HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03-15 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 A
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman
Hal Pierce at 8:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL _
Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Also present were Super-
intendent of Engineering James Noska, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald
Warren and Planning Aide Gary Shallcross. The Secretary noted that Commissioners
Malecki and Erickson had notified the Commission on March 1 that they would be
unable to attend the March 15 meeting, and that Commissioner Theis had given the
Chairman notice that he would be late to the meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (March 1 , 1979)
Commissioner Hawes pointed out that the last word of the third paragraph of Page
4 of the .minutes to the March 1 , 1979 meeting should be "doors. " Motion by Com-
missioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes of the March
1 , 1979 meeting of the Planning Commission as corrected. Voting in favor: Chair-
man Pierce, Commission Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion
passed.
APPLICATION NOS. 79016 & 79017 (Howe, Inc. )
Fo lowing the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was Applic-
ation Nos. 79016 and 79017 submitted by Howe, Inc. for site and building plan
approval to construct an approximate 217' x 741precast concrete warehouse, garage
and maintenance shop building replacing the building destroyed by fire on January
6, 1979. The Secretary reviewed various aspects of the site and building plan which
nrnnncac the rnnctri,rtinn of a hip 1dinn similar to the previous buiidina in desiqn,
function and location. He stated that the burned out building had housed the
maintenance operation, chemicals and fertilizers and was used for storage of
vehicles and equipment. lie further stated that the applicant proposes to construct
. ...a precast concrete building with fire wall separations between the warehouse area
and the maintenance and garage areas. The plan also foresees a 37' x 74.' lower
level located approximately in the middle of the building to be used for dead file
storage. The new building would be located 25 feet north of the middle building
and as a result, would be located approximately 50' to 60' from the residential
property at 3129 - 49th Avenue North. The Secretary pointed out that the current
Zoning Ordinance requires a 100' buffer strip where I-2 abuts R-1 and that this
protective strip cannot be used for parking, driveways, off-street loading or
- storage is required to be landscaped and contain an 8' high opaque fence or wall .
With respect to the variance application, the Secretary cited Section 35-111 re-
garding Nonconforming Uses as the initial reason for a variance. This ordinance
provision prohibits any expansion of a nonconforming use. The Secretary explained
that if the site and building plan were approved as submitted, further variances
from the setback requirements would also be required.
The Secretary informed the Planning Commission that the City has retained con-
sultants to study various aspects of the Howe Fertilizer plant relating to
chemicals, water quality, and explosives. In addition, the City Attorney has
been requested to address the legal questions regarding the rebuilding of a non-
conforming use. The Secretary stated that neither of these reports has been. ,
received in full as of this date.
3-15-79 -1-
1
He explained that the applicant's attorney has requested the opportunity to
review these reports and has suggested that consideration of the applications be
continued to give all an opportunity to review the reports. In light of these
circumstances, the Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission table the
applications until a special meeting to be held on March 22, 1979.
The Secretary then read a memo from the City Attorney outlining the questions to
be examined in his forthcoming report. In the memo, the City Attorney touched
on the two types of variances to be considered with the Howe application: a
structure which is nonconforming as to setback and a structure which is noncon-
forming as to use. Previous research on these two types of variances revealed
that no effective distinction exists between them under the law. The memo went on .
to state that a time series study was necessary to determine when the Howe Ferti-
lizer operation became a nonconforming use under the City's Zoning Ordinance, and
that such a report would require further investigation. The City Attorney's memo
indicated that a more thorough report would be made at the Commission's continued
meeting.
After reading the City Attorney's memo to the Planning Commission, the Secretary
reviewed various space problems related to the new building and outlined three
possible alternatives or courses of action that could be taken with respect to
the applications . He stated that it was felt that the alternatives include:
taking a position that the building, because it was a nonconforming use, could
not be rebuilt under any circustances; saying that the building could be recon-
structed only at the same size and location as the previous building; or tnat a
new building meeting all setback and buffer requirements could be constructed.
