Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 06-09 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING June 9, 1977 • 1. Call to Order: 8 :00 p.m. 2. Roll Call: 3. Approval of Minutes: May 12, 1977 and May 26, 1977 4. Chairman' s Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission' s functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. Medtronics, Inc. 76036 Amendment to Approved Site Plan for Parking Expansion at 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS 1 6. L. W. Joel Company 76022 • Appeal, per Section 35-251, from administrative denial of building permit for construction on a substandard outlot at 5325 63rd Avenue North. 7. Report on Status of Site Improvements at Brookdale Ford as per Application No. 76054 approved on October 4, 1976 8. Ccntinued Review of Proposed Rezoning Evaluation Criteria 9. Discussion Items : a. Neighborhood Advisory Group Members b. Mississippi River Critical Area Act c. Pending Items 10. Other Business: 11. Adjournment: Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 76036 Applicant: Lund-Martin Company for Medtronic, Inc. Location: 6700 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Amend Approved Site Plan Site and Building Plans were approved for the Medtronic battery production facility on June 28, 1976. The applicant has indicated a need to expand parking to the northeast corner area of the site, and we have reviewed the site plan for that. The primary concern is assurance that there is appropriate screening in the north- east corner from the view of the apartment complex on 69th Avenue North. We will be preprared to discuss this matter in detail . Approval would be subject to the original conditions of approval which includes review of the grading, drainage and berming plans by the City Engineer; and the condition that the proposed improvements are included within the Performance Agree- ment and Financial Guarantee submitted with the original application. 6-9-77 69th AVE N0. TRACT A �.! TRACT B 410 (50' O TRACT C C� TRACT B F Ag9 01 NO. 1382 M � CD TRACT C { w TRACT D N N N � �o m 353.31 rn 67th AVE NO. S 4 f 1 inch = 200 feet co t G rq -7*E4!V -7G 0 . D . V Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77022 Applicant: L. W. Joel Company Location: Outlot 1 , Bergstroms Lynside Manor 3rd Addition (5323 63rd Avenue North) Request: Appeal The applicant has filed an appeal per Section 35-251 of the Zoning Ordinance. The appeal is from a ruling made by the Planning and Inspection Department denying the March 25, 1977 building permit application submitted by Mr. Erwin Yesnes for a single family dwelling on the above property. The City's ruling was on the basis that the survey with the application indicated the property is a 45 ft. wide, 6,075 sq. ft. parcel designated as an Outlot at the time of subdivision in 1958, because the parcel is substandard as to width and area, and because there is adequate adjacent land which may be combined with the Outlot to render it buildable. The essence of the applicant's appeal is that notwithstanding the Outlot desig- nation, the piece of land is a lot of record within the context 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 purposes 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 yard setback requirements for single family detached dwellings are met. • The City's ruling is that notwithstanding the above language (adopted by the City Council and Ordinance No. 76-7 on May 24, 1976) , the intent of the specific desig- nation as Outlot effectively differentiates the property from platted lots or parcels, and to allow construction on such an Outlot when there is available ad- jacent land to increase its width and area would be against the spirit and intent of the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance. We have attached several letters and documents which reflect the location of the property, the applicant's position, the City's position, and the Ordinance language in question. Also, the City Attorney will be present to speak to the legal issues involved since it is apparent the applicant is pursuing this appeal with the intent of seeking relief from the court, if necessary. We will be prepared to discuss in detail our recommendation that the appeal be denied on the basis to permit construction on a designated Outlot where there is vacant adjacent land which could be combined to create a standard lot would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City Ordinance. It is apparent that the 1976 Ordinance language change in Section 35-500 should be more specific as to the few situations such as this where the property is a desig- nated Outlot rather than a parcel not so designated. Nevertheless, we feel that the spirit and intent of the Ordinance for planning purposes, particularly where the situation is one of filling out an established subdivision, should be upheld. 