Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 04-04 PCM ,M 3 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL APRIL 4, 1974 Call to Order The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Carl Gross. Roll Call Chairman Gross, Commissioners Grosshans, Foreman, Scott, Pierce, and Horan. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of Planning and Inspec- tion Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by 3-21-74 Commissioner Scott to approve the minutes of the March 21, 1974 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 74015 Following the Chairman's explanation the (David Brandvold) first item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 74015 submitted by David Brandvold. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks a variance from Section 35-400, requiring a minimum 75-foot building line front yard width, to permit construction of a single family home on a parcel which is 65. 5 feet wide at 5433 4th Street North. He stated there was substantial precedent for this type of action in this area of the City. He also commented the land had been platted and neighboring lots, with homes, were of comparable width. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Gerald Brandvold who represented the applicant and he waived the reading of the names of notified property owners since none was present. A brief discussion ensued and there was a motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Horan to close the public hear- ing. The motion passed unanimously. Action Recommending Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Approval of Application Commissioner Grosshans to recommend approval No. 74015 of Planning Commission Application No. 74015 (David Brandvold) submitted by David Brandvold, subject to the condition that the variance is only to build and that no other variances are implied or granted. The motion passed unanimously. -1- 4/4/74 J Application No. 74017 The next item of business was consideration (Lucious Howard) of Planning Commission Application No. 74017 submitted by Lucious Howard. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was requesting a 3-foot variance from Section 35-400, which requires a 10-foot sideyard setback for single family dwellings, to permit extension of his living area to 7 feet from the side lot line. The Secretary commented that the applicant' s house at 2218 55th Avenue No. is similar in design to many other rambler-type dwellings throughout the City, in that it has an attached single garage which extends , as per- mitted, into the 10 foot side yard setback. He stated there is an open porch or patio at the rear of the garage covered by the dwelling and garage roof. He explained the applicant proposes to enclose the open patio in order to expand his kitchen area and desires to align the proposed kitchen wall with the side wall of the garage, thereby encroaching into the side yard. The applicant 's contention is that this is a reasonable and appropriate use of the property, and a hardship would be realized due to the setback standards . Chairman Gross recognized the applicant who described the proposed expansion and who stated that the enclosure of the covered patio area was a more expedient way to pro- vide additional living space than the con- struction of an addition to the dwelling. Commissioner Engdahl Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 8:35 p.m. Arrived An extensive discussion ensued and Com- missioner Foreman inquired as to the feasibility of amending the ordinance setback requirements to comprehend the many dwellings in the community of a design similar to the applicants. The Secretary stated that there was an es- tablished precedent for granting such a variance and that one of the more recent cases involved a very comparable situation (Application No. 71002) . He stated that the Council, in that case, also asked that an analysis be made regarding such dwellings • and yard setback variances, and asked that recommendations as to alternative procedures be developed. He stated that the staff was in the process of preparing recommendations which should be available prior to the study session. In further discussion Commissioner Grosshans commented that since the home had been built -2- 4/4/74 r_ according to established yard setback re- quirements , and since the proposed addition would be aligned with the outer wall of the existing structure, thus not creating any further encroachment into the side yard set- back, there appeared to be no problem in granting the request, particularly in light of precedent. Commissioner Horan stated his concern that the subject application represented a challenge to established standards in the ordinance and that despite the past precedent for similar situations, a rather tenuous situation would develop if the ordinance were not amended and the subject application were granted. He suggested that the application be tabled until the entire issue of setbacks was resolved. Chairman Gross stated that there was ample precedent for such a variance and that the application should be evaluated on its merits. He stated it was not clear that the applica- tion need be delayed pending possible ordinance amendments and that the main problem resided in the area of new construction rather than existing dwellings. Chairman Gross waived the reading of the names of notified property owners in that none was present. Further discussion ensued as to the advisa- bility of tabling the application until the matter of possible ordinance amendment could be resolved. The applicant stated that be- cause of constantly rising costs, such a de- lay could cause further hardship. Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Scott to close the public hear- ing. The motion passed unanimously. Motion to Table Following further discussion as to the un- Application No. 74017 desirability of granting repetitive variances for similar situations, rather than amending the ordinance, there was a motion by Com- missioner Horan to table Planning Commission Application No. 74017 until the Commission had further opportunity to evaluate existing ordinance standards and proposed amendments thereto. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would second the motion subject to the addi- tional stipulation that the matter would be examined further by the Commission before April 22nd Council meeting and that the full matter be brought to the Council 's attention at that time. Further discussion ensued and Chairman Gross stated he did not feel tabling this applica- tion would accomplish anything with regard -3- 4/4/74 r to the broader issue of side yard setback variances. Commissioner Foreman responded that he agreed but that his main concern was that the matter be brought to the Council 's attention as soon as possible and that it be resolved. He stated that he had considered seconding the motion to table so that this application could serve as a vehicle to bring the matter before the Council as soon • as possible. Following further discussion Commissioner Foreman withdrew his second. The motion died for lack of a second. Action Recommending Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Approval of Application Commissioner Engdahl to recommend approval No. 74017 of Planning Commission Application No. 74017 (Lucious Howard) submitted by Lucious Howard on the grounds that the proposed addition would not be detrimental to the surrounding properties; that the variance would allow a reasonable and proper use of the property; that there had been precedent established for such re- quests; and, subject to the condition that a letter from the property owner on the side of the proposed addition be submitted to the file stating no objection. Voting in favor were: Chairman Gross, Commissioners Engdahl, Grosshans, Foreman, Scott and Pierce. Voting against: Commissioner Horan who stated that he felt there was a need to further evaluate the entire issue of side yard setbacks and variances and that his negative vote was intended to stimulate further consideration of established ordinance standards by the City Council. The motion passed. Application No. 74016 The next item of business was consideration (Burger King Corp.) of Planning Commission Application No. 74016 submitted by Egan, Field and Nowak for Burger King Corp. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the application was in response to a condition of approval for Application No. 74003 requiring that the former Mobil Station site be combined with the restaurant site into one parcel at 61st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Sturebo who represented the applicant and a brief dis- cussion ensued. • Action Recommending Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Approval of Application Commissioner pierce to recommend approval of No. 74016 Planning Commission Application No. 74016 sub- (Burger King Corp.) mitted by Egan, Field, and Nowak for Burger King Corp. , subject to the following con- ditions : -4- 4/4/74 E 1. The final plat is subject to require- ments of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2 . The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. The motion passed unanimously. Recess The meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m. and resumed at 9:35 p.m. Application No. 74012 The next item of business was consideration of (Wieman Slechta, Inc.) Planning Commission Application No. 74012 sub- mitted for Wieman Slechta Builders, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who ex- plained the applicant was seeking approval of site and building plans for a 35,000 square foot general industrial building on the south- east corner parcel at 67th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated plans in- dicate that 4,200 square feet would be used for office space and that 30,800 square feet is designated for general industrial uses. He stated that parking had been calculated on that basis for a total of 60 spaces and that the applicant had provided 68 spaces. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. John Forman, the architect for the applicant, and an ex- tensive discussion ensued relative to the landscaping of the project. Commissioner Foreman stated that with respect to proposed trees either the number or size definitely should be increased. Consensus Developed Following further discussion it was the con- Relative to Revised sensus of the Commission that the size of the Tree Sizes indicated hardwood trees should be a minimum 4-inch caliber; that at least half of the in- dicated evergreens should be a minimum 6-feet high; , and that the indicated juniper plant- ings should be a minimum 24-inches diameter. Further discussion ensued relative to the ex- terior finish of the building, the proposed berming, and the need for concrete delineators in the parking area. Relative to the ex- terior finish of the building, Chairman Gross stated that it was imperative that a decora- tive block be used on all elevations of the structure so to be compatible with existing buildings in the Industrial Park. Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a Approval of Application motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by No. 74012 Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval of (Wieman Slechta, Inc.) Planning Commission Application No. 74012 submitted for Wieman Slechta Builders, Inc. , subject to the following conditions : 1. Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the -5- 4/4/74 issuance of a permit. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements . 4. Revised plans indicating approved re- visions shall be prepared and submitted to the City prior to consideration by the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 74018 The next item of business was consideration (Mobil Oil Corp.) of Planning Commission Application No. 74018 submitted by Mobil Oil Corp. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant had proposed certain site and build- ing improvements and amendments which require approval as conditions of the station 's special use permit. He stated revisions included the removal and relocation of pump-islands (resulting in,_a total of two) ; removal and renovation of the building exterior finish; striping of parking spaces; and development of required 15-foot boulevard green areas on Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Huffaker who represented the applicant and he also waived the reading of the names of notified property owners since none was present. An extensive discussion ensued and Commissioner Foreman noted that the plans did not indicate installation of required underground irriga- tion system for the proposed green areas. Mr. Huffaker responded that an underground irriga- tion system had not been proposed since the site paving was in place and that the cost factor could make the project economically unfeasible. Commissioner Foreman stated that since a substantial amount of pavement would be torn up during the removal and relocation Of pump-islands, it would seem reasonable that a basic underground irrigation system could be extended to the proposed green areas . Further discussion ensued as to the various types of underground irrigation systems possible under the ordinance requirements . Motion by Co;ranisswoner Foreman seconded by -6- 4/4/74 r Commissioner Grosshans to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In further discussion the Director of Public Works commented that the plans should specify installation of B-612 type curb and gutter around the driving and parking areas, and that a 7-foot easement should be submitted by the applicant for walkway purposes. He explained fe that there was existing walkway in place but that it was very close to the street, since an easement had not been obtained from the appli- cant at the time of walkway installation. He stated the applicant had decided against granting an easement since the driving area extended to the property line of the site and due to pump-island locations. The Director of Public Works also explained that an easement would be desirable since the present construction did not allow for adequate snow storage and that the sidewalk might be relocated. Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a Approval of Application motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by No. 74018 Commissioner Engdahl to recommend approval of (Mobil Oil Corp.) Planning Commission Application No. 74018 submitted by Mobil Oil Corp. , subject to the following conditions : 1. Required site improvements shall be those indicated on approved plans in- cluding installation of required green strips : permanent B-612 type curb and gutter: parking stalls, and required underground irrigation system for the green areas. 2. A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 3. A 7-foot walkway easement shall be sub- mitted to the City subject to approval by the City Engineer. 4. Approval is exclusive of any signery. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 74019 The next item of business was consideration of (U.S . Postal Service) Planning Commission Application No. 74019 submitted by the U.S . Postal Service. The item was introduced by the Secretary who ex- plained the applicant would be soon commencing the construction of a Regional Postal facility on the site located easterly of Lee Avenue North between 68th and 69th Avenues North. -7- 4/4/74 He stated the Postal Service had spent sub- stantial time in the design stages of the facility and had worked with the City staff with respect to various local ordinance re- quirements and planning policies. The Secretary noted that numerous revisions had been made -to the original plans regarding the site layout, the traffic flow, and berming. The Secretary also noted that the Federal Government in general and the Postal Service in particular, do not as a matter of estab- lished policy take building permits, but that Postal Service policy provided that local communities be afforded the opportunity for plan review and input. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Ray Frisby, Manager of the Area Design and Construction Office and an extensive discussion ensued relative to proposed landscaping and the long- term maintenance of the site improvements. The Director of Public Works briefly commented as to the site layout indicating the points of ingress and egress and Mr. Frisby commented that in addition to the outside customer and employee parking, the parking spaces for Postal vehicles was within the building. Mr. Frisby noted that there were no immediate plans to develop the southwest corner of the site, and that it would be sodded. The Secretary commented that through the cooperation of the Postal Service and the bonding company for the designated contractor, the City would be provided a performance agreement and performance bond to assure com- pletion of the designated site improvements. Action Recommending Following further discussion relative to the Approval of Applica- proposed structure and its exterior appear- tion No. 74019 ance, there was a motion by Commissioner (U.S . Postal Service) Foreman seconded by Commissioner Scott to recommend approval of the site and building plans for the Regional United States Postal facility as contained in Planning Commission Application No. 74019. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73019 The next item of business was consideration (E-Z Mini Storage) of Planning Commission Application No. 73019 submitted by E-Z Mini Storage. The applica- tion was introduced by the Secretary who ex- plained that it had been tabled at the June 7, 1973 meeting, in lieu of recommended denial, to permit development of plans consistent with existing ordinance requirements. The Secretary further explained that the applicant was proposing the development of a self-storage facility consisting of several -8- 4/4/74 long buildings which were compartmentalized and leased to the general public for the storage or warehousing of personal items. He stated that the applicant contended the activity was primarily "com.ercial" in nature rather than "industrial", and thus was con- sistent with the zoning of the proposed site located at 68th and Lee Avenues North, west- erly of Iten Chevrolet and easterly of the Northern States Power Service facility. The Secretary stated that the applicant had prepared site and building plans generally consistent with ordinance requirements, had submitted a master plan (since the project comprehended two phases of construction) , and a conceptual master plan showing a potential use of the proposed long buildings and site by another more typical commercial use. The Secretary also commented as to the question of the feasibility of the use on this site and stated that in the C-2 and I-1 zones , storage and warehousing were not explicitly permitted and could only be considered under the ordinance provision for "other uses similar in nature" to those explicit l� comprehended in the particular zoning district. Chairman Gross stated that the central question which must be resolved before site and build- ing plans could be reviewed was: is the pro- posed use similar in nature to the other per- mitted C-2 uses and thus deemed a permitted C-2 use itself. He then recognized Mr. Charles Nolan repre- senting the applicant and an extensive dis- cussion ensued. Chairman Gross inquired as to the zoning where the applicant had con- structed E-Z Mini Storage facilities in other communities. Mr. Nolan responded that the zoning was "I-1" or "industrial" . He explained that he did not select his sites only on the basis of zoning, but rather on the bases of access and exposure. The Secretary affirmed that the zoning in at least three of the com- munities where E-Z Mini Storage facilities had been constructed was of an industrial designation and the areas consisted of other uses which would be comprehended as "I-1" in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Nolan continued that the E-Z Mini Storage use was unique and that the response of other communities was that it was commercial in nature. He cited several other locations in Brooklyn Center which had been considered, including the Industrial Park, and an area near the new water tower. He stated these were generally unsatisfactory due to economic or access considerations and he stated that -9- 4/4/74 any C-2 ordinance requirements could be met. Chairman Gross noted that the brochure dis- tributed by E-Z Mini Storage for the es- tablished facilities cited the potential for various industrial type uses such as manu- facturing. Mr. Nolan responded that the brochure was based on past experience in those locations and that such uses would not • be permitted in Brooklyn Center, if that was what the ordinance required. He stated his opinion that the uses to which Chairman Gross referred were actually quite compatible and noted several examples including rug-making and boat assembly. He also noted that a number of tenants in other communities used the facilities for hobby areas. Mr. Nolan also cited some of the uses sur- rounding the subject site, namely Iten Chevrolet and Northern States power. He stated that the E-Z Mini Storage facility was definitely more commercial in nature. The Secretary stated that Iten Chevrolet was a permitted special use in that zone (in- cluding the outside storage of automobiles) and that Northern States power was also a recognized special use as a public utility. Commissioner Foreman also noted concern as to the various non-storage type uses listed in the brochure. Mr. Nolan stated that any particular tenant could be removed, according to the terms of the lease, should the use not be permitted because of the terms of the lease or City ordinance requirements. He stated that he would want some guidelines from the City, but that they would be willing to check with the Inspection Department as to appropriate uses. He stated that while the management did not have physical access to rented areas, the management was aware of the nature of the uses and had control over them. Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Dayton Soby who stated he was an attorney representing the owners of the parcel. He commented that con- trol of the uses in the E-Z Mini Storage facility would seem to be governed by ordinance requirements as in any other commercial building. Commissioner Horan noted that storage and warehousing were permitted uses in the I-2 district and stated it would seem more appropriate for the E-Z Mini Storage to locate there. Mr. Nolan responded that it had been substantially established in other communities that E-Z Mini Storage was commercial in nature rather than industrial. Chairman Gross again recognized Mr. Soby -10- 4/4/74 who explained the owners felt that E-Z Mini Storage was an appropriate use on the site considering the nature of the soil and the neighboring uses. He stated he appreciated the Commission's concerns and he noted that the industrial zones in the other communities where E-Z Mini Storage had located compre- hended certain commercial uses. Chairman Gross responded that each community's zoning ordinances vary, and that in Brooklyn Center it was up to the Commission and City Council to determine whether this was an appropriate use in this particular zone. He noted that while industrial zones might com- prehend certain commercial uses, it was not common to find commercial zones comprehending industrial uses. Commissioner Pierce stated that it would seem a higher more typical commercial use would be desirable on this site, considering the other types of commercial development which had been established there including the large Regional Postal facility. Mr. Nolan responded that exposure from the freeway was extremely important and that he did not want to tuck the E-Z Mini Storage facility away in an industrial park. In response to Chairman Gross ' comment that there was freeway ex- posure available in the B.C.I.P. , Mr. Nolan stated that the economics made any B.C.I.P. sites prohibitive. Relative to access, Commissioner Scott stated that the subject parcel did not seem desirable, since one of the main sources of perspective tenants was held to be residents of apartment buildings. She stated this site was not par- ticularly accessable from established multi- residential housing in Brooklyn Center. Commissioner Grosshans stated that he recognized that E-Z Mini Storage was a unique use re- gardless of whether the zoning of the land was I-1 or C-2. He stated that there was some question as to whether the subject parcel was an appropriate site, but as to the zoning question, he recounted for the Commission the concerns of the City a number of years ago relative to permitting Servomation to locate in a former super market easterly of the subject site. Commissioner Engdahl noted his primary con- cern was with the potential uses of the E-Z Mini Storage facility should that business fail in the future. He stated that it ap- peared that the structures were not easily adaptable to typical commercial uses, although, perhaps the long buildings would serve as the basis for a motel which is permitted in the C-2 zone as a special use. -11- 4/4/74 i Chairman Gross stated that there were three alternatives to the proposed approval of this concept as a permitted C-2 use: 1) rezoning; 2) denial; 3) an ordinance change recognizing the type of use as a special use subject to certain special limitations. Consensus developed An extensive discussion ensued and it was opposing rezoning the consensus that rezoning would not be de- sirable in that it would represent spot-zoning. Commissioner Foreman stated that perhaps there was feasibility to comprehending the E-Z Mini Storage facility as a special use subject to special restrictions . Commissioner Engdahl stated that he would be able to comprehend the proposal as a per- mitted use subject to special restrictions in the C-2 zone. He did not feel an ordinance amendment was appropriate. Commissioner Engdahl left the table at 12:45 a.m. Commissioner Grosshans stated that he did not feel an ordinance amendment was necessary but rather that special restrictions could be placed on the use. Commissioners Scott and Pierce felt there was no need to change the ordinance and that the matter should be con- sidered on its merits as to whether it was similar in nature to other C-2 type uses. Commissioner Horan stated that in his opinion the use was more appropriately located in the I-2 zone since storage and warehousing were explicitly permitted there. Chairman Gross then polled the Commission, as to whether the proposed E-Z Mini Storage use was similar in nature to the other mentioned C-2 uses, as follows : Similar Not Similar Scott Pierce Grosshans Horan Foreman Gross In further discussion Mr. Nolan inquired as to whether the site and building plans could be reviewed and a recommendation made thereon. Chairman Gross responded that since the con- sensus of the Commission was that the use was not similar in nature to other permitted C-2 uses, the site and building plans could not be reviewed unless the City Council determined that the use was an appropriate permitted use. In that regard, he asked the Secretary to re- tain the proposed site and building plans un- -12- 4/4/74