He added that it is felt the best alternative course of action would be dependent
upon legal advice from the City Attorney.
!`L., _ DinN.+n +4•n.+ innlliNnri I.Ihn+h or• MN I-Inl./o haei anvthinn +n ;krld at thlc timA_
� ;' .;' ;._ _. 1 - - - �1. _ Ln.� .1.1.... /'.:J.•.
i°IY'. I"IUWC J d LLUr'IIeY, jaI Ile J KUJJC1 I , f u-spoiiuCU Lila i %ncy itici c wa L iiy vl �Ilc 1 �y
Attorney's report and had hoped that it would have been more definitive. He stated
that they preferred to hold a meeting on the 22nd of March. He went on to add
that the house northwest of the proposed building is owned by Howe, Inc.; and
that the reason for a wider separation between the middle building and the proposed
north building is a result of conditions placed on new construction by the Fire
Department.
The Secretary interjected that the separation requirement stipulated by the Fire
Department applied only to a temporary structure erected on the site to house the
cleanup and salvage operation after the destruction of the old building by fire.
Building Official Will Dahn added that while a separation requirement between
buildings did exist, it was not estimated that it would need to be more than 20 ,
ft. in the case at hand.
Chairman Pierce then asked the rest of the Commission whether there was any
objection to holding the proposed meeting on March 22, 1979. Hearing none, he
scheduled the proposed meeting at 8:00 p.m. March 22. At that point, Chairman
Pierce told the people in attendance that those who may have come to this eve-
ning 's meeting and would be unable to attend the meeting of March 22, 1979 could
make a statement of their views . at this time.
Leo Hanson, of 4903 Brooklyn Boulevard, argued that rezonings in the past have
not been in accord with th.e people 's wishes. He _added that the problems with
the fertilizer operation are not new and have been there for 25 years. He
requested that he too receive copies of the reports mentioned by the Secretary.
Virgil Linn, 3912 - 49th Avenue North, pointed out that the-new building would
be closer to his house and asked what the setback requirement was and whether it
included streets.
3-15-79 -2-
Mr. Linn stated that the case has a long history and recommended that the Plan-
ning Commission review the minutes of both meetings in order to acquaint itself
with all of the issuesinvolved. He added that he did not like the fact that
there was a need for more studies, and questioned why there weren't any 'answers
already. He, too, requested that he receive a copy of the reports when they
are prepared.
RECOMMEND TABLING APPLICATION NO. 79016 and 79017 (Howe, Inc .)
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Hawes to table Application
Nos. 79016 and 79017 submitted by Howe, Inc. and to continue the public hearing to
a special meeting to be held on March 22, 1979 at 8:00 p.m. Voting in favor:
Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Opposed: none. The
motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 79007 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Rezoning from R1 to R2)
The next item of consideration was a request to rezone from RI to R2 an approximate
three acre site located adjacent to and easterly of Xerxes Avenue North, south of
the freeway. The Secretary reviewed the applicant's request stating that the
three acre tract is part of a 10 acre parcel that was part of highway right-of-way.
The Highway Department no longer has need for the property and the City has ob-
tained the seven acres to the east of this site, planning to incorporate it into
its Central Park. The Secretary explained that the applicant eventually proposes
to subdivide the three acre site which would be serviced by a cul-de-sac leading
from Xerxes Avenue North. It is the applicant's intent to retain R1 zoning for
six single family lots that would lie on the south side of the cul -de-sac and
would back up against the existing single family lots facing 65th Avenue North.
Four two-family lots are proposed for the north side of the cul-de-sac.