6-9-77 Application No. 77022 continued We will refer to the subdivision map of the area (copy enclosed) which indicates that in several instances to the south of the subject property similar Outlots were originally created and were eventually combined with adjacent available land for purposes of creating buildable single family residential lots. In fact, this particular piece is the last remaining one in this subdivision. We have received several inquiries in recent months from speculators representing the owner of the adjacent corner property as to possible subdivision of that corner property. In those instances we have told the party that it is not possible to create standard size residential lots from the corner piece, but that there is available land which could be combined with the adjacent Outlot. The applicant apparently has not reached terms or perhaps has not even discussed with those parties or the owner of the adjacent property. • 6-9-77 April 7, 1977 "Mr. Enri n Yesnes Fred S. Yesnes, Inc. 4071 Lakeland Avenue N. Robbinsdale, MA 55422 Re: Outlot 1 , Bergstrom's Lynside flanor 3rd Addition Dear Mr. Yesnes: A building permit cannot be issued for the above property at this tires. The basis for this decision is outlined below and is the result of research stim- ulated by your Application for Building Permit submitted on Harch 25, 1977. The matter has been reviewed by the City 11anager who concurs in the determina- tion that Outlot 1 is not buildable due to substandard width and area. Outlot l and the adjacent Outlot 2 on the south were created as unbuildable substandard 45 -foot bride outlots when this plat was approved in 1953. Tie Outlot desinnation acknowledges the rer.nant parcels which abutted unnlatted land that was not included in this subdivision. The intent Baas, and is, that available adjacent land could eventually be acquired, thereby rendering the Outlots as standard size buildable parcels. This subsequently occurred with Outlot 2, ,then an additional 30 feet from the adjacent corner parcel on Boulder Lane was combined---creating the existing 75 foot wide parcel . Outlot 1 apparently was forfeited to the State for delinquent taxes, and was recently purchased from tie State by the L.W. Joel Company at your address. The adjacent, yet unplatted, corner lot contains sufficient land to provide an additional minimua 30 feet to increase the width of Outlot 1 to 75 feet (the corner parcel exceeds the Ordinance minimuin corner lot width of 90 feet by 63 feet) . It has recently corgi to our attention that the owner of the corner property is interested in the disposition of sor°ne or all of the excess land. A its. • LaVerna Pcsina of L. P. Associates, Inc. , 22'15 Irving Avenue South (phone 377-3999) represents the owner in this regard. Page Two April 7, 1977 Re: Outlot 1 , Bergstrom's Lynside Manor 3rd Addition It would seem the intended development of a standard size (or larger) buildable lot by the ccribination of at least 30 feet with Outlot i is a timely possibility. The maximum excess 63 feet on the corner is deficient from the Ordinance mini- mum width of 75 feet. We Eire prepared to -assist in the resolution of this through a standard subdivi- sion procedure which would result in a buildable interior lot consistent vrii:;, the Ordinance and neinnborhood standards. Que tions regarding this may be directed to this office. Sincerely, Blair Tremere Dir ctor of Planning & Inspection BT/ kb cc: Don Poss, City Manager Will Dahn, Building Official LAW OFFICES SELTZ AND STRIKER • 610 BAKER BUILDING 706 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 GEORGE SELTZ TELEPHONE MYRON It. STRIKER 4612)339-0431 April 25 , 1977 Mr. Richard Schieffer Brooklyn Center City Attorney 610 Brookdale Towers Minneapolis , MN 55430 Re: My Client : L. W. Joel Co. 5325 - 63rd Avenue North Brooklyn Center File No. 1159 Dear Dick: I have been retained to represent the L. W. Joel Co. in connection with a dispute which has arisen -over the above-captioned property. I believe that you have been involved in some prior negotiations on this matter , but briefly, I would like to spell out to you my client ' s position. My client -negotiated on the purchase of the above-captioned property in the City of Brooklyn Center. The land was to be purchased as a tax forfeiture . L. W. Joel Co, is in the purchase of real estate , and therefore, its President , Erwin Yesnes , before he expended any money for the purchase of the property, contacted Blair Tremere , the Director of Planning and Inspection for the City of Brooklyn Center to determine whether the lot would be buildable for a residential residence. Mr. Yesnes placed his first call to Mr . Tremere in early December of 1976 . He was advised by Mr. Tremere that there was a City Ordinance , Section 35-500 which allowed a lot that did not meet other requirements to be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes if the lot or parcel was of legal record within the R-1 or R-2 zoning district on January 1 , 1976. Mr. Tremere represented to my client that Outlot 1 , Bergstrom' s Lynside Manor 3rd Addition fell within Section 35-500. Relying upon the representations of a City Official , my client then ordered soiltests at a cost of $141. 