Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 12-09 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 DECEMBER 9 , 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7: 34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross . Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioner Ainas had called to say he would be unable to. attend this evening's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 28, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the October 28 , 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 4, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the November 4, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Simmons and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commis- sioners Malecki, Manson and Versteeg. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 82037 (Northport Properties) Following 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 presently located. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report. He pointed out that the clinic is currently a nonconforming use on R1 zoned land and that the rezoning would make the clinic a conforming use. Following the staff report, Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Carl Larson, representing Northport Properties, stated that he had nothing further to add to the report. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then reopened the public hearing for Application No. 82037 and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the appli- catiori. Mr. Howard Oien, owner of the property to the south of the clinic, argued that the land to the south of the clinic should be rezoned to service/office along with the residences to the north of the clinic. He stated that the area is not good for residential living and that a commercial use will not convert the entire area at one time. - Chairman Lucht stated that he understood that it was a difficult situation for the people who owned property along the boulevard, but that until a development plan is presented, there was insufficient reason to rezone the property. Mr. Oien stated 12-9-82 -1- MEMO- that it was his understanding that the whole area had to be de- veloped commercially at one time before a rezoning would be approved. The Secretary explained that it does not have to be a total develop- ment at one time, but that there is concern that one or two lots might be left isolated. He stated that the ordinance requires 150 ft. of frontage and one acre of land to have a service/office use on Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Simmons asked whether any rezoning proposals for these other properties had been put forward. The Secretary answered. that there was. a rezoning request submitted in 1979 to rezone the land between 55th and 56th Avenues North on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that the application was tabled by the . City Council because it was considered premature at the time. The Secretary stated that the direction of the Planning Commission and City Council at that time was to wait for a development plan before taking any positive action on the rezoning. The Secretary also pointed out that the people who would have their properties rezoned would wind up with nonconforming houses which could not be expanded if the land were zoned Cl. Mr. Oien stated that the people who own property in this area feel trapped, that they cannot enjoy the property for a residential use, but cannot feasibly convert the whole area to a commercial use either. Chairman Lucht stated that the Planning Commission did not want to leave one house stranded while the others were converted. to a commercial use and that, therefore, controlling the zoning until a development plan is proposed is in the long run in best interest of the property owners. He also concurred with the Secretary's point that the properties would become nonconforming and could present difficulties for the property owners that are not foreseen. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed. RESOLUTION NO. 82-4 Commissioner Manson introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 82037 SUBMITTED BY NORTHPORT PROPERTIES The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner Simmons and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki,. Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg, and the following voted against the same: none; whereupon, said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. APPLICATION NO. 82046 (Glen Marsh Real Estate Investments) The Secretary then intro uced the next item of business , a request for preliminary plat and variance approval to ,subdivide into two lots the parcel at 910-55th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report. The Secretary pointed out that both the proposed lots would slightly exceed the area requirements, although being deficient in lot width. He also added to the third condition of approval for the plat, the elimination of an illegal utility connection to the outbuilding from the main house. 12-9-82 -2- In response to a question from Commissioner Simmons regarding set- backs, the Secretary explained that corner lots have no rear yards and that the house and garage on the proposed Lot 2 meet all setback requirements. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the applicant intended to build on the other lot (Lot l) . The Secretary answered that that was his understanding. He recommended that the Planning Commission not allow continuation of the outbuilding on the proposed Lot 1. a Commissioner Manson noted that, although the corner lot is sub standard, there are a number of substandard corner lots throughout the City. The Secretary added that, especially in the Southeast Neighborhood, corner lots tend to be substandard. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Rod Halverson, of Merila and Associates, the surveyors for the plat, stated that he had spoken with Mr. Marsh recently. He stated that Mr. Marsh would not commit to Condition No. 3 for the plat at this time, but would think about it. Otherwise, he stated the applicant agrees to all the conditions set forth. Commissioner Simmons ex- plained that, inasmuchas she lives in that neighborhood, she is very familiar with the property. She stated that she would not vote to recommend approval -of the variance without the condition that the outbuilding be removed. She added that it is definitely a detriment to the neighborhood. The Secretary pointed out that the shack in question is not even on a foundation. He stated that the Planning Commission could table the application and let the applicant show that the outbuilding should stay and can be brought up to current codes, before approving the application without Con- dition No. 3. There followed a discussion regarding the procedure to follow in taking action on the variance, whether to table the application or recommend approval with Condition No. 3. The Secre- tary stated that one of the conditions of any variance is that granting of the variance not be detrimental to other property in the neighborhood. He stated that the current existence of the out- building is a detriment to the neighborhood and that removal of the outbuilding is what makes the variance acceptable. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the plat and variance aspects of Application No. 82046 . He 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 Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Simmons stated that she considered the variance reason- able, but only if the shack is removed from the proposed Lot 1. The Secretary added that the utility connection would also have to be removed under the terms of Condition No. 3. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the illegal utility connection would have to be removed and a new utility connection would have to be brought in to make the current structure legal from that aspect. He also pointed out that it would take considerable expense to bring the structure up to basic safety codes. He stated that the rents that would be obtained simply couldn't support the amounts of money that would be required to make the property rentable. 12-9-82 -3- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82046 (Glen Marsh Real Estate Investments) Motion by Commissioner Simmons Eeconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 82046 , for the reasons and subject to the conditions set forth below: Reasons for Variance: 1. The lot width variance has been minimized to the maximum extent possible. 2. There is no excess land available on adjacent lots to further reduce or eliminate the need for a variance 3. The proposed lots meet ordinance requirements for lot depth and lot area. 4. The variance is necessary to allow the petitioner to make reasonable use of the land parcel that presently exists. 5. Granting the variance will not be detrimental to . the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood. Conditions of Plat Approval: 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.. The existing shack on Lot 1 shall be removed from the premises and the illegal utility connection between the main house and the shack shall be removed prior to final plat approval. 4 . The existing concrete patio slab which extends over the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be removed or reduced to meet setback re- quirements for accessory structures prior 'to final plat approval. 5. The accessory shed near the northwest corner of Lot 1 shall be removed or relocated to meet setback requirements for accessory structures prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: _ Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed-. APPLICATION NO. 82047 (Ryan Construction Company p.. The --Secretary introaTuced the next item of business, a request by Ryan Construction Company for amended special use permit approval to allow medical and dental uses in the office building at 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report and also the approved parking plan submitted by the applicant. 12-9-82 -4- Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether it was a common practice to approve a proof-of-parking and allow the City to make a determina- tion as to when' the parking was needed. He asked how the City would enforce such a determination and he asked whether the City didn't enforce all of its ordinance requirements . The Secretary stated that proof-of-parking has been used in at least one recent case. He stated that he did not know whether proof-of-parking has ever been put in later, after determination by the City that they were needed. He explained that allowing for proof-of-parking permits more area on 'the site to be devoted to landscaping. Chair- man Lucht pointed out that proof-of-parking has been used often. Commissioner Simmons noted that the original site plan was approved with the landscape islands in them. She stated that if the Planning Commission accepts changes, it will undercut the original approval of the site plan. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. John Kelly of Ryan Construction Company assured the Planning Commission that the last thing his company wanted to do is to take out the land- scaping in the parking lot. He estimated that the tenants in the office building would not need more than 85% of the parking that is already installed. He explained that they were hoping to bring in a tenant for only 1200 sq. ft. and that a condition of 'his lease will be that no other dentists be allowed in the building. Chairman Lucht recalled that the Planning Commission had asked about medical uses during review of the original special use permit and that,' at that time, Ryan Construction had said there was no interest in bringing medical uses into the office building. Mr. Kelly acknowledged this, but explained that there is a completely different office space market now than when the building was approved. The Secretary ex- plained that the application sets maximums as to the amount of medical space that could actually be put in the building. It does not mean that there will actually be 20,000 sq. ft. of medical use. Chairman Lucht stated that traffic is also an initial concern for this office complex and wondered whether that would be any more of a problem when the development is complete. Mr. Kelly answered that he would welcome a traffic problem at this point, rather than the lack of tenants which they have at present. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the building in question has more, less, or the same number of parking spaces as the office buildings owned by Ryan Con- struction in Edina. Mr. Kelly explained that there are about the same number of parking spaces and that proof-of-parking has been used in Edina also. Commissioner Manson suggested the possibility of limiting the amount of medical space as opposed to limiting the number of parking stalls. Mr. Kelly answered simply that he did not want to make the mistake of underestimating the amount of space needed as was done during the original approval. Commissioner Simmons stated that the Planning Commission did not want to make the mistake of assuming that the parking would never be needed. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the elimination of proof-of-parking for the landscaped islands in the parking lot. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. '82047 and asked whether anyone present wished to 12-9-82 -5- 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 she did not want to .see the islands in the parking lot removed. She also stated that she would not vote for the application as presently submitted for 53 stalls. The Plan ning Assistant explained that the application is open and that the : Planning Commission can approve as many stalls as it deems appropriate, that it is not locked in to either approving ,or disapproving the 53 that are requested by the applicant. The Secretary added that what- ever stalls are approved should be decided on a rational basis. Com- missioner Sandstrom stated that he did not feel the loss of the central islands would detract from the site. There followed a lengthy dis- cussion primarily between Commissioners Simmons and Sandstrom regard ing the likelihood or possibility of using the proof-of-parking spaces that are presently occupied by landscaping in the parking lot. Commissioner Manson asked whether medical use could be denied in the second building if the occupancy in the first building got to the point where the islands had to be removed. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Malecki stated that she did not feel the proof-of-parking should be allowed on all of the landscaped islands. Commissioner Sandstrom again stated that he thought the likelihood of the islands being removed was remote. Commissioner Malecki answered that it was not necessary to approve this applica- tion, that it was a special use permit and that certain conditions had to be met. She suggested keeping the parking lot islands closest to the main building since that is where the walkway would be most effective. Chairman Lucht calculated that this would reduce the proof-of-parking from 53 stalls to 38 additional stalls . He polled the Planning Commission to get their reaction to the compromise. All of the Planning Commissioners agreed that this was an acceptable arrangement. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82047 (Ryan Construction Company) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 82047, subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions pertaining to the approval of Application No. 81012 remain in effect. 2 . Amended permit approval acknowledges 38 additional parking spaces on the site allowing a maximum of 14, 300 square feet of floor space to be devoted to medical/dental uses, the remainder to be devoted. to general office uses. a 3. The applicant acknowledges that any or all of the additional stalls shown as proof-of-parking will . be installed upon a determination by the City that they are needed. New parking shall be provided first from the greenstrip abutting Earle Brown Drive and the north greenstrip. Removal of land- scaped parking lot islands shall be utilized last for parking purposes . Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 : 12 p.m. and resumed at 9 :36 p.m. Commissioner Simmons left the meeting during the recess. APPLICATION NO. 8204Y (City of Brooklyn Center) Following the recess , the Secretary introduced the last item of business, a request by the City of Brooklyn Center for site and building plan approval to construct an opaque wall to screen outside storage and to build an addition to the salt storage building at 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway. The application also requests special use permit approval to allow outside storage in connection with a "noncommercial use required for the public welfare. " The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82048 attached) . The Secretary added four new conditions. to the approval and noted that there would be heightened berming at the northeast corner of the site along 69th Avenue North to screen the outside storage from 69th Avenue along the north side of the site. The Secretary also briefly discussed the four options for