The Secretary reported that the applicant considers single family homes along an
interstate highway to be -unsaleable, and is, therefore, requesting rezoning for-
for multiple use. The Secretary then outlined factors that should affect the
Commission's recommendations to the Citv Council : the Rezonino_ Fvaluation Nolicv
and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208, the type of precedent that
would be set by approving this rezoning, and the City's future plans for the
area. The Secretary concluded that the rezoning proposal does not seem to demon-
strate merit beyond the interest of the owner in question. He also stated that
he felt the entire area was potentially viable for single family residential de-
velopment. He recommended that the Planning Commission table the request and
refer it to the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group as is the tradition with all
rezoning requests.
At this point, the Superintendent of Engineering showed the Commission the area
owned_ by the State and the area which the City plans to acquire once the exit
ramps from Xerxes Avenue North to Highway 94 have been vacated. Commissioner
Hawes asked where park property presently exists. The Secretary responded that
the east seven acres of the site between the houses along 65th Avenue North and
the freeway had been obtained as park property. The Secretary and Superintendent
of Engineering commented on* plans to acquire the area where the present freeway
entrance ramp is. It was explained that Mid/Dot would be closing the ramps at
Xerxes Avenue North with the construction of the Shingle Creek Parkway inter-
change. It was noted that plans are being considered to use this area as a
pedestrian/bicycle access into Central Park. The area would be bermed and would
provide an adequate buffer area between the proposed development and the freeway.
3-15-79 -3-
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the proposed
rezoning. Robert Marshall , of 3001 Quarles Road,rose and asked rhetorically
whether the owner's proposal was in the interest of the people. Chairman Pierce
responded that it was the task of the Commission to determine that. An undenti-
fied person asked who owned the land. At that point, Mr. Al Beisner, of
Brooklyn Center Industrial Park (B.C.I.P.) , answered that. B.C.I .P. owned every-
thing west of the park property to Xerxes Avenue North. Mr. Beisner stated that
his firm had been waiting for some time for the Department of Transporation to
make up its mind about what land it planned on taking. He also pointed out that
the Industrial Park would not make any more money by developing the land for R2
than it would by developing it for R1 . He said that a study had been made as to
how best to develop the property. The Industrial Park, he stated, intended to
sell the tract of land to one builder, and that one of the perspective builders
ii-idicated a desire to build double bungalows on the north portion of the site.
Mr. Beisner argued that R2 development would provide a good buffer between single
family development and the freeway. Without such a buffer, he maintained, the
single family development in the area would likely be of low quality.
Chairman Pierce then asked for further comments from the audience. Tom Howard,
of 2800 - 64th Avenue North, stated that he did not think that R1 development
would have a-ny trouble getting buyers. He also raised questions about the commit-
ment of the Highway Department to set up noise barriers and wondered whether a
builder could put up whatever he wants on the site. The Secretary responded that
only single family and two family residential structures and accessory structures
are permitted in the R2 zone. He noted that site and building plan review by
the Planning Commission and City Council is not requirad for .Rl and R2 development.
Gail Howard, of 2800 - 64th Avenue North, asked why the owner would want to sell
nnut if ha is iinrortain ahnjit +ho nlanc nf tho Winhuiny flonartmnnt Mr. Raisner
answered that the Industrial Park was losing money by paying interest and taxes
on the land left undeveloped. Mrs. Howard responded she felt high-priced R1 de-
velopment would sell in the area, and that she opposed anything other than R1
development. Mr. Beisner explained that double bungalows would represent an in=
vestment of $100,000.00 apiece on the north side of the site, and that the single
family development on the south side of the site would likely be of a higher
quality as a result. He added that without the ability to provide two family
dwellings the area might have to be developed with low or moderate priced housing
to make it saleable.
Elwood Wagner, of 2700 - 65th Avenue North, asked whether there would be room to
provide berming between the neighborhood and the freeway, or whether concrete
walls would be put in. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that buffering
would be provided when MN/DOT vacated the entrance off Xerxes Avenue North.