00 ; a VA appraisal at a cost of $60. 00; and a survey at a cost of $100. 00. Two further phone conversations were had with Mr. Tremere by Hr. Yesnes at which time Mr. Tremere again represented that the lot was buildable in spite of the fact that it measured 45 feet by v' Mr. Richard Schieffer Page 2 April 25 , 1977 135 5 feet. Mr. Yesnes made further inquiry of Mr. Tremere of yard setback requirements with specific reference to Outlot 1 , Bergstrom' s Lyn.side Manor 3rd Addition. Inquiry was also made as to whether sewer and water stops were in the street for that address . At all times , Mr. Tremere represented that the property was buildable without the necessity of any further purchases of property by my client. Likewise , representations by Mr. Tremere were made to Mr. Lewis Cohen in February of 1977 . Again, no indication was made by Mr. Tremere that the above-captioned property did not fall within Section 35-500 of your City Ordinances . Mr. Tremere had also represented that the above-captioned property was a buildable lot and fell within Section 35-500 to Mr. Stephen Codden. Based upon all' of these representations , and my client ' s tot l .reliance thereon , he purchased this property for the sole pur- pose of building a single family detached dwelling thereon. It was only after my client received a letter from Mr. Tremere on April 7 , 1977 , did he realize that Mr. Tremere was reneging on his prior representations . As a result , my client has sustained damages , not only for out- of-pocket expenses incurred, but for loss of profits on the con- struction and sale of a home on the property. I have been advised by my client that it is the City' s pos Lion at this time that an outlot is not defined as a lot or par el which was of legal record within the meaning of Section 35-500 . Whe her it is or is not is secondary to our claim that there were mat rial misrepresentations on the part of Mr. Tremere who was acting at he time of said representations asan authorized city official. I would hope that after you have had an opportunity to review this letter that the City will change its position and issue a building permit for the above-captioned property immediately. If not, I have been instructed by my client to commence an immediate lawsuit against the City of Brooklyn, Center. I hope that this will not be necessary and look forward tp .your response as soon as possible.. i Thank you for your anti. ipated cooperation. s v ery 4truly, APR �,� 1g77 °deorge G. eltz GGS/esk cc rwin Yesnes LAW OFFICES SCHIEFFER AND CARSON 610 BROOKDALE TOWERS 6771+ AVENUE NORTH AT BROOKDALE CENTER *RICHARD . SCHIEFFER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE JEFFREY .CARSON 16121 861-3200 WILLIAM G.CLELLAND May 2, 1977 Mr. George Seltz, Esq . 610 Baker Bldg. M inneapoli s, MN 55402 Re: L. W. Joel Co. Dear Mr. Seltz., A review has been made of the matters outlined in your letter of April 25, 1977, with respect to the above captioned matter. The problem seems to be composed of four issues which I would like to discuss as follows: 1. The content, extent and number of telephone conversations between your client and the Director of Planning do not agree with Mr. Tremere's recollection of these contacts. Mr. Tremere does recall a conversation with your client „ in December, 1976, but no unequivocal representation was made by Mr. Tremere that a building permit would be issued on the parcel in question. Public officials are always reluctant to make unequivocal statements based upon oral representations and Mr-. Tremere specifically recalls telling Mr. Yesnes that his parcel of property would be required to meet all code requirements before a building permit could be issued. A decision on the building permit could not be made until a concrete proposal, including a site plan as required by ordinance, was submitted. 2. Assuming that firm representation had been made by the Director of Planning with respect to the issuance of a building permit on the subject property, a permit could not be legally issued if the ordinance does not permit. The mistake of an administrative official and, indeed, the mistake Mr. George Seltz May 2, 1977 Page 2 • of a city council in misinterpreting the law can be rectified even though there has been reliance by the applicant. Whether or not the revocation of a building permit or the refusal to grant a building permit after the applicant has expended money in reliance thereon can be. enforced, is governed by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Generally, this doctrine prevents a party from "going back on his word" if some innocent person has relied on the representations made by the first party. However, the doctrine of estoppel is not applied as freely to municipal corporations as it is to private individuals. State by Burnquist v. Marcks_, 228 Minn. 129, 36 N.W. 2d 594 (1949). The rule which is generally applied is that the state and its political sub- divisions may be estopped in certain cases in the same way' as an individual, but the application of this doctrine is strictly limited to purely proprietary matters and generally is not applied to those matters involving the questions of governmental power or the exercise of governmental power Board of Ed. of City of Minneapolis • v. Sand 227 Minn. 202, 34 N.W. 2d 689 (1948). The drawing of a distinction between proprietary functions and governmental functions has plagued courts and judges for many years and it is entirely proper to state that a thorough reading of the cases leads to thorough . confusion. However, it is clear that the issuance of building permits, zoning matters, street vacations, and the like, are governmental functions and the doctrine of estoppel is not available to prevent the municipality from exercising these functions. W. H. Barber Co, v. City of Minneapolis, 227 Minn. 77, 34 N.W. 2d 710 (1948); Muehring et al v. School Dist. #31 of Stearns County, 224 Minn. 432, 28 N.W. 2d 655 (1947); Alexander Co, v. City of Owantonna 222 Minn. 312, 24 N.W. 2d 244 (1946). An examination of the facts of these cases, particularly the Alexander case will demonstrate the limits which have been placed on the doctrine of estoppel in cases involving municipal government. 3. In your letter you state that you are authorized to immediately begin a lawsuit in order to secure your client's rights in this controversy. Your attention is directed to §35-251 (copy attached) of Brooklyn Center Ordinances which requires that hearings before the Board of Appeals and the City Council are necessary r. George Seltz May 2, 1977 Page 3 in order to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to any determination by an administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. 4. Finally, the language of 535-500 of the Zoning Ordinance which permits the issuance of building permits on certain substandard lots which were parcels of record as of a certain date, must be examined in the context of the conditions which pertain to the platting of lots in the late 1950s, when this particular subdivision was platted. At that time, the City contained a great deal of vacant farmland and plats were relatively rare. It was customary, and the (then) platting code permitted the platting of remnant parcels of outlots, upon the premise that the outlot would be combined with adjacent vacant land at the time the adjacent land was platted. Since, at that time, land was normally purchased in large acreages, it was often the case that separating the land into the typical grid pattern of lots would leave certain remnant parcels. Rather than require that these remnants be combined with the last lot in the chain, thereby creating an oversized lot as the ordinance presently requires, these remnant parcels or outlots were permitted to exist for future combination with adjacent land and then development could occur. Such is the case with your client-Is property. This' outlot lies adjacent to an unplatted parcel which is presently under consideration for development. This unplatted parcel contains more land than is necessary for a building lot and a portion thereof should be available for purchase by your client. Your client has been placed in contact with the owner of the adjacent parcel and we are hopeful that he will pursue the prospect of obtaining an additional sliver of land to combine with his lot. We have appreciated the detailed way in which you have described your client's point-of-view and hope that the information provided herewith will permit you to reevaluate with him the economics of a protracted and uncertain litigation. We will be pleased to cooperate further in any manner that you may think useful. • Sincerely, SCHIEFFER AND CA SON R S jmh Richard J. Schieffer E c. i LAW OFFICES SELTZ AND STRIKER 610 BAKER BUILDING 706 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS,MINNESOTA 55402 GEORGE G SELTZ TELEPHONE MYRON H. STRIKER (612) 339-0431 May 17, 1977 ' Brooklyn Center Planning Commission Boa d of Adjustment and Appeals Brooklyn Center Municipal Building 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Bro klyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Outlot 1, Bergstrom' s Lynside Manor Third Addition Denial of Application for Building Permit Appeal File No. 1159 Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Notice of Appeal in connection witt the