Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 06-09 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 JUNE 9, 1977 CITY HALL Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Cecilia Scott. Roll Call : Chairman Scott, Commissioners Foreman, Jacobson, and Kohrt. Also present were Director of Planning and •Inspection Blair Tremere, City Attorney Richard Schieffer and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Approve Minutes: Chairman Scott deferred approval of the May 12 and May 12 and May 26, 1977 minutes since not all Commissioners were May 26, 1977 present. Application No. 76036 Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item (Lund-Martin Company) of business was consideration of Application No. 76036 submitted by Lund-Martin Company for Medtronics, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the item constituted an amendment to the site plan which was approved by the City Council on June 28, 1976. He stated the applicant has indicated the need to expand parking to the northeast area of the site. He stated no building alterations were proposed. The Secretary reviewed slides and the submitted site plan and stated a primary concern is assurance that there is appropriate screening in the northeast corner in consideration of the apartment complex on 69th Avenue North. Chairman Scott recognized Mr. Brown who represented Medtronics, Inc. , and a brief discussion ensued. Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Amendment to Application Jacobson to recommend approval of the amendment to No. 76036 Application No. 76036 submitted by Lund-Martin Company (Lund-Martin Company) for Medtronics, Inc. subject to the original condi- tions of approval , and the condition that the proposed trees along the north edge of the parking lot be distributed more evenly to provide a balanced effect. In further clarification, the Secretary stated that the site improvements would be comprehended under the existing site performance agreement and financial guarantee submitted for the project. Chairman Scott called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 77022 The next item of busines was consideration of Appli- (L. W. Joel Company) cation No. 77022 submitted by the L. W. Joel Company as an appeal per Section 35-251 of the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Scott announced that the Planning Commission was now sitting as an Advisory Board of Adjustments and Appeals as provided by the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary stated that the appeal is from a ruling made by the Planning and Inspection Department denying a March 25, 1977 building permit application as sub- mitted by Mr. Erwin Yesnes for a single family dwel- ling on the property described as Outlot 1 , Bergstrom's Lynside Manor 3rd Addition, addressed as 5323 63rd Avenue North. -1- 6-9-77 He stated the basis of thefruling is that the survey with the building permit application indicated the ' property is a 45 foot wide, 6,075 sq. ft. Outlot. He said the Outlot was so designated at the time of sub- division in 1958 because the parcel is substandard as to width and area, and because there is adjacent land which may be combined with the Outlot. to render. it' buildable. He stated the applicant's appeal contends that, not- withstanding the Outlot designation, the parcel is a lot of record within the meaning of Section 35-500 of the Zoning Ordinance which provides that lots or parcels of legal record as of January 1 , 1976, which do not meet the requirements of the Ordinance as to width or area, may nevertheless be utilized for single family detached dwelling proposes provided the width is not less than 40 ft. at the property line; the lot area is not less than 5,000 sq. ft.; and provided that the yard setback requirements for single family _ detached dwellings are met. He stated the intent of the designation as an Outlot effectively differentiates it from other substandard platted lots or parcels of record such as those com- monly found in the southeast area of the City; and, to allow construction on such an Outlot when there is available adjacent land to increase its width and area would be against the spirit and intent of the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. The Secretary reviewed several letters and documents submitted to the file which reflect the location of the property, the applicant's position, the City's position, and the Ordinance language in question. He also reviewed slides and a transparency map of the area. He explained that there had been several other Outlots originally platted in the same sub- division which had, since 1958, been combined with adjacent unplatted land to create buildable single family residential lots. He stated this Outlot had not been combined with the adjacent unplatted corner parcel and, had been forfeited for taxes in 1972. He stated the Outlot was subsequently purchased_ in Decem- ber, 1976 by Mr. Yesnes. The Secretary also explained that in the same period that the Yesnes application was received, an inquiry was made by a party representing the ownership of the adjacent unplatted corner parcel as to subdivis- ion possibilities for that parcel . He explained that this interest was brought to Mr. Yesnes's attention at the time the ruling was made on the building permit application. Chairman Scott recognized Mr. George