At that point, the Secretary inquired of Mr. Beisner as to what he considered low
and moderate priced homes. Mr. Beisner responded that by moderate he meant
$55,000.00 to $65,000.00, and that low-priced consisted of whatever could be put
up on the site. Mr. Richard Aidy, of 2818 - 65th Avenue North stated that he did
not see the logic in placing R2 between the single family neighborhood and the
freeway. He further questioned the sense of accepting an unknown type of develop-
ment for the area without guarantees as to its quality.
3-15-79 -4-
Mr. Beisner asked whether a minimum price tag or square footage requirement
would be adequate to assure the neighborhood of the type of development on the
land in question. The Secretary responded that the City does not have a minimum
square footage requirement, nor can the City require a minimum priced home as a
condition of rezoning. He explained that various minimum requirements such as
lot size and setback requirements tend to determine the size of a home. He added
that the City does not require such things as garages and that these things are
left to the option of a builder. The City, he stated, must allow whatever is
permitted in the zoning district provided it meets Zoning Ordinance and building
code requirements. Mr. Beisner inquired whether a covenant could be put on the
land. The Secretary answered that covenants were a legal possibility, but he
did not consider them to be a practical solution.
Roy Overman, of 2918 - 65th Avenue North, stated his concern about drainage in
the area. He said that water drains off from the freeway into his back yard and
that the land in question would likely suffer from this run-off problem. The
City Engineer responded that he felt any drainage problems could be adequately
addressed at the time the property was developed and were not insurmountable.
John Marshall , of 3001 Quarles Road, stated his opposition to the rezoning on
the grounds that it would crowd more people into the area. He said that the
builder could not be trusted to consider the best interests of the people since
he would make his money and be gone, while the residents would have to live with
whatever development took place. A discussion then ensued in which a number of
residents of the neighborhood expressed opposition to the proposed rezoning. At
the close of the discussion, Chairman Pierce remarked that-land cost helped de-
termine the price of a development; and that since land is expensive, the houses
built 'on the land would likely be highly priced.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79007. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners
Hawes, Hianson and LUcht. VULiny dydim.L: iiuiw. TIIC moLiU11 paJJCIt UIIaill111UUJi'Y.
Chairman Pierce stated that rezonings are traditionally sent to the neighborhood
advisory groups. Commissioner Hawes commented that the property in question is
200 to 250 ft. from the freeway, and that he felt adequate buffering could be
constructed to allow profitable R1 development.
RECOMMEND TABLING APPLICATION NO. 79007 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park)
Motion by Comm}ssioner Luc ht seconded y Commissioner Hawes to table pp ication
No. 79007 and refer it to the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and
comment. Voting in favor: Commissioners Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Chairman Pierce.
Voting against: none . The motion passed unanimously.
RECESS
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:48 p.m. and resumed at 10:08 p.m.
APPLICATION NO. 79008 (Alan I. Dale)
The next item of business was consideration of a preliminary plat for Lots 1 and
2, Block 1 , Dale and Davies 3rd Addition. The Secretary explained that the City
Council , in approving site and building plans for an approximate 32,000 sq. ft.
warehouse, showroom and office site for the Dale Tile Company, stipulated as
conditions to approval that the property be replatted and that the preliminary
plat be submitted before issuance of building permits. The effect of the re-
platting, he said, is to shift the current property line easterly so that the
proposed new building would be located on a single parcel . The applicant is
required to execute the necessary agreements to provide joint access to both
Lots 1 and 2. In addition, a 20 ft. drainage and utility easement is necessary
along the west property line of Lot 2.
3-15-79 -5-
The Superintendent of Engineering observed that the drainage problems of the area
in and around the Dale and Davies site were extensive and should be solved in a
comprehensive, rather than piecemeal fashion. Chairman Pierce asked whether
sidewalks are anticipated. The Superintendent of Engineering replied that side-
walks were planned for Lakebreeze Avenue, but for nowhere else in the area.
