Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 03-15 PCM } i MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION F THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 15,1984 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 Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Malecki and Simmons were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 1 ?_ 1984 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the minutes of the March 1 , 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, and Nelson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sandstrom. APPLICATION NO. 84006 (Brookpark Dental Clinic) Fo . owing the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the next item of business, an appeal from a ruling by Planning staff not to accept a site and building plan proposal involving access to a commercial establishment through residential property. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84006 attached) . The Secretary also explained that the property where the Aaron Hoffman office building is located formerly belonged to the clinic which purchased the land and rezoned it for an off- site accessory parking arrangement in addition to an office building. The Secretary also explained the nonconforming status of the residence at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard and pointed out that the lot, by itself, does not meet the requirements for a C1 development along a major thoroughfare. The Secretary also referred the Commission's attention to Section 35-314, Subsection 1 (e) which prohibits a business or industrial accessory use on R5 property. Finally, the Secretary pointed out that off-site accessory parking arrangements are only allowed on commercial and industrial property and that the zoning of the off-site accessory parking property must be as intense or more intense than the zoning of the principal use. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Keith Sjoquist, an architect with Station 19 Architects representing the appellant, explained that the clinic wished to build an addition, but would have to provide more parking. He stated that the only, alternative to providing access through Mr. Johnson's property at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard would be a one-way drive around the building. He stated that this is not feasible. Mr. Sjoquist explained that Mr. Johnson is not willing to sell his property, but is willing to grant an access easement. He also pointed out that the long-range goal for the Johnson property in the Comprehensive Plan is for a commercial use. Commissioner Nelson asked whether the appellant had, in fact, approached Mr. 3-15-84 -1- 11. . _ Johnson about buying the property. Mr. Sjoquist answered in the affirmative. In response to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom, Dr. Swenson, one of the co- owners of the dental -clinic, stated that Mr. Johnson is simply not interested in selling his property. Commissioner Sandstrom suggested the possibility of a long- term lease. The Secretary explained that the option of leasing the property back to Mr. Johnson had been considered by the staff and the appellant. He explained that such a lease would have to have an early end date. He also expressed concern that the lot would be further commercialized if the access arrangement were allowed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Sandstrom, Mr. Sjoquist stated that the Johnson property is not large enough to develop independently and that Mr. Johnson could not sell the property to anyone else for commercial development. There followed a discussion of the impact on the residential value of the Johnson property if the access arrangement were approved., The Secretary pointed out that, if the access arrangement were approved, Mr. Johnson might simply use the property for a home occupation; however, the property could be bought by someone else who would claim that its use was essentially commercial and might well be successful in a legal action demanding a rezoning to allow a commercial use on the property independent of either the clinic or the office building. The Secretary commented that although the greatest value of the Johnson property appears to be in combining it either with the Dental Center property or the Hoffman property, the Johnson property is not valueless. He again noted that the property is a legal nonconforming use and as such the residential use of the property can be continued, but not enlarged or expanded and if more than 50% of the structure is destroyed, the property would have to be brought into compliance with the Ordinance. He added that the house still has some residential value and, although some would say it is not desirable residential property, the property could be sold and continued to be used as residential property. He noted that someone might be willing to purchase the property to live in and conduct a home occupation as the current resident does; someone else might want to purchase the property for purposes of renting it out for residential purposes; or someone else might wish to acquire it for use as their own residence. He stated that these are all legal uses of the property. The Secretary further commented that the Dental Center proposal makes the allowed residential use of the property even less desirable and less useable for that purpose. He added that it is this situation which raises concerns on the part of the staff as well. He explained that the proper way to deal with this property is to remove the existing nonconforming structure and rezone the property in conjunction with a replatting of the property to combine it with one of the neighboring properties. Mr. Sjoquist asked whether the home occupation special use permit would be transferred to a new owner. The Secretary responded in the negative. Chairman Lucht clarified that a home occupation could still be allowed on a separate basis. The Secretary agreed. The Secretary explained it was his understanding that Mr. Johnson had desired to have his property rezoned to C2 when the Aaron Hoffman property was rezoned in 1975-76. He explained that the decision at that time was to forego any rezoning of that property until a specific development plan was brought forward. He added that, in the interim, ordinance requirements have changed which would now make it impossible for the Johnson property to meet commercial zoning requirements. Commissioner Sandstrom concluded that the only alternative for the Johnson property is for the house to be moved off. The Secretary stated that, if the property were rezoned to commercial, that would be a condition of such a rezoning. 3-15-84 -2- Dr. Swenson stated that he wanted to buy Mrs. Johnson's property, but that Mr. Johnson would not sell it, although he would allow an easement across it for access purposes. He wondered what options there were to bring this situation into conformance with the City's Plan, when a person is unwilling to sell his property. Mr. Sjoquist discussed the idea of expanding the dental clinic and the setback difficulties. Chairman Lucht asked what the setback would be for the clinic next to residential property. The Secretary answered that the requirement is for a 10' setback adjacent to R5 zoned property. Commissioner Manson asked whether new parking would be required for the addition or whether. excess parking existed at this time. Mr. Sjoquist explained that additional parking would be needed. Chairman Lucht then polled the Planning Commission as to their feelings regarding the application. Commissioner Manson stated that she felt the single-family home would be devalued if the access arrangement were approved. She also pointed out that, if the access arrangement were approved, it might make it unnecessary for either of the neighboring commercial properties to acquire the Johnson residence. She stated also that she did not feel the ordinance allowed this kind of arrangement in any case. Commissioner Ainas stated that he was trying to think of a solution to the problem, but agreed with the staff recommendation that it would set an improper precedent to approve the proposal. Chairman Lucht stated that his concern was over the precedent that would be set for other nonconforming uses if this access arrangement were allowed. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the City would not be doing Mr. Johnson a favor if it approved the arrangement. . The Secretary observed that the Planning Commission apparently does not feel that the proposed access arrangement in general should be approved. He stated that there are few options to addressing the situation. He explained that it might be possible for the City's HRA to condemn Mr. Johnson's property for redevelopment purposes. He stated that this may be the only other effective option for allowing the clinic to expand. He added that, for the City to get involved in this kind of condemnation, there needs to be a policy adopted toward other nonconforming residences. He asked the Planning Commission if it had any feelings'regarding such an HRA policy. Chairman Lucht stated that there has been discussion by the Chamber of Commerce that such a policy should be pursued. Following a brief discussion of other nonconforming residences in the City, Mr. Sjoquist asked atout the possibility of a parking variance being granted on the -basis of a survey of the parking demand at the clinic. The Planning Assistant stated that he did not favor an approach where the parking requirement for individual uses would have to be established on a case-by-case basis by such surveys. He stated that, if the City's medical and dental parking requirement can be shown to be excessive generally, then the ordinance should be amended to allow some relief in this area. The Secretary added that the clinic could apply for such a variance and pursue a change in the ordinance through that vehicle. He stated that he did not think a variance would likely be granted because the situation is not unique, because there is no hardship related to physical characteristics of the land, and because the difficulty in expanding was caused by someone who had an interest in the property, putting the building in a poor location. Chairman Lucht agreed and pointed out that the Planning Commission has granted very few variances over the last several years and has tended to amend the ordinance instead. 3-15-84 -3- Commissioner Sandstrom asked what was the history of the parking demand at the clinic. Mr. Swenson stated that the parking lot is not full. He stated that this was probably because the hours that the clinic operates have been spread out from early in the morning until later in the evening. Commissioner Ainas asked whether the applicant had considered the feasibility of providing parking on an upper level of the building as an alternative to purchasing the Johnson property. Mr. Sjoquist answered that the cost would be prohibitive. Chairman Lucht asked the Commission if there was any message that it wanted to send to the HRA as to whether condemnation should be considered. Commissioner Sandstrom stated the opinion that there was no other way to redevelop Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary stated that it was probably a matter of time. He added that the Boulevard might be redeveloped privately at a later date. Chairman Lucht noted that such a redevelopment policy would be a subject of The Year 2000 Task Force. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the applicant could initiate such a policy review. The Secretary stated that it was up to the HRA to address the policy question of whether it wishes to get into the business of acquiring and redeveloping property along the Boulevard. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION No. 84006 (Brookpark Dental Clinic) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 84006 and uphold the staff's ruling not to accept a site and building plan proposal involving access to a commercial establishment through residential property because the appellant's proposal conflicts with City ordinance and because the implications of the access arrangement sought by the appellant would be negative for the property at 6421 Brooklyn Boulevard. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. OTHER BUSINESS (Welcome Community Home) The Secretary stated that Mr. Jim Just had been contacted regarding his intention to pursue the expansion of the Welcome Community Home. He stated that Mr. Jim Just had asked for an indefinite tabling of the matter. He stated that such a tabling should continue only through the year 1984 before the application should be closed out. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION 110. 84003 (Welcome Community Home) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Appliction No. 84003 indefinitely at the applicant's request. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. There followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility of an HRA redevelopment policy. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there would be an advantage to such a policy. The Secretary stated that the City has in the past reacted to development proposals and has not initiated redevelopment. He explained that many properties zoned for commercial along Brooklyn Boulevard in 1968 have not converted to commercial use. He also pointed out that the City now has stricter frontage and area requirements for commercial uses along Brooklyn Boulevard and that this has made house conversions more difficult. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that, as a realtor, he has had difficulty marketing homes located along Brooklyn Boulevard and recommended a redevelopment policy be adopted. The Secretary stated that cost would certainly have to be considered. He also stated that a choice would have to be made as to whether to work redevelopment into specific proposed plans by private concerns or whether to simply acquire, clear it, and land bank it. The Secretary 3-15-84 -4- also explained that condemning property is an emotional step because many people are very attached to their dwellings even though they realize they have very little residential value. The Secretary stated that the City should not wander into an individual case without having a redevelopment policy. ACTION RECOrMENDING CANCELLATION OF MARCH 29,1984 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Secretary explained that no business items had been received for the March 29, 1984 Planning Commission meeting and recommended that the meeting be cancelled. Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to cancel the March 29 Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Critical Area Ordinance) The Secretary stated that staff had no new information on the Critical Area Ordinance to offer to the Commission and asked whether the Commissioners had any questions. There were none. The Secretary stated that he would bring the Draft Ordinance back to the Commission after reviewing it with the Director of Public Works. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:03 p.m. hairman 3-15-84 -5- 1 1