G. Seltz, the at- torney representing the L. W. Joel Company and its President, Mr. Erwin Yesnes. Commissioner Pierce arrived at 8:40 p.m. Commissioner Pierce Arrives Mr. Seltz stated that the issue was the appeal as described by the Secretary, and that the denial of the permit was unwarranted since the property was buildable within the context of Section 35-500. He stated that the application submitted by Mr. Yesnes represented a single family dwelling designed as a three bedroom rambler"which could be built on the property, and that the Veterans Administration in their appraisal had verified such a home would have an approximate selling price of $39.500.00. Regarding Section 35-500, Mr. Seltz stated that the subject lot exceeded the 40 ft. minimum by 5 ft. , exceeded the area requirement by approximately 1 ,000 sq. ft. , and that the plot plan indicated all minimum yard setback requirements would be met. 6-9-77 -2- Mr. Seltz then summarized the reasons for filing the appeal : 1 . The City Ordinance fails to state that an Outlot is not a lot or parcel and Section 35-500, which speaks to sub- standard lots and parcels of record, does not exclude Outlots. He stated the City's claim of intent regarding creation of Outlots when the original subdivision was approved 'in 1958 is not relevant since the language adopted in Section 35-500 last year effectively supercedes the earlier intent. 2. He stated that his client is an ex- perienced businessman in the construct- ion trade with the intent of making a profit and that, prior to purchasing the tax forfeit property in December, 1976, he routinely checked with the Planning and Inspection Department as to the buildability of the substandard property. He stated his client recalled at least one contact with the Director of Planning and Inspection, and while there may have been a misunderstanding regarding the status of the property as an Outlot, he nevertheless believed this property fell within the provisions of Section 35-500 of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated his client was never told he could not build on the property until he received the April 7, 1977 letter from the Director of Planning and Inspection in response to the March 25, 1977 appli- cation for building permit. He commented that based upon that belief, Mr. Yesnes had expended $141 .00 for a soil test; $60.00 for a Veterans Administration appraisal ; and $100.00 for a site survey. 3. Mr. Seltz stated that, relative to the reference in the April 7, 1977 letter from the City as to the interests of the owner of the adjacent unplatted corner parcel , Mr. Yesnes did contact the owner to discuss acquisition of additional land. He stated the party apparently was aware of his client's predicament, and that the stated price for the additional land was "unreasonable and outrageous," leading his client to the conclusion that it would not be feasible to acquire the land since the proposed development would not be as profitable. Mr. Seltz requested that the Board reconsider the administrative determination that a building permit could not be issued, and that a finding be made that the subject Outlot is a lot of record within the con- text of Section 35-500. He asked that the Board also consider, in fairness to his client, the under- standing Mr. Yesnes had developed from discussions with the Planning and Inspection Department which led to the expenditures for survey, soil tests and ap- praisal . Mr. Seltz concluded that the proposed dwelling would be a good addition to the area, and would be an aesthetically pleasing asset to the community. -3- 6-9-77 Chairman Scott stated that the issue before the Board was whether the Planning and Inspection Department was justified in denying the appli- cation for building permit as submitted. She stated that the matter of expenses incurred by Mr. Yesnes, based upon his understanding of dis- cussions was not a substantive appeal matter for the Board's consideration. Chairman Scott then asked the Secretary to read the definition of "Lot" as written in the Zoning Ordinance and in the Subdivision Ordinance. In response to her question, the Secretary stated the Ordinance did not define the term "Outlot," and he stated the Minnesota Statutes at Section 505.02 refer to "Inlots" and "Outlots." He said the term is a commonly used subdivision device to designate parcels which are unbuild- able at the time of subdivision because they are substandard or because they are subject to future subdivision. Chairman Scott then recognized City Attorney Richard Schieffer who amplified the Secretary's remarks relative to the use of the Outlot in subdivision design. He stated that the desig- nation of substandard parcels as Outlots in consideration of adjacent unplatted land, such as in the present situation, was within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He stated the Planning Commission's concern, as a Board of Adjustments and Appeals, should be one of planning and not one of speculation as to what a court might or might not rule as to the legal status of Outlots. He said a basic issue was the spirit and intent of the ordinance versus the language of the ordinance, and that the language itself was clear in its provisions and omissions with respect to Outlots and lots of record. He stated a question which the Commission should treat is: what is the