Commissioner Hawes asked whether any storm sewer existed on the site. The Super-
intendent of Engineering answered that there is presently storm sewer in front
of the Davies Water Company.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Noting that no one
in the audience wished to speak to the application at hand, Chairman Pierce called-
for a motion to close the public hearing.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public'
hearing on Application No. 79008. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commission-
ers Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79008 (Alan I. Dale)
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the pre-
liminary plat for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , Dale and Davies .3rd Addition subject to
following conditions:
1 . Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances.
r, nil uN�i uv� iu�c uyicchicil, I V# Jv I nv pui Nuoaa u3 uj�Ni Vcu
by the City Engineer shall be tiled as .a deed -restriction on the
properties.
Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 79009, 79010, 79011 , 79012, and 79013 (Steve Nelson/Lynbrook Bowl )
The next items of consideration were a series of applications submitted y Steve
Nelson for preliminary plat approval , variance from Chapter 15, site and building
plan approval, variance from Chapter 35 and a special use permit for live enter-
tainment. The Secretary first discussed the preliminary plat approval and
variance from Chapter 15. He explained that the applicant is requesting pre-
liminary plat approval to combine the Lynbrook Bowl parcel , the Spanjers parcel
and the Mendenhals Outlots into two lots to be known as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 ,
Lynbrook Bowl Addition. The plat includes all of the property in the area
bounded by Camden Avenue on the west, by North Lilac Drive on the south and
east, and by 65th Avenue North on the north, except an approximate 148' x 286'
parcel on the corner of 65th and North Lilac Drive which is owned by the City of
Brooklyn Center. The plat, he went on, comprehends a 50 ft. roadway dedication
along North Lilac Drive to provide the necessary right-of-way for a marginal
access road. North Lilac Drive is presently a 30 ft. roadway; and the required
50 ft. roadway cannot be acquired by dedication along the North Lilac Drive area
because of the location of the present buildings which are approximately 16 ft.
from the roadway. The applicant, he stated, has submitted a request for a
variance from the Subdivision requirements so that only a 30 ft. roadway right-
of-way be allowed in front of the existing buildings and a 50 ft. dedication
be provided in areas where it is feasible.
3-15-79 -6-
The.Secretary pointed out that the applicant contends that both the Lynbrook
Bowl and Spanjers buildings were constructed in conformance with all codes, re-
strictions and regulations of the City at the time they were built. Subsequent
to that time, the physical surroundings have changed to conform with the State
acquisition of land and installation of a major highway and interchange. As a
result, he stated, the applicant contends that to conform with conditions beyond
his control would be an extreme hardship and deprive them of the reasonable use
of his land. The Secretary noted that Section 15-112 of the Subdivision Ordinance
allows the City Council to authorize-variances from the Subdivision regulation
when an undue hardship may result from strict compliance. The Secretary then
reviewed the considerations to be made in granting such a variance which include:
the nature and intensity of the use of the land, whether special circumstances
or conditions affect the property, whether the variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of the rights of the petitioner, and the impact which
the granting. of the variance will have on other property in the territory in
which said property is located.
Chairman Pierce inquired whether right-of-way could be obtained towards the exit
ramp south of the site. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that the ramp
was too close to allow any further taking in that direction. Commissioner Hawes
asked whether there was a possibility of entirely vacating the street adjacent
to the existing buildings. The Superintendent of Engineering replied that the
result would be the need for two cul-de-sacs: one of which would not provide
enough room for a turn-around in the case of North Lilac Drive; and the other
which would be longer than ordinance requirements allow in the case of Camden
Avenue North. Commissioner Manson remarked that the traffic at the Spanjers and
Lynbrook Bowl location is treacherous at present. In addressing this concern,
the Secretary said that the proposed improvements to the site would in effect
make the wall facing North Lilac Drive the back of the building, and that every
attempt was being made during the planning stages to channel traffic going into
the Lynbrook Bowl area off of North Lilac Drive and lniu the Par-kiliq iuL.
