Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 12-08 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 8, 1977 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 Jacobson, Pierce and Book. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Approve Minutes There was a motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by 11-17-77 Commissioner Book to approve the minutes of the November 17, 1977 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were: Commissioners Scott, Pierce and Book. Commissioner Jacobson explained she was not voting because she was not present at that meeting. The motion passed. Application No. 77063 Following the Chairman's explanation the first item of (Herbert Beighey) consideration was Application No. 77063 submitted by Herbert Beighey. The Secretary introduced the appli- cation explaining the applicant was seeking approval of a preliminary plat of the area located at the north- west corner of 69th Avenue and West River Road. Commissioner Horan Arrives: Commissioner Horan arrived at 8:07 p.m. The Secretary showed transparencies of the area and explained that the property currently is a large single family parcel containing a single family home, and that the proposal would create a new 85 foot wide interior lot to the west of the existing house which fronts onto 69th Avenue North. The Secretary stated that the Comprehensive Plan designated the area as R-1 single-family residential . He stated that the property immediately north of the parcel is currently zoned single family residential and the adjacent property to the northwest is currently zoned R-4 (Multiple Family Residential ). He explained that in the early 70's an R-5 zoning was requested when a large planned residential development was proposed for the area and that R-4 zoning was eventually granted. He stated the present proposal was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He added that since the new lot would be fronting onto 69th Avenue North,, .a major thoroughfare, that there would be a 50 foot front yard setback requirement. The Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary plat and the Secretary explained that it reflected a road- way dedication for the anticipated upgrading of the intersection of West River Road and 69th Avenue North. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, the Secretary explained that the property was cur- gently described by metes and bounds description which would be eliminated through the proposed platting. Chairman Scott inquired whether the preliminary plat had been reviewed by the City Engineer. The Secretary responded in the affirmative and added that the State and County Highway Departments had been informed of the proposed plat and accompanying roadway dedication, but that no specific response had been received from either. fi -1- 12-8-77 Chairman Scott announced that a public hearing had Public Hearing been scheduled. It was noted that none of the neighboring property owners was present. Chairman Scott recognized the applicant, Mr. Herbert Beighey, who commented that the property in the area had originally been divided into lots approximately the same as he was now proposing. Commissioner Pierce questioned the applicant whether he was aware of the 50 foot setback requirements along major thoroughfares. The applicant responded that he was aware of this. There was a motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded Recommend Approval of by Commissioner Pierce to approve Application No. Application No. 77063 77063 subject to the following requirements: (Herbert Beighey) 1 . Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. . 2. Final plat is subject to the require- ments of the City Subdivision Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of consideration was a discussion of Application No. 77064 Application No. 77064 submitted by Gene Hamilton to (Gene Hamilton) the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Secretary briefly reviewed the item stating it was considered and tabled at the November 10, 1977 meeting and in- volved an appeal from the administrative ruling that an erected carport attached to the front of the house extending 20 feet into the front yard setback cannot be permitted as an accessory structure. He commented that the applicant contends that the structure repre- sents a canopy which, under the language of Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance, is allowed as an encroachment into the yard setback. He reviewed the Inpsection Department position that the structure is not a "canopy" in that context and that it is an accessory "carport" structure which is subject to the ordinance setback requirements. He stated that the application had been tabled to allow preparation of draft ordinance changes and amendatory ordinance language. He reported that this had not been com- pleted and that further discusson of the issue by the Commission was merited. He recommended that action not be taken on the application at this time so that the application could be used as a vehicle for bringing any proposed ordinance amendments to the City Council . The Secretary briefly reviewed the several issues involved in the appeal , including clarification of terms, and the possibility that the Zoning Ordinance must be amended to include definitions of the terms "canopy" and carport.' He explained that the major issue was to determine whether or not a carport represented an accessory structure and to determine what type of limitations and restrictions should be placed upon the location of a carport. He commented that the definition should place such restrictions upon a carport as to clearly differentiate it from a garage accessory structure. The Secretary reviewed the results of researching other communitys' ordinances for definitions of carports, buildings, and accessory structures. He read several of these definitions including one for "carport" as a "space for housing and storage of motor vehicles enclosed on not more than two sides," and for garages, "attached or detached building for the purpose of storage of motor vehicles." 12-8-77 -2- Chairman Scott asked whether any definitions for canopies have been found in the ordinances of other communities. The Secretary responded that the Uniform Building Code does not specifically define canopy and that no ordinance had been found which clearly defined canopy although frequently canopies were referred to in the ordinances. He explained that, like awnings and marquees, canopies are projections which are not necessarily supported on the ground. He continued that carports are akin to canopies, but they are defined by their use which is the storage of motor vehicles. He emphasized that no ordinance researched exempted car- ports. from minimum setback requirements. Chairman Scott inquired as to the classification of patio coverings. The Secretary responded that the classification was dependent upon the design of the patio covering. Commissioner Pierce asked whether covered patios were accessory structures. The Secretary stated that covered patios are permitted encroachments into the year yard, but that a permanent freestanding structure used as a covered patio would be considered an accessory structure. He explained that the general rule for determining permanency was whether or not the structure could be readily dis- assembled, and whether it was anchored to the ground. Commissioner Engdahl Arrives: Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 