing Northport Medical Clinic, stated that he had nothing further to add and agreed with the Secretary's report. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing no comments from those present, Chairman Lucht called for a motion to continue the public hearing to a later meeting. . ACTION RECOMMENDING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION NO. 82037 Motion by Commissioner Kinas seconde2l Ey Commissioner Malecki, to continue the public hearing on Application No. 82037 to a later meeting when the application is returned to the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING TABLING APPLICATION NO. 82037 AND REFERRING IT TO THE SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Simmons to table Application No. 82037 submitted by Northport Properties and refer it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none: The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NO. 82038 (Melvin Maas) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request by Mr. Melvin Maas for a special use permit to conduct a small engine repair home occupation in an 8 ' x 20 ' screened-in porch alongside the garage at 5907 Halifax Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82038 attached) . Commissioner Malecki asked whether this would be a full-time job. The Planning Assistant answered that this would be a part-time endeavor, that the applicant has a full-time job working in the evenings. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Patrick Hankey, the owner of the premises , spoke on behalf of Mr. Maas who was -unable to attend the evening's meeting. He stated that he had nothing to add to the Secretary's report. Chairman Lucht asked how long Mr. Maas had lived with the Hankeys. Mr. Hankey responded that he has lived there for about two years. Commissioner Malecki asked Mr,. Hankey whether he understood the condition regarding a 5 lb. extinguisher to be installed in the area of the home occupation. Mr. Hankey responded in the affirmative. In response to a question from Commissioner Manson regarding the porch and ventilation, Mr. Hankey explained that the porch is not simply screened in, but that it also has combination windows which can be opened for ventilation. 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. 10-14#82, -2- CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Sandstrom suggested that there may be a noise factor with the motors being tested in this home occupation. Commissioner Ainas stated that he did not expect that the noise would be more than periodic grass cutting. Commissioner Malecki also pointed out that the porch area where the work would be done was to the inside of the lot from the detached garage, away from neighboring property. Chairman Lucht stated that any home occupation can pro- 4 duce noise, and that such noise has to be controlled under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. If a problem arises, he stated, the special use permit can be brought in for review. Commissioner Manson asked how many hours Mr. Maas would be working at the home occupation. Mr. Hankey stated that it would generally be from about 9 :00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. , that the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. were requested to cover maximum contingencies . Com- missioner Manson asked whether, on the average, the home occupation would be about 20 hours a week. Mr. Hankey responded in the affirma- tive. The Secretary also noted that the hours would be during the day with no work on the weekends and that there should; therefore, be less disturbance from the home occupation. Commissioner Simmons noted that Mr. Maas worked during the evening. She asked whether. there was a likelihood that his hours would shift to daytime, pushing the home occupation into evening hours . Mr. Hankey stated that that was not at all likely. ACTION RECOMMENDING- APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82038 (Melvin Maas) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 82038, subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2 . The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday. 4. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on improved space on the property. 5. A 5 lb. fire extinguisher shall be installed in the area of the home occupation prior to the issuance of the permit. 6.. Permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 82039 (John Clifford) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request 10-14-82 -3- for a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow expansion of a garage along the existing building line setback of 3:4 ' rather than 35 ' as required by the ordinance. The Secretary reviewed the contents of .the staff report -(see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82039 attached) . The Secretary stressed the fact that past precedent had essentially altered the ordinance in such a way that denial of the proposed variance would raise questions as to whether the applicant was receiving equal protection compared to previous applicants. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. John Clifford explained that he had contracted the Sussel Company to expand his garage and that, in preparing information for a building permit application, the survey was used which he had done in 1956. That survey showed the front setback to be only 341 . Commissioner Ainas noted that the applicant contended that to meet the setback would be excessively expensive. He asked the applicant whether he had gotten a quote as to what the cost would be of jogging the garage back one foot. Mr. Clifford answered that he had not ob- tained a quote, but estimated that difference in cost would be roughly $1,000 .00 . Commissioner Simmons asked the applicant whether he would have to alter the overhang at all. The applicant stated it was his understanding that it would not be necessary, that over- hangs in front yards are not regulated under the ordinance. Com- missioner Ainas briefly discussed with the applicant the structural complications of building a second garage stall one foot behind the first. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Tom Bennett of 2106-54th Avenue North stated that he was not concerned about the front yard setback, but about how far from the side property line the garage had to be. The Secretary explained that garages are allowed to be built to within three feet of side property lines. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone else 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 Malecki seconded by Commissioner .Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Simmons stated that it seemed that precedent outweighed the fact that the standards are not all met in this case. She stated that the proposal seemed to meet standard (c) tentatively and standard (d) . definitely. She commented, however, that previous variances did not seem to meet standards (a) or (b) either. She stated that she felt this was a reasonable approach to the problem. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the variance question had as much merit as the previous four which were approved. Commissioner Ainas stated that precedent should not really be con- sidered in making a decision to grant or deny a variance. He stated that he was sympathetic with the applicant, but that not all the standards were met. He stated that, if a variance is granted, the ordinance has to be changed. He stated that to continue granting such variances is like trying to determine how many people should be allowed in a lifeboat. Commissioner Simmons agreed. She stated the "fact that this was the fifth such variance suggests that .a change 1 -4- is needed. Commissioner Manson asked about the possibility that the 1956 survey could be in error and that perhaps a variance is not even necessary. Mr. Clifford explained that the survey was done by a professional surveyor and added that he has recently relocated the property stakes and can attest to the fact that the survey is correct. *Com- missioner Simmons stated that she favored granting the variance. She pointed out that the view across the street would not change as a result of adding on along the existing building line. Commis- sioner Malecki agreed. She stated that she could not see denying the variance with the precedent that exists for this type of appli- cation. She admitted that the standards did not seem to all be met, but agreed with the recommendation to change the ordinance to com- prehend these kinds of situations. Chairman Lucht summarized his impression that the Commission wished to grant the variance, but also to change the ordinance to reflect the policy that has, in effect, been adopted in the past. The Secretary stated that the ordinance could be changed or that the Planning Commission could decide simply not to grant any more variances of this type and stick to that decision. He stated that to deny the current variance would probably open the City up to a possible lawsuit on the grounds that similar variances had been granted in the past. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82039 (John Clifford) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 82039 on the grounds that there is considerable precedent through the granting of similar variances and the variance would not have a detrimental effect on neighboring property. While the motion was on the floor, a discussion ensued regarding the basis for granting the variance. Commissioner Ainas expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission should try to ignore precedent and should consider most heavily the effect on surrounding property. He stated that any ordinance change should be geared to minimizing the impact on surrounding property. He stated that if no great aesthetic value was being preserved by keeping the ordinance as it is, it should be changed to allow people a reasonable use of their property. The Secretary stated if the direction to the staff was to change the Standards for a Variance, that could not be done because the Standards for a Variance come from the State enabling legislation. Commissioner Ainas clarified that he did not mean to change the Standards for a Variance. Chair- man Lucht stated that the main reason for granting the variance would be that it is not detrimental to surrounding property which is standard (d) of Section 35-240 . Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the accessory structure would meet sideyard setbacks. Chairman Lucht explained that the garage would still be three feet away from the side property line which meets ordinance standards. Voting in favor of granting the variance for Application No. 82039 : Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION DIRECTING STAFF TO INVESTIGATE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Malecki to direct staff to investigate possibilities for an ordinance change to allow continuation of existing nonconforming structures. Commissioner Malecki clarified that any expansion allowed under the proposed section 10-14-82 -5- should not be harmful to the neighborhood. Commissioner Ainas stated that he felt the ordinance change should uphold standards that are aesthetically sound and will not allow encroachments that are detrimental to surrounding property. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether .the ordinance. would avoid future variance, requests. The Secretary stated that it could be designed to do that. Voting in favor of the motion to direct staff to investigate a change in the Zoning Ordinance: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary asked the Planning Commission to consider an appli- cation for a special use permit to allow live entertainment at the Lynbrook Bowl at its October 28, 1982 Planning Commission meeting. By consensus it was agreed that the matter would be taken up. Chairman Lucht then stated that he would talk to the Chamber of Commerce regarding what its proposal would be regarding billboards. The Secretary explained that the Chamber had recommended that the Planning Commission consider a change to allow billboards, but did not have anything specific in mind. He stated that, for his own part, he would recommend no change in the current regulations to allow billboards. He explained that a billboard is an off-site sign which is prohibited under the ordinance, with the exception of real estate open house signs , some promotional signery allowed by admin- istrative land use permit for a limited period of time, and licensed courtesy bench signs. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he would prefer not to open the ordinance up to large billboards. ADJOURNMENT Following further brief discussion of the billboard issue and the procedure for discussing it, 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 Commission adjourned at 9 : 11 p.m. Chairman--' 10-141=82. -6-