materials to be used for the opaque wall, including: chain link fence with slats; wood; concrete block; and precast con- crete panels. The Assistant City Engineer explained that the precast concrete panels can take up to 9 ft. of materials stored behind it and can also stand the force of normal contact with loading equipment. He stated that these had been the two primary concerns in analyzing which type of material to recommend along with the aesthetic con- siderations in trying to match the material of the existing buildings on the site. The Secretary explained to the Planning Commission that landscaping for the site should be up to Industrial Park standards with shade trees planted at regular intervals along the front green- strip. He also noted the need for underground irrigation along the south greenstrip and possibly in the western portion of the site. He explained that the storage yard would be paved and that curb and gutter would be_ placed along the east driveway, but not where the proposed wall would be. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether cost was a factor in controlling outside storage noting that the City's wall would be the model which others will have to live up to. The Secretary acknowledged that this was a factor in the ordinance change and in the proposal brought to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Manson asked whether the screening of the NSP storage yard is sufficient. The Secretary ex- plained that the NSP storage yard is in the C2 zoning district which allows more in the way of outside storage. He added that the screen- ing provided does meet ordinance requirements. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the City had done a good job in its proposal. Chairman Lucht stated that it would have been nice to have a land- scape plan to review. He reiterated the condition that the City Council have a landscape plan for its review. There followed a brief discussion regarding the type of material to be used. The Commissioners all agreed that precast concrete panels was a superior option. 12-9-82 -7- ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82048 (City of Brooklyn Center) Motion by Commissioner San Strom secon e by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 82048, subject to the following conditions: 1. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The plan shall be modified prior to consideration by the City Council to include landscape treatment south of the proposed opaque wall comparable to the landscaping that exists on the area to be cleared at present. 4. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 5. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. Landscape berms in the northeastern portion of the site shall be modified to provide effective screening of the storage yard from 69th Avenue North. 8. Underground irrigation shall be provided within the greenstrip along Shingle Creek Parkway to ensure site maintenance. 9 . The new addition to the salt storage building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a UL approved monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City_ Ordinances. 10. The exterior of the wall facing Shingle Creek Parkway shall be precast concrete panels 12 ' 8" in height. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM (Ordinance Lan uage Amending 35-400) The Secretary then briefly reviewed a draft-ordinance amendment to Section 35-400 to provide a Footnote No. 11 allowing existing one and two-family dwellings, which are nonconforming as to setback, to expand along existing building lines if the extent of the. noncon- formity is not more than 30% . The Secretary explained that the suggested ordinance provision was in response to direction of the Planning. Commission which was offered during the review of Application No. 82039 sought by John Clifford. He added that the proposed ordinance provision would eliminate a number of variance requests 12-9-82 -8- which could then be handled administratively. Commissioner Malecki asked why 30% was chosen as a benchmark. The Planning Assistant explained that under the old City Ordinances, there was a "70% rule" which allowed expansion of structures pro- vided the resulting structure has met 70% of the ordinance standard. This led to a serious erosion in ordinance standards and was -dropped when the City adopted its 1968 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. He explained that a number of structures which were granted variances under that rule would be allowed to expand along their existing building lines under the proposed ordinance amendment. He also cited the fact that many homes built along major thoroughfares are set back only 35 feet rather than the more recently required 50 feet. He noted that this constitutes a 30% setback deficiency and that the ordinance would allow these structures to expand along existing building lines. The Secretary asked the Planning Commission to con- tinue to review the proposed language until the next meeting and be prepared at that time to recommend any changes or adoption of the draft ordinance amendment to the City Council. The Secretary then briefly reviewed a recent use of the Joslyn pole yards by a lumber distributor. He explained that the lumber distri- bution operation is a permitted use in the I-2 zoning district and that no permanent improvements are proposed at the present time. He stated that the site is to be regulated in the short term by Fire Code provisions and also noted that the PCA has established require- ments for the site in a contract with Joslyn Manufacturing. ADJOURNMENT Fo owing a brief discussion of the 1983 meeting schedule there was a motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:31 p.m. G C ai an 12-9-82 -9- 1 1