8:40 p.m. The Secretary stressed that if the Commission deter- mined that a carport would be allowed to encroach into the front setback, it must be clearly distinguish- able from a garage for purposes of precedent set, because the applicant's situation is not unique and is very common in the City. A discussion ensued relative to possible limitations on the amount of carport area as opposed to the amount of accessory structure area permitted on a single family lot. Commissioner Scott stated that it was Commission's concern that enclosed buildings not be permitted in the front setback. Com- missioner Pierce suggested that a carport be required to be attached to the garage if it is located in the front yard. Chairman Scott recognized the applicant, Gene Hamilton. Mr. Hamilton stated that he felt that ordinance language could be written which would be restrictive enough to clearly limit the type of structure permitted as a carport. He suggested a definition and restrict- ive language. Following further disscussion, Commissioner Book sug- gested that each encroachment permitted under Section 35-400 should be defined in the ordinance. He also questioned the purpose of front yard setbacks. The Secretary responded that the 35 foot front setback policy decision made by the Village Council in 1940's was primarily for three reasons: to provide light, air, and an unobstructed view; for aesthetic uniformity and reduction of noise; and to provide for open space. for traffic safety buffering and the possibility of land acquisition for street widening. Commissioner Horan commented that a carport such as the one erected by the applicant would not affect any of those original criteria. He stated that while garages in the front setback are not desirable, car- ports in the setback are not undesirable. Commissioner Pierce commented that the uniformity of the 35 foot front setback could be perceived as visually monoto- nous. Commissioner Horan agreed that it was possible that carports in the front yard could enhance a neigh- borhood .aesthetically. Commissioner Engdahl stated his concern that the location for carports be strictly T controlled. -3- 12-8-77 Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to direct the staff to prepare definitions and amendatory ordinance language for the Commission's review at the next scheduled meeting. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:20 p.m. 'and Recess resumed at 9:35 p.m. In other business the Commission discussed Crystal Other Business: Airport planning and zoning issues. The Secretary briefly explained a State Airport Zoning Act adopted in 1943. He explained that the act was a permissive law which set forth zoning powers and procedures for municipalities owning airports throughout the State. He also explained that the law was not mandatory unless a municipality owning an airport decided to adopt zoning regulations for the land around the - airport. He continued that approximately four years ago, legis- lation was adopted which would require all municipalities owning airports to adopt regulations according to the Airport Zoning Act to qualify for State funding. He stated that the Metropolitan Airports Commission (which is defined as an "owning municipality" by the law) had begun to implement these State regulations. He briefly reviewed the State regulations known as Aero 9 and Aero 10. He explained that one of things the regulations established was "hazard zones" around airports which are essentially clear areas extending from the end of runways. Land use restrictions are established for the zones, and govern the types of development which are deemed to be hazardous to the operation of the airport. He explained that within- "Zone A," no structures are permitted; and Zone "B" establishes a three acre minimum density for develop- ment and prohibits schools and churches. The Commission reviewed a City map upon which the locations of the proposed A and B Zones were shown. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the role of the City in establishing the zones and enforcing the district requirements. The Commission was concerned about the effect on the value of the property located in the zones by their becoming nonconforming uses under the Zoning Act. The Secretary stated that there are 160 single-family homes, one church and one school which would become nonconforming uses under the State regulations. The Secretary stated the matter would be reviewed in detail at the next City Council meeting, and the staff would monitor the situation including likely remedial action such as legislation. The next item of consideration was Application No Application No. 77067 77057 submitted by Northwestern Bell Telephone Company. (Northwestern Belle There was a motion by Commissioner Horan seconded by Telephone Company) Commissioner Book to table the application since a representative of the applicant was not present to Table Application make a presentation. The motion passed unanimously. No. 77067 The next item of consideration was discussion of Application No. 77034 Application No. 77034 submitted by Richard Rockstad (Richard Rockstad) for a variance from the 35-foot minimum greenstrip requirement in the C-1 zoning. The Secretary explained that the applicant had received a special use permit for a C-1 use in the R-5 district which required that all C-1 requirements be met. He stated that there is a 35-foot minimum greenstrip requirement in a C-1 zone along major thoroughfares while in an R-5 zone (and in the C-2 Zone) there is only a 15-foot greenstrip re- quirement. He showed a transparency which showed a conceptual layout of zoning district minimum setback and greenstrip requirement along major thoroughfares and local streets. The Commission reviewed the re- maining C-1 and R-5 properties along major thorough- fares which would be affected by the precedent set in granting this variance. 12- 8-77 -4- Following a discussion on the desirability of amending the ordinance to provide for a uniform minimum green- strip requirement, Chairman Scott polled the Commis- sioners . Commissioner Book stated the ordinance language should remain as it was, and that he saw no reason for granting the variance in the Rockstad appli- cation. Commissioner Horan stated he was in favor of uniform setback requirements and he was "not in favor of approving the variance. Commissioner Pierce stated that since the City Council had determined that C-1 and R-5 uses are compatible, the greenstrip requirements for the both should be the same and he felt that they should both be 35 feet. He added that he did not favor approving the variance. Commissioner Jacobson stated she did not favor recom- mending approval of the variance application and she favored a uniform 35 foot greenstrip. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he did not favor recommending approval of the variance and that he felt that there should be a 35 foot uniform greenstrip requirement along major thoroughfares regardless of zone. Chairman Scott also was not in favor of recom- mending approval of the variance and agreed with Com- missioner Engdahl that there should be a uniform 35 foot greenstrip along major thoroughfares. She directed the staff to prepare a draft resolution to .convey the Commission's position to the City Council . Adjournment There was a motion by Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Horan to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Chairman -5- 12-8-77 1 1