above-captioned matter. Pursuant to your ordinance ,- I request that this matter be placed on the agenda of the Board' s next regular meeting as I would like to make a brief presentation on behalf of my client . I would appreciate it if you could advise me as to the ' date , time , and place when the matter will be set on the agenda. Thank you. our's very rµ y,,, fit . eorge G.: z GGS esk Enclosure cc 1 . W. Joel Co. • NOTICE OF APPEAL TO: Brooklyn Center Planning Commission as Board of Adjustment and Appeals PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that L. W. Joel Co. of 4071 Lakeland Avenue North, Minneapolis , Minnesota 55422, does hereby appeal from the denial of an application for building permit submitted on March 25 , 1977 , in connection with Outlot 1 , Bergstrom' s Lynside Manor Third Addition in the City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. L. W. Joel Co. , as appellant , files this Notice of Appeal alleging that the building permit should have been granted as the lot upon which the appellant requested the building permit to issue falls within Section 35-500 of the Brooklyn Center ordinance as said lot was of legal record within the R-1 or R-2 zoning district • on January 1 , 1976 ; it would be utilized for a single family detached dwelling and its width is not less than 40 feet nor is the lot area less than 5 , 000 square feet ; finally the yard set- back requirements for a single family detached dwelling would be met. This appeal has been made ursuant to the requirements of the Brooklyn Center ordinance Sec ion 35-251 .x .. George — 610 Baker B�ilding Minneapolis ) MN 55402 (612) 339204431 Attorney for Appellant, L. W. Joel Co . 74•)2 �5 90 90 9� s��8•Sf -- -- FqO.7 qv qc i3.of e ` f ) f�A Ou 1e0 6 ujloi 2 '� :q} �lft � X22 w Duf)af Ouf/ct 3 � Out!Of2=` cluf O � Li o r 00 rri u t� y 2:i Lq ! r 1 AVE. r i • f CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ORDINANCE NO.-76-7 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO SUBSTANDARD LOTS AND PARCELS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . Section 35-500 is hereby amended as follows: [Any lot or parcel which was held in single ownership of record on April 4, 1940, the date on which the City of Brooklyn Center first adopted a zoning ordinance, and which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to area, width, or other open space may nevertheless be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes, provided the measurements of such area, width, or open space are within 70% of the requirements for them under the terms of this ordinance.] A lot or parcel which was of legal record within the R-1 or R-2 zoning district on January 1 , 1976-, and which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to width or area may nevertheless be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes , provided the width is not less than 40 feet at the property line; the lot area is not less than 5 , 000 square feet; and provided that yard setback requirements for single family detached dwellings are met. Section 2 . This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this 24th day of May 19 76 ?� Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication April 29, 1976 Effective Date May 29, 1976 (Underline indicates new matter, brackets indicate matter to be deleted.) Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 76054 Applicant: Brookdale Ford, Inc. Location: 2500 County Road 10 Request: Update on Status of Site Improvements The applicant submitted Site and Building Plans for approval last year and received Council approval on -October 4, 1976. One of the conditions was that a detailed landscape plan and master plan for the Ford dealership would be submitted to the Planning Commission during the month of June 1977. We have met with the applicant and have discussed the status of those site improvements and the layout of a master plan for the site. You may recall that consideration was being given to use of property owned by NSP which has now removed the power line structures that ran across the parcel . The applicant has begun negotiations with NSP for the acquisition of the land. The applicant has not completed the master plan or master landscape plan for the property pending those negotiations as well as a determination of the probable use of the large vacant commercial property to the north since there may be common interests involved with respect to access onto Shingle Creek Parkway. We will be prepared to discuss the plans and the status of the applicant's nego- i ,ttions in further detail . • 6-9-77 � - m LL 0 0 I I O A NSVRM y a I P VIN NT Ay VA M. b 7 O V \ i i UPTOW 4 i 1 SHINGLE q S 4c v r y .1'Q \ o6 kyE j t{ ' ii e � �� C ' i � n y �O W E LINE R QCs r/7 l71 �S/ali T6 Rco K Z)AL E FaK� Pro Kse,4 � Ac d /l, r; PLI';2A NOT To 1 SC-ALC C o u A/T y PP4 is,-? T1o>V 7,�, o y