Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 05-27 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MAY 27, 1976 CITY HALL Call. to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:40 p.m. by Chairman Robert Foreman. Roll Call: Chairman Foreman, Commissioners Engdahl, Scott, Pierce, and Kohrt. Also present was Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Application No. 76032 Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item (Edward Edwardson) of business was consideration of Application No. 76032 submitted by Edward Edwardson, 5441 4th Street North. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to permit division by metes and bounds description, rather than by platting, and to permit creation of a lot 65 .48 feet in width rather than the required 75 feet. He stated the applicant proposed to create a build- able parcel from the north portion of his property . He stated that until April, 1975 there were two parcels, but that the applicant had then combined the two parcels into a single parcel for tax purposes. The Secretary also reviewed the history of the area stating the applicant had owned the particular pro- perty since 1,947 and it was approximately then that the large Bellvue Acres platted lots were divided into the existing lots by metes and bounds descrip- tion. He stated the essence of the application was to separate the subject property into the two parcels which had previously existed. He stated the pro- perlty had been assessed for two utility connections, and that the proposed approximate 65 foot lot width was consistent with other lots: in the block and with other variance actions in the R-2 district. The Secretary stated a basic policy issue was whether to permit the division by metes and bounds description rather than by platting since the de- s ripti.on of the proposed property was long and cumbersome. He reviewed the relatively complex legal description and noted that it contrasted sharply with other descriptions in the block such as the balance of the parcel which is known as the N 1/2 of the E 1/2 of Lot 3 0 He stated it was established City policy to eliminate this type of cumbersome language describing residen- tial lots by formal platting. 5-27-76 Chairman Foreman recognized Mrs. Edwardson who reviewed their ownership of the property and stated they wished now to separate the parcel which had been combined so their daughter could build a house and live next door. She stated the new lot would be identical to that which existed prior to April, 1975 , and that it was not intended to be put up for sale or speculation. She contended that formal platting would be prohibitive due to the expense and that the precedent would not be set in the area since this was the last vacant buildable lot in the block. Chairman Foreman noted that a public hearing had Public Hearing been scheduled and that none of the notified property owners was present. Motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. A brief discussion ensued as to the particuiir cir- cumstances of the request as well as the requirements for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance. Motion by Commissioner Engdahl and seconded by Recommend Approval Commissioner Pierce to recommend approval of Appli- of Application No. cation No. 76032 submitted by Edward Edwardson 76032 (Edward noting that the request is consistent with the standards Edwardson) for variance set forth in Chapter 15; that the cost of platting would be prohibitive; and that the resulting lot dimensions would be identical to those which existed prior to the combination of the property in April of 1975. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Horan arrived at 8:00 p.m. Horan Arrives The next item of business was consideration of Application No. Application No. 76033 submitted by Spray-Tech 76033 (Spray-Tech Corporation. The Secretary stated the applicant seeks Corporation) special permission to conduct warehousing and storage in the I-I district, specifically, at Speculative Building No. 5, 6820 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Secretary also reviewed the standards for this type of special use permit as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Foreman recognized Mr. Johnson who repre- sented the applicant and who reviewed the nature of the proposed use. He stated the storage would consist of finished goods, namely, spraying equipment, some corn-igated material, and promotional literature. He stated there would be no combustible products and that there would be a very low level of activIty. He also commented that the nature of the product was similar to that manufactured by a neighboring tenant in the same building. Chairman Foreman noted that a public hearing had been Public Hearing scheduled and that none of the notified property owners was present. Motion by Commissioner Pierce and seconded by Commissioner Scott to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In response to a question by Commissioner Engdahl, the applicant stated that there would be no customer pickup involved and that there would be no outside storage. 5-27-76 -2- Recommend Approval Motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by of Application No. Commissioner Horan to recommend approval of 76033 (Spray-Tech Application No. 76033 submitted by Spray-Tech Corporation) Corporation subject to the following conditions: 1 . The permit is for a single tenancy, as repre- sented by the applicant and as verified by the Building Official, and is not transferable. 2 . Issuance of the permit is contingent upon review of the appropriate building plans and certification of occupancy by the Building Official. 3. The special use is subject to all applicable codes and ordinance requirements and violation thereof shall be grounds for revo- cation. 4. There shall be no outside storage as pro- vided in the Zoning Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 76011 The next item of business was consideration of (Dr. Robert Schell for Planning Commission Application No. 76011 sub- Mr. John Horbal.) witted by Dr. Robert Schell for Mr. John Horbal. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated it was a request for rezoning, from R-4 to C-1 , of the 90 foot by 170 foot parcel north of 69th and westerly of Humboldt Avenue North. He stated the application had originally been heard on March 1.1 , 1976 and had been tabled to permit review by the _Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. He stated the application was again considered on May 6, 1976 at which time the Neighborhood Advisory Group's general recommendation for approval was considered. He stated the item had been carried over from that meeting to allow the owner, Mr. Horbal, to attend a meeting in order to review the zoning for the entire property owned by Mr. Horbal at the -northwest quad- rant of 69th and Humboldt AvenuE, North. The Secretary commented that the vacant corner parcel adjacent to the subject ject property was zoned C-2 . He explained the Commission's basic concerns had been to determine whether the request to rezone from R-4 to C-1, constituted a "spot zoning" and whether rezoning the subject property would be appropriate if the corner parcel were to remain C-2 and unde- veloped. Chairman Foreman recognized the property owner, Mr. Horbal, and further explained the concerns of • the Commission as to the zoning at the corner. He inquired whether the applicant would consider in- cluding the C-2 parcel in the rezoning request so that the entire northwest quadrant would be rezoned to G-I , thereby establishing an area-wide type rezoning rather than a single, parcel "spot zoning" . -3- 5-27-76 s Mr. Horbal stated that he had consulted with his real estate agent and that he would prefer to have the corner remain C-2. He also stated that he had informed the prospective buyer that rezoning the R-4 property to permit a commercial use would probably not be feasible until the corner piece had developed. He acknowledged the original concern of the Planning Commission and City Council in 1968 to establish an intermediate land use between the corner C-2 piece and the vacant single family residential property to the west in 1968. Chairman Foreman then recognized Mr. John Akers, real S estate agent for Mr. Horbal, who explained the appli- cant preferred to continue efforts to develop the corner property at the C-2 zoning either by leasing or sale. He stated the primary concern was to realize a reason- able return on the investment including taxes paid on the property over the years. He stated the upturn in the economy presented several active interests ".n the land and acknowledged that several past proposals which had been approved by the City for that corner had not manifest themselves because of economic considerations. He stated that perhaps the most desirable zoning for the entire quadrant from the applicant's perspective would be to rezone the R-4 piece to C-2 so to permit the creation of two feasible retail properties. He acknowledged, however, that this was not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the area. Extensive discussion ensued as to the need for additional commercial property, particularly in this area which featured a substantial amount of vacant C-2 zoned property which was still vacant. Commissioner Pierce stated his concerns with the size of the R-4 parcel, and that a proper determination of whether C-1 would be a more appropriate intermediate land use than R-4 could only be made when the C-2 corner property was actually developed or when the corner piece would also be rezoned to C-1 . He explained that, for example, if the corner property were developed with a service/office type use under the C-2 zoning, then a residential type of development on the R-4 piece would be appropriate. He commented that, on the other hand, if the C-2 corner property developed with a more intense retail type use, it might be feasible to establish a C-1 use on the smaller property. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he saw merit in the applicant's desire to locate a dental clinic in this area, but that he also appreciated the owner's desire to retain C-2 zoning on the corner property rather than rezone both pieces to C-1 zoning. He stated he could not support a "spot zoning" request involving only one parcel since, until the corner property developed, there was little specific basis for changing the zoning of the smaller piece from R-4 to C-1 . Commissioner Scott stated she could not support the request on the basis that there was no particular need for additional C-1 land in the City; the rezoning of the particular property for a specific development constituted "spot zoning" in her opinion, and the service/office or clinical needs of the area could be met through utilization of existing commercially zoned land throughout the north- east neighborhood. 5-27-76 -4- Commissioner Pierce reiterated his previous concerns and stated that while C-1 zoning was not particularly desirable than R-4 zoning, he was also con- cerned that the size of the particular parcel was more conducive to a residential use at this time than to a commercial use. Commi ,sioner Kohrt stated that while C-1 was a more intense zoning than R-4, he would tend to favor C-1 a,�3 the better land use next to an intense C-2 retail use, such as a drive-in or convenience food store. He commented that the proper zoning of the smaller parcel could be better determined when the larger C-2 parcel developed. Commissioner Horan stated he could not support the req,.zest in that it constituted "spot zoning" and that there was adequate commercial, land available in the area .,hich could support the applicant's proposed use. He stated the situation was not unique and that to rezone the subject parcel alone would be precedent S et-ting. Chairman Foreman stated that he felt there were definite "spot zoning" aspects to the request and that there, was a substantial amount of land zoned C-1 and C-2 around the City which could support the proposed use. With respect to the specific neighborhood, he stated there was commercial land, including the adjacent C-2 piece, which could be used for the proposed use. Chalrm3n Foreman then recognized the applicant, Dr. Schell, who reiterated the history of his rezoning effe�rts.- that of all, the owners notified of the public hearing, the one who had appeared had spoken in favor cf the application; that the neighborhood advisory group had generally recommended approval of the request; and that he had demonstrated the subject property was ideal for his proposed development. Further discussion ensued with the applicant as to the "'spot zoning" characteristics of the request and the undesirable precedent which could be established with it,(3, approval. Dr. Schell responded that his proposed TiT-,e was both necessary and desirable for the area, and that he had followed each of the proper procedural steps in requesting the rezoning. He stated he did not intend to cause a disruptive effect upon the community's planning or land use concerns. Direct following further discussion there was a motion by Deny-'.ng Appiicatic-,n Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner No. 7601 1. (Dr. Engdahl to direct the preparation of a resolution Schell for Mr. Horbal) recommending denial of Application No. 76011 sub-- 40 mitted by Dr. Robert Schell for Mr. John Horbal noting-, I . There is a substantial amount of available C-1 zoned land throughout the community which could support the proposed use; 2. Rezoning the subject parcel alone at this time would constitute "spot zoning" and establish an undesirable precedent; -5- 5-27-76 3. The need for servioe/office and clinic facilities in the northeast neighborhood can be provided through the use of the existing commercially zoned land in that area. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9000 p.m. and resumed at Recess 9:15 p.m. The next item of business was the discussion of ordinance Discussion of side yard setback standards with representatives of the Side Yard Setback neighborhood advisory groups. Chairman Foreman Standards explained that, concurrent with the Jaycee Community Attitude Survey, which contained questions regarding that subject and which was currently being tabulated, the Planning Commission had asked the neighborhood advisory groups to review the ordinance standards and provide input as to whether consideration should be given to reducing them. He recognized Mrs . Dolores Hastings, representing the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group, who stated she personally had talked with a number of people throughout the neighborhood. She stated that the area was relatively unique due to the preponderance of smaller lots and older houses. She stated there had been a general response that while new construction should be according to existing standards, perhaps the standards could be relaxed as to the remodeling or expansion of older homes on smaller lots in pro- portion of the house size to the lot size. She stated a number of persons felt conversions of attached garages would be acceptable if the area of the entire structure were not increased. She stated that people did not have so much a concern as to the effect of the ordinance standards on their property as they did relative to other property owners. Chairman Foreman recognized Mr. Larson who repre- sented the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group who stated the general feeling was to leave the ordinance standards as they are, at least with respect to newer homes . He agreed with Mrs. Hastings that there might be unique circumstances involving older homes or, smaller lots where a relaxation of the standards might be in order. Chairmen Foreman then recognized Mr. Terzich, who represented the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, who stated a strong endorsement of retaining the present standards. He commented that there was substantial merit in retaining a minimum 20 foot separation between dwellings for purposes of providing light, air and privacy. He noted that the bulk of the City's development had been according to those standards and the City should adhere to the established setbacks as a matter of retaining community character and property values. He stated good setback standards have a direct bearing, in his opinion, on good design and maintenance of residential property. 5-27-76 -6- Mr. Terzich also commented that the group chairman, Mr. Olson, was not able to attend the meeting but had indicated he was in favor of retaining the present ,.;tandards. The Secretary explained that the Northeast Neighborhood -as - rn it ted written comments to the effect that dwelling setback distances be according to dwelling height, with a minimum 6 foot separation between dweliingc. He stated their recommendation also provided that, in cases where a dwelling was less than 10 feet from the line, the exterior wall must be a fire wall. The letter from the Chairman indicated the recommendations had been endorsed by Fire Depart- ment officers. Chairman Foreman then polled the Commissioners as to their personal opinions regarding the side yard setb'A-�k matter. Commissioner Kohrt stated that he felt there was a need to review both sides of the question and that it would appear the Planning Commission had made its feelings known in the recommendation on Application No. 75035 which had initiated the questlui.-3 in the Jaycee Comm-unity Attitude Survey. He stated he would be prepared to review the various aspects of the matter at such time that the Council directed further input from the Commission. Cc-nmissioner Pierce stated that he could see some me sit in relaxation of the side yard setback standards for =;mnaller houses on smaller lots, and particularly thoEe which al')utted alleys. He stated, however, that for the typical house style in Brooklyn Center, there was a need for driveway access from the street and he was concerned that the effective side yard access could be closed off if the standards were relaxed. He stated he was generally against reducing the Standards. Corrim, issio,ner Scott stated that she was generally apposed to altering the side yard setback standards simply to accommodate expansion or conversion of attached garages. She stated she felt expansion into the rear yard was more preferable and that in most cases it was physically possible. Corwriissioner Horan stated that in circumstances wh�V) there is an attached garage, expansion through cnriversion of the garage should be permitted. He stated this would not enlarge the structure and he noted that current ordinance language adopted a couple ;f �ears ago allows for dwelling expansion behind an attached garage. He felt that there was, therefore, precedent for permitting conversion of the garage itself as long as the size of the structure was not enlarged. He suggested that if the ordinance setback standards were not reduced, then present ordinance language should be revised as to dwelling expansion. -7- 5-27-76 Commissioner Engdahl stated he disagreed with Commissioner Horan's position since garages are intended for accessory uses and not for dwelling pur- poses. He stated he was concerned abort provision for adequate parking space on residential lots, and that he agreed with Mr. Terzich that living space between dwellings was highly desirable and essential to maintaining property values and privacy. He stated that Brooklyn Center's standards were equitable and he could see no sound basis for changing them. The next item of business was review of a draft Draft Ordinance i ordinance amendment of Chapter 15 and Chapter 35 Relative to Lot relative to lot area and width requirements in the R-2 Dimensions in district. The item was introduced by the Secretary the R-2 District who stated the draft ordinance amendment was pre- pared in response to the City Council's directive to the Planning Commission to review and resolve, if possible, the quuestion of whether lots smal_',er than present ordinance standards should be permitted in the R-2 district. He explained there had been a number of requests over the years to subdivide some of the remaining large parcels in the southeast neighborhood to lots of 60 - 83 foot width. He commented that the long term intent of the Comprehensive Plan in this area was to encourage the retention of the larger lots and the combinations of smaller lots so to provide for either single family homes or two family dwellings. He stated this had not been the experience over the past ten years and that there were builders who were will=ing and able to construct singly; family dwellings on smaller width lots at present ordinance setback standards. He stated the matter had been deferred for some time to allow development of ;a land use inventory of the area as well as to permit the Engineering Department to conduct a survey of the utility capacity. He stated both studies had been accomplished and a reduction of lot width standards in the R-2 district could be recommended at this time. Discussion ensued as to the language of the proposed amendment and a wording change was recommended relative to the language concerning minimum interior lot dimension-c-. The Secretary �°,tated the proposed lot area dimensions for interior and corner lots in the R-2 district were proportional to the reduction In the lot width. Motion by Curran sinner Pierce, seconded by Recommend Approval Commissioner Horan, to endorse the draft ordinance of Ordinance Amend- armendment regarding minim-dm lot dimensions .n the R-2 went Regarding R-2 district and to recommend its approval. The motion District Lot Dimen- passed unanimously. sion Standards In other business,, the Director of Public Works Other Business: reviewed a refined utility master plan for the northeast area, generally described as south of 69th, west of Lyndale, and north of 68th Avenues North. He stated current review of this area had been initiated by the deferment of Application No. 76013 submitted by Word of Flame Apostolic Church which sought a subdivision 5-27-76 -8- for the corner parcel. at 69th and Lyndale Avenues North. He stated meetings had been held with several neighboring property owners and discussions were still under way. He stated several inquiries had been made by developers as to possibly putting together a development package in the area. A disc��ssion ensued as to the feasibility of the T-ztility master plan and the Director of Public Works pointed out the areas which still needed to be analysed. The Director of Public Works stated that a plan had been established following hearingu with the affected property owners in 1,968, and this plan represented a refinement to reflect the developments which had eccurred in the area since that time. Action to LrLdor2-,' Folle.wing further discussion there was a motion -r)v 1V.E. Area I;t i 1.-12 ty Ccmrrd s s"Loner Engdahl., seconded by Commissioner Master Plan Scrt-" to endorse and recommend approval of the area-wide utility and subdivision master plan. The motion passed unanimously. Approv Motion by Ccmirdo-,�inner Engdahl, seconded by 5-6-76 Co='-ssioner Pierce to approve the min fifes of the May 6, 1,976 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were Chairman Foreman, Commissioners Engdahl, Pierce, and Kohrt. Not voting- Ccrrimlsstoners Horan and Scott who stated they were not present at that meeting. The motion pas-:red. 5-1.3-✓6 Mutak-,n by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Kohrt to approve the minutes of the May 1.30 1976 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were Chairman Fore-man, Commissioners Engdahl, Pierce, Horan, and Kohrt. Not voting- Comrnis(3ioner Scott who stated she was not present, at that meeting. The motion passed. Adjcurnzner- M,.)t.-c)nby Commissioner Scott, seconded by Com,nissioner Pierce to adjourn the meeting. The rn�. tion passed unanimously. Th9 Plannfnq Comral3sion meeting adicurined at I 1 -00 p.-Tn. Chairma- -9- 7-76