interest of the City in upholding this kind of regulation, and is there sufficient interest to support the ruling of the Planning and Inspection Department. He said this interest could be measured against that of the property owner and a determination might be made as to what damage would result to the City's interests, such as density regulations, if the applicant's appeal were upheld. The City Attorney also stated that his research to date indicated there is little in-depth research and few recent legal cases regarding Outlots. Chairman Scott inquired as to the 1976 amendment of Section 35-500 and the Secretary outlined the history of that ordinance amendment. He explained that prior to the Council amendment adopted May of 1976, the ordinance for many years provided that a substandard lot or parcel of record before the original 1940 adoption of the City Zoning Ordinance could only be built upon with single family home if the lot and area were within 70% of the current ordinance minimum standards. 6-9-77 -4- The Secretary continued that there were numerous small platted substandard lots in the Southeast Neighborhood which had become vacant due to demolition and fires, and rather than granting variances for building on those lots, the City Council had elected to change the ordinance language. He stated the date of conformance was changed from 1940 to January 1 , 1976 when the amendment was adopted. He stated Outlots were not specifically treated in that section of the ordinance. Chairman Scott stated that this was a unique situation, and that she agreed with the administrative ruling as to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. She said that during the course of the upcoming review of the Comprehensive Plan, which would involve aninventory of the land uses throughout the City, particular at- tention should be directed to this subject. Commissioner Foreman stated that the spirit and intent of the ordinance was clear and was applicable in this situation since there was more than adequate land ad- jacent to the Outlot to create a standard size build- able lot. He contrasted the character of the lot sizes and housing 'An the West Central Neighborhood and the area surrounding the subject property, versus the character and type of housing in the Southeast Rei:ghborhood to which the 1976 amendment of Section 35-500 was addressed. He suggested that development of the 45 ft. wide Outlot as proposed would not be in character with the neighborhood, and, furthermore, considering the excess land contained in the neighbor- ing unplatted parcel , precedent could be established for creating another substandard lot in the future. Commissioner Pierce stated that a review of the Outlot and the adjacent corner parcel indicated it was pos- sible to create a standard size interior lot and a standard size corner lot, and that to forego that possibility would not be in keeping with sound plan- ning principles and the intent of the City Ordinance. Following further discussion, member Robert Foreman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. NO. 77-4 77022 SUBMITTED BY L. W. JOEL COMPANY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member James Kohrt, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Scott, Jacobson, Pierce, Foreman and Kohrt; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Review of Application In other business, the Secretary reviewed a number of No. 76054 pending items including the status report on the site (Brookdale Ford) improvements for Brookdale Ford approved under Appli- cation No. 76054 on October 4, 1976. He stated that one of the conditions of approval was that this month a revised master plan and detailed landscape plan would be submitted for review. He stated that the City Engineer and he had met with representatives of Brookdale Ford and discussed the status of the master plan. He said that it had not been completed pending some site engineering data, and it was expected the plan would be reviewed by the Commission at the study meeting. He commented as to the status of the NSP power line right-of-way north of Brookdale Ford and stated the old towers had been removed. He said Brookdale Ford was currently in negotiation with NSP to acquire or lease the property. -5- 6-9-77 Chairman Scott stated that the applicant should be informed of the Planning Commission's concern that a revised master plan and detailed landscaping Plan be submitted for review so that the second Phase improvements could get underway as soon as possible. It was the consensus of the Commission that there are numerous site improvements such as curb and gutter, sodding, and landscaping which can be installed at this time on the east and south portions of the site. Several Commissioners noted that there were severe encroachments of used and new cars on the areas intended for greenstrips and that this was due primarily to the lack of proper delineation through curbing. The Secretary stated he would contact the appli- cant as to the Commission's concerns and that the staff would be meeting further with the appli cant's design engineer regarding the details of the master plan. Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commis- sioner Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. The Adjournment Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11 :50 p.m. Chairman 6-9-77 -6-