The Secretary stated that staff suggests two revisions for the proposed plat:
one, that it include the City parcel on the northeast corner of the block; and
two, that five more feet or right-of-way be dedicated adjacent to the building
for right-of-way purposes. The Secretary added that it would be beneficial to
have no parking signs along North Lilac Drive in the area of the existing build-
ings to facilitate traffic flow. Chairman Pierce asked whether the plat should
-be approved at this time. The Secretary replied that he considered the group
of applications submitted by Steve Nelson -to constitute a package and that
there are a number of questions that must be addressed regarding setback variances
requested with the site and building plan review. He recommended that the other
applications be reviewed prior to making recommendations. He explained that the
Commission must determine that the conditions for a variance are met and must
make its recommendation in light of the fact that the structure does not conform
to existing requirements. As such, the Commission, if it recommends approval Of
the application for a variance,must make a clear determination that various
standards and conditions are met. In the past, he said, the Planning Commission
has distinguished between uses not permitted in the ordinance and permitted uses
that do not conform with existing regulations. This policy, he went on, must
be examined in the light of a legal basis.
The -Secretary then reviewed the applicant's plan for remodeling and combining
the existing Lynbrook Bowl with the vacant Spanjers building to an approximate
690 seat restaurant, cocktail lounge and bowling establishment. He pointed out
that the applicant has submitted a site plan showing a parking layout exceeding
the required 521 parking spaces based on the ordinance parking formula. The
Secretary briefly reviewed the proposed landscaped treatment, access to the
site, and layout of the building.
3-15-79 -7-
In response to questions from Commissioner Hawes, John Neal , the applicant's
representative, stated that only small food delivery trucks would occasionally use
the service drive at the southeast corner of the site. The Secretary added that
the loading door is considered the same as a trash pickup and would not be open
except when necessary.
In relation to the landscape plan, Commissioner Lucht gave a favorable evaluation.
The Secretary noted that the applicant proposes a landscape treatment on seven
of the islands in the parking lot in an attempt to break up the "sea of asphalt."
He is also providing ll handicapped stalls and is treating the entrance area with
sunburst locusts. The Secretary concluded that because of the nature of the
application, the City could hold either a p-erformance bond or a subdivision bond
on the proposed improvements.
The Secretary then reviewed the requests for variance and special use permit. The
applicant, he said, is seeking a variance to allow construction to enlarge and
combine buildings that do not conform with existing setback regulations. They
also seek a variance from the 35 ft. setback requirement along North Lilac Drive
and the 25 ft. side corner yard setback along Camden Avenue North. Presently,
the buildings along North Lilac Drive are approximately 16 feet from the street
right-of-way, while the Spanjers building is approximately 20 feet from the Camden
Avenue North right-of-way. The proposed building addition that would link the two
buildings would be built at the same setback as the existing buildings and would
not aggrevate existing conditions. In the Spanjers building, along Camden Avenue,
the applicant proposes to square off the building with an addition that would
continue, but not aggrevate the existing 20 ft. setback. The Secretary related
the applicant's contention that to comply with existing regulations would mean
that the front portion of the Lynbrook Bowl and the front and side portions of
the Spanjers building would have to be removed. The applicant argues that this
rnnc+i+ii+oc a harfichin Wo Bann+ nn +n cat/ +ha+ +ho nnnlirnn+ foolc +ho ci+112+inn
I-) uiiiyuc aiiu u �a�iii���vC `6cauie iL wa's cau�Cu uy Lhe Laming ul eloper y ivr a,
public purpose. Finally, the applicant also points out. that the variance, if
granted, would not be detrimental to the public nor injurious to other land
because they would be maintaining existing setbacks and not aggrevating an al-
ready existing situation on the property.
The Secretary then reviewed for the Commission the Standards for Variances within
Section 35-208, 2 of the City Ordinances. Basically, these include: that the
parcel of land is unique; that a hardship would result if the requirements of
the ordinance are carried out to the letter; and that the granting of the
variance will not detrimental to other property in the area.
The Secretary also reviewed the applicant's request for a special use permit
allowing live entertainment in the lounge and entertainment space next to the
full service restaurant. The entertainment, he said, would involve show groups
with dancing available. He then referred the Commission's attention to the
Standards governing Special Use Permits.
The variance request, he emphasized, is the keystone of the entire proposal . The
City Attorney has indicated that the Zoning Ordinance does not distinguish between
nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures. He stated that if the Planning
Commission were to recommend approval of the variance, it should note in its
recommendation that the proposed use is permitted in the C-2 zoning district,
that the development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as the
conditions for allowing variances. He distinguished this situation by explaining
that if the buildings were not in their present location or were damaged to the
extend that rebuilding was required, it would be difficult for the applicant to
argue that a true hardship existed by being required to conform with existing
setback regulations.
3-15-79 -8-
Chairman Pierce asked the applicants whether they had anything to say in response
to the Secretary's presentation. The Secretary interjected with a question to
the applicants inquiring whether they understood the conditions proposed by the
City, namely: that parking be prohibited along North Lilac Drive; that the City
parcel be included in the plat; that five feet more of roadway be dedicated; and
that the doors along the south side of the building be designed for emergency
exit only. Both John Neal and Steve Nelson replied that they were not at all
opposed to the conditions stipulated by the City and stated that they had nothing
further to add to the applications.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chairman Pierce stated that in order to fulfill the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, a _public hearing must be held on each application with the exception of
the site and building plan application. He then opened a public hearing concur-
rently on Application Nos. 79009, 79010, 79011 79012 and 79013. _
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Hawes to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79009, a request for preliminary plat approval . Voting
in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79010, a request for a variance from Chapter 15. Voting
in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against:
none. The motion passed.
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79012, a request for a variance from Chapter 35 relative
to setbacks. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson and
Lucht. Voting against: none. Ine motion oassed:
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Hawes to close the public
hearing on Application No. 79013, a request for a special use permit for live
entertainment. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson
and Lucht. , Voting against: none. The motion passed.
Chairman Pierce stated his opinion that the requirements for a variance to the
setback standards were met by the applicant. He cited previous examples in the
Suu'thea.st Neighborhood. Commissioner Manson added that she did not think the
problem of setback variances would be widespread in other neighborhoods of the
City, and that the variance requests met the standards in the ordinance. Commis-
sioner Hawes stated that he felt the situation was unique and that a hardship
exixted and that the standards for a variance were meta He felt it was important
that the application involved redevelopment of existing structures. He pointed
out that if Lynbrook Bowl were to burn down, he could not recommend such a
variance and felt that existing setback standards would have to be met. Commis-
sioner Lucht maintained that the Lynbrook remodeling would ultimately help the
Northeast Neighborhood. Chairman Pierce observed that the entire C2 area is
in a very viable location for redevelopment. Commissioner Manson added that
the Lynbrook Bowl use is more isolated from residences, and, therefore, little
conflict exists.
The Secretary noted that there were some inconsistencies between the preliminary
plat and the applicants site plan that could have an effect on the proposed
parking layout. He recommended that the Commission table the applications for
two weeks to iron out the problems and to also develop recommended language
for dea Ting with the variance requests.
3-15-79 -9-
RECOMMEND TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 79009, 79010, 79011 , 79012, and 79013
(Steve Nelson/Lynbrook Bowl )
Motion by Commissioner Lucht -sec6nded by Commissioner Hawes to table P arming
Commission Application Nos. 79009, 79010, 79011 , 79012 and 79013 noting that the
Planning Commission does concur in favor of approving both variances and direct-
ing the Secretary to prepare formal conditions for approval . Voting in favor:
Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none.
The motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioner
Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting aginst: none. The motion passed. The Planning
Commission adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
k'V11
C ai an
3-15-79 -10-