Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 02-12 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL FEBRUARY 12, 1976 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was • called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Robert Foreman, Roll Call : Chairman Foreman, Commissioners Scott, Pierce, and Engdahl . Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere Chairman's Explanation Following the Chairman's Explanation, the Commission Board of Adjustments and Appeals convened as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Application No. 76001 The Secretary introduced the first item of business , (Allan Jones) Planning Commission Application No. 76001 , submitted by Allan Jones , 5425 Oliver Avenue North. He stated the applicant was seeking a variance from Section 35-400 which requires a minimum 40-foot rear yard setback from dwellings , in order to construct an addi- tion to his house which would encroach into the rear yard, He explained that based upon the certified lot survey and plans submitted by the applicant, the Building Official had determined the encroachment to be approx- imately 12 to 14 feet. The Secretary commented that the applicant had been in- formed of the standards for a variance and had submitted a letter to the file responding in part to those standards. He also reviewed the design of the appli- cant's nonrectangular lot and the location of the existing dwelling and detached garage which conform with ordinance standards. Chairman Foreman recognized the applicant who stated that he disputed the front yard setback dimension which the Building Official had scaled from the certified survey. He stated that he had measured the front yard setback in the field and had determined that it was less than that indicated. He acknowledged, however, that the proposed addition would nonetheless encroach into the rear yard, In response to a question by Chairman Foreman, the Secretary explained that the recent survey was drawn to scale by a certified surveyor. He stated that the measurements indicated by the Building Official had been verified to the scale of the survey. He stated that the field dimensions could be rechecked and that the sur- veyor would be notified. (Administrative Note: The front setback dimension in question was subsequently field checked by the surveyor who reports it is 2.2 feet less than that scaled from the survey by the Building Official . The rear yard • setback variance is thus for approximately 10 to 14 feet. ) The applicant also stated that he had contacted neigh- bors who had voiced no objections. He explained his hardship was created by the size of his family, the need for additional living space, and his inability to find a reasonably priced dwelling in Brooklyn Center which met the family needs. Chairman Foreman announced that a public hearing had been scheduled and recognized the property owner of r - 5431 Oliver Avenue North, who stated that he could see no negative ramifications of the applicant's proposed addition upon the neighborhood. Chairman Foreman read a letter from the resident of 2113 - 55th Avenue North, to the rear of the property, which stated she had no objection to the proposed addition. Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Close Public Hearing Scott to close the ublic hearing, The motion passed p 9 unanimously. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he felt there was merit • in reviewing the community setback standards which were established many years ago, and explained to the appli- cant that the City Council had directed the Commission to undertake such a review. He stated, however, that it was not clear that the variance standards were met in this case and commented that he personally felt that standards should not be altered through the variance procedure since it merely aggravated the undesirable precedent which the City Council wished to avoid, He stated that he-could not support the application as a variance request but suggested that the applicant ex- press his feelings to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group which would soon be consulted as to the possible revision of ordinance setback standards. Commissioner Scott stated that the ordinance was clear that the standards for a variance must be met and she reviewed the application in terms of each of the standards. She concluded that it was not clear that the standards were met in terms of uniqueness and physical hardship caused by the ordinance or the design of the property, since the existing.structures_conformed with th k ordi arnce standards, She agreed with Commissioner ngdah� in that granting a variance was not the proper procedure in modify- ing standards and stated that the City had yet to determine whether the standards should be altered, Commissioner Pierce agreed that variance standards were not clearly met. He stated, however, that in the review of yard setback standards, consideration should be given to platted lots such as the applicant's which had less than the ordinance minimum depth and thus perhaps the required rear yard should be proportionate. Chairman Foreman stated that the applicant should work with the staff in terms of resolving the disputed set- back dimensions which were scaled from the certified survey in order to verify the setback of the dwelling., He stated, however, that he could not support the appli- cation as variance request since the standards were not met. He suggested that the applicant relate his opinions concerning yard setback standards and the need for providing additional living area to the neighborhood group, Following further discussion there was a motion by Recommend Denial of Appli- Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to cation No. 76001 recommend denial of Planning Commission Application (Alan Jones) No. 76001 submitted by Alan Jones on the basis that the standards for a variance are not clearly met, particu- larly with respect to uniqueness and hardship, and , further, that altering established yard setback standards by variance procedure was not appropriate. The motion passed unanimously. The next-item of business was Application No. 76008, Application No. 76008 submitted by Mr. David Faddler. The item was intro- (David Faddler) duced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks permission to construct a dwelling at 5326 Bryant Avenue North which is substandard in both width and area, He stated the request also involves a side yard setback variance to accommodate the proposed dwelling, 2/12/76 -2- The Secretary explained that the parcel was created many years ago through metes and bounds description, as the north one-third of "-Lot 14" , which had been platted at 126 feet in keeping with the other lots in this subdivision, He stated the other lots were sub- sequently divided into 63 foot parcels as shown on the drawing. He further explained the balance of Lot 14 is owned by the resident next door at 5324 Bryant Avenue North, and that there is 48 feet of vacant land between the house at 5324 and the south line of the subject parcel . He stated there had been a single family dwelling on the parcel until February, 1975, when it was demolished following an explosion and fire. He stated also that a comparable application had been submitted approximately one year ago by the then owner/resident who withdrew the application prior to the public hearing, upon deciding to move elsewhere and to transfer the property to a realtor and builder, Chairman Foreman recognized the applicant who stated that he was a builder and that the proposed dwelling had a tenative buyer. Chairman Foreman inquired as to what efforts the applicant had made to acquire addi- tional land to expand the parcel so that it would be in keeping with the other parcels in the area. He recognized Mr. Huber, who introduced himself as a realtor who had contacted the neighboring property owner at 5324 Bryant, who stated he would only consider selling additional land to the previous owner and occupant. Mr. Huber also stated that the applicant had purchased the property on the assurance by the pre- vious owner that a house could be built on the sub- standard lot and that the previous owner had stipulated that in the purchase agreement, The Secretary reiterated that no such permission had been granted and the previous . owner had withdrawn his variance in order to sell the property. He stated that no determination had been made as to whether the lot was buildable following the demolition of the non- complying structure. In response to a question by Chairman Foreman, the Secretary stated that the subject application could be viewed as an economic matter for the accommodation of a speculative enterprise, versus a contended hardship by a property 'owner whose home had been destroyed and who desired to replace that home. During further dis- cussion, the Secretary commented that sound planning would require that the now vacant property be expanded to dimensions more in keeping with the established lot width in the area before it was again devoted to a permanent dwelling structure. Chairman Foreman announced that a public hearing had been scheduled and recognized Mr. Johnson, 5324 Bryant Avenue North. Mr, Johnson stated that he had never agreed to sell a specified amount of land to the pre- vious owner or anyone else, but rather had agreed at the time to the previous owner having a larger re- placement house. He recalled that the previous owner had submitted a variance request which apparently was never pursued, He stated that he did not wish at this time to sell any of his property, noting that he had lived in the present location for twenty-five years and wished to maintain a substantial side yard between his house and the neighboring property, Chairman Foreman also recognized Mr. Farguson, 5328 Bryant Avenue North the neighbor on the other side of the subject parcel . He commented that the house which had been destroyed had been very close to the property -3- 2/12/76 line and that he had considered and still would consider acquiring the subject property to add onto his own parcel . He stated that- he had-not-discussed this with the-applicant-but would- be willing to do so. Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Close Public Hearing Scott to close the public hearing. - The motion passed unanimously. .Commissioner Engdahl stated that the 42 foot width was too narrow, particularly_ in light of vacant adjacent -land. He reca l led ..that earlier-variances in this area - had involved platted-parcels where no additional land was available and- the-applications generally were sub- mitted-by owner/occupants who wished to replace their existing home. Commissioner-Scott agreed- that the lot was too narrow and that efforts should -be made to expand the lot or _ to incorporate-.it into an adjacent parcel . She stated her concern that the applicant had purchased the property on the- erroneous- assumption that permission had been-granted-to- build a-structure. Commissioner Pierce agreed as to the narrowness of the lot-and-that, -with substantial additional land avail- able, poor precedent would be-established in terms of sound planning-by the granting of the variance. Chairman Foