Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 04-22 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 STUDY SESSION CITY HALL APRIL 22, 1976 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in study session and • was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Robert Foreman. Roll Call: Chairman Foreman, Commissioners Scott, Engdahl, Pierce, Horan, and Kohrt. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere, Approve Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by (4-15-76) Commissioner Horan to approve the minutes of the April 15, 1976 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were: Chairman Foreman, Commissioners Scott, Horan and Pierce. Not voting: Commiss- ionersEngdahl and Kohrt, who explained they were not present at that meeting. The motion passed, Application No. 76016 Following the Chairman' s explanation, the first (Robert Adelmann) item of business was consideration of Application No- 76016, which was tabled at the April 15th meeting. The item was reviewed by the Secretary who stated the item had been tabled to permit the applicant an opportunity to revise the site plan to reflect landscaping and revision of the easterly curb cut onto Freeway Boulevard for the service station at 6501 Humboldt Ave. No. The Director of Public Works reviewed the site plan and the design of the modified curb cut, and commented as to the projected traffic load at the intersection of Humboldt Avenue and Freeway Boulevard. The Director of Public Works recommended that an agreement be drawn as an easement to the City providing for closing the easterly curb cut onto Freeway Boulevard, at such time the City Council determines traffic conditions warrant such closure. He stated that there is an existing similar agreement relative to the southerly curb cut onto Humboldt, which was submitted by the previous owner. He stated that the recommended agreement could replace the existing one, since development in the area indicated the problems would be more intense on the Freeway Boulevard side of the property rather than on the Humboldt Avenue side. A discussion ensued and Commissioner Pierce inquired as to the type of curbing which would be installed with the new curb cut and the revised curb cut onto Freeway Boulevard, and he inquired as to the lighting scheme for the site. -1- 4/22/76 In response to a question by Commissioner Pierce, the Director of Public works stated the proposed agreement should specify that at such time the curb cut onto Freeway Boulevard is closed, the work 11: uld include replacement of landscaping, curbing, and any paving as necessary. Chairman Foreman explained to the applicant that plan approval was exclusive of all signery and that any signery proposed for the site would be subject to the Sign Ordinance. Following further discussion there was a motion Recommend Approval of by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Application No. 76016 Scott to recommend approval of Planning (Robert Adelmann) Commission Application No. 76016 submitted by Robc--�- Adelmann, subject to the following conditions,. 1. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is non- transferable. 2m The permit shall be subject to all applicable ordinances, codes and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of the approved site improvements. 4, Plans for interior building modifications shall be subject to review by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits . 5. Grading, paving and curbing shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 6, Landscaping and paving improvements shall be rejuvenated or replaced as necessary per the approved plans. 7, The outside trash disposal facility shall be appropriately screened. 8, The applicant shall submit an easement agreement to the City in a form reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney, providing for the closure of the easterly curb cut onto Freeway Boulevard at such time the City Council determines traffic conditions in the area warrant such closure; such agreement may be in lieu of the existing agreement relative to closing the curb cut onto Humboldt Avenue; and such agreement shall specify that when the curb cut is closed, the area will be replaced as a greenstrip. The motion passed unanimously. 4/22/76 -2- Reconsideration of The next item of business was review of Application No, 7405 • Planning Commission Application No. 74054, (Douglas Quady) submitted by Douglas Quady, 4725 Twin Lake Avenue, The Secretary explained that the City Council had unanimously denied the applic- ation on December 9, 1974, He stated that since then, the question of whet•.`ier spec' ific standards for waterfront properties were feasible and whether special development standards should be adopted for substandard properties in this area and elsewhere in the City had been reviewed by the Commission, He stated that at the joint meeting with the City Council in January of 1976, the Planning Commission and the City Council had determined by consensus that separate standards for waterfront properties were not necessary or feasible, The Secretary explained that the City Council was concerned that the applicant had not re- cieved a final determination as to the denial action, since there had been an indication the circumstances surrounding the particular property, as well as the area in general, would be reviewed, He stated that the Council had asked the Commission to review the application again and formally express its position, Chairman Foreman recognized Mr, and Mrs. Quady and requested the Secretary to read the 1974 Planning commission and City Council minutes, and final resolution regarding the application, as well as to review the minutes of the joint meeting held with the City Council in January of 1976. The Secretary also displayed trans- parencies showing the property and the south- west area of the City and an extensive discuss- ion ensued, Mr. Quady was recognized and he submitted to the file a letter from the original owner of the property at 4725 Twin Lake Avenue, who commented as to the development of the house unrier the former ordinance, The letter suggested that, when the garage was built, it seemed that an addition could be put on it, and that when a permit was granted, the owner had not been in- formed that it would be necessary to build an addition immediately because it might not be permitted at a later time, A review of the substance of the letter ensued and the Secretary recalled that in 1968 the entire zoning ordinance underwent a comprehen- sive revision and the language in the old ordinance which constituted a setback "averaging formula" was eliminated, He stated it was that language which had permitted the construction of the garage at a setback other than that provided by ordinance standards. -3- 4/22/76 The Secretary explained that new ordinances normally do set standards and eliminate old ones, Existing conditions which do not comply with the new standards are normally "grand- fatY , a. -,­d11--as in this case--provided further development is within the new standards so the noncomplying conditions are not aggravated or perpetuated beyond their normal life. He stated that to accept the contention that the new ordinance created hardships, by excluding old standards and by adopting new ones, would be an invitation to all owners of nonconforming uses to make the same argument. At C�mmissioner Horan' s request, the Secretary cited the averaging formula which was in the pre-1968 ordinance: Where adjacent structures have front yard setbacks different from those required, the front yard setback shall conform to the average setback of adjacent structures, If only one adjacent lot is occupied by a structure, the front yard setback shall be the average of the required setback and -the setback of the adjacent structure. The Secretary explained that the Council had deleted this provision in 1968, because of a concern that it was in direct conflict with the concept of uniform yard setbacks and a concern that staggered setbacks would result throughout the community, Further discussion ensued with respect to the size of the house and the physical possibilities of an addition to the house, within ordinance setback requirements. Commissioner Pierce suggested, for example, that it appeared to be possible for a 10-foot addition to the front of the house, within the ordinance setback standards, since the house had been constructed at 45 feet from the front property line. Commissioner Engdahl stated that it would appear the applicant had other possibilities in terms of converting existing floor area, both in the lower level and in the existing garage, which could accomodate the storage and extra living needs. He stated that while these alternatives might not be in keeping with the applicant 's desires, they were physical alternatives to adding a structure on top of the garage. Following further discussion with the Reaffirm 1974 Recommendation applicant, there was a motion by Commissioner for Denial of Application Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Horan to No. 74054 (Douglas Quady) reaffirm the Planning Commission' s original 1974 recommendation for Application No. 74054 to deny the variance request, citing the original reasons and noting the following: 4/22/76 -4- 1, There appear to be other physical alternatives, including an addition within ordinance setback requirements as well as conversion of existing floor space to meet the applicant 's needs, 2. The apparent reason these are not acceptable is due to design and economic considerations, and not to physical reasons which are unique to the property or which have been aggravated by the ordinance, The motion passed unanimously, Recess The reeting recessed at 9:30 p,m, and resumed at 9:45 p.m, Preliminary Review of The next item of business was preliminary Application No, 76024 review of site and building plans submitted (B.C.I ®P„ Inc, ) by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. , under Applimtion Nor 76024, The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was requesting a special use permit for a commercial shopping facility in the Earle Brown Farm, south of Interstate 94 and north of Summit Drive, and that a special use hearing would be scheduled at a subsequent meeting, He stated this review is intended to generate comments and initial recommendations from the Commission as to aesthetics, site design, and the proposed retail operation, He emphasized that no action was recommended at this time, The Director of Public Works and the Secretary presented the submitted site and building plans and an extensive discussion ensued, Responding to several questions, Mr, Merila commented as to the proposed design of Earle Brown Drive, northerly of Summit Drive and he explained the relationship of the alignment of Earle Brown Drive with the proposed alignment of the expan- sion of I-94, He also discussed the assessment policies which apply to public street install- ations within the Earle Brown Farm-Industrial Park, Chairman Foreman recognized Mr. Hennsinger, the designer, and Mr, Phil Johnson, an architect who represented the applicant, and he inquired as to the proposed use of existing structures which were within the construction limits of the proposed Farm Towne development , The Secretary stated that before the structures could be moved and before they could be utilized for any occupancy, a determination would be made as to compliance with applicable codes. He noted that most of the existing buildings on the farm were built as agricultural structures and that it was very likely substantial improvements would have to be made to those structures, Mr. Hennsinger stated that the applicant would -5- 4/22/76 prefer not to move the two barn—type structures within the construction limits until a deter- mination is made as to whether they are usable, and or when Earle Brown Drive is installed sinr,_ ; 1-. ey are in the proposed right.-of-way. Extensive discussion ensued as to the operation of the proposed farm-market portion of the development and particular concern was voiced as to the access for both tenants and customers. The Secretary inquired as to whether the farmers Y rket portion would be a "second phase" or whether it would be developed concurrently with the Towne Market retail center. Mr, Hennsinger stated that the Farmers Market portion may be deferred until such time that there Fre substantial leases to justify its construction, There was further discussion relative to phasing and Chairman Foreman emphasized that the plans submitted should represent clearly whether they are "master plans" for future development versus plans representing imminent construction. It was the consensus of the Commission that all retail activity, including the Farmers Market portion of the facility, be contained within the enclosed buildings and that there not be outside storage, display, or sale of any merchandise, consistent with the regulations applicable to the entire industrial park, Further concern was voiced as to proper screening of the loading areas for both the Farmers Market portion and the Towne Market retail portion of the development, Mr. Hennsinger explained the nature of the trash disposal facilities and noted that they would be adequately screened, The Secretary noted that the plans failed to indicate installation of an automatic fire extinguishing system in any of the buildings and there was no indication that underground irrigation systems were to be installed in the landscaped areas, He noted that both systems were required by the ordinance and Mr, Johnson responded that they would be reflected on the submitted plans. In further review, the Director of Public Works stated his concerns as to appropriate screening of the .Farmers Market delivery areas and noted there could be more sub- stantial screening, especially from the south view and the west views The Secretary also explained any roof top mechanical equipment should be screened and final plans should reflect that. 4/22/76 -6- During further discussion, it was noted that the entire area would be replatted at the time of development, and that the location of the Earle Brown Farm right-of-way, as well as any necessary easements would be provided at that time. A final concern was that, the neighboring Earle Brow:n Farmstead area should be cleaned up and existing outside storage or construction equip- ment and other materials should be eliminated. Other Business2 In other business, the Director of Public Works Subdivision Standards and the Secretary reviewed the status of staff in the R-2 District research relative to subdivision standards in the R-2 zoning districts. The Secretary stated a land use inventory had been completed and he reviewed a draft- map showing the inventory of large parcels which could be subdivided, if the subdivision standards were relaxed from 75 feet minimum width. The Director of Public Works commented that a study had been conducted as to capacity of utilities and that, based on the information from the land use inventory, it appeared there would be no problem with pro- viding for a minimum 60 foot lot width in the R-2 zone, The Secretary stated that a draft ordinance amendment would be developed and submitted for review at a subsequent meeting, Regular May Meeting, In other business, the Secretary reminded the Commission that the May regular meeting was scheduled for Thursday, May the 6th, and that there were a large number of pending applications. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting, The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11g50 p.m. Chairman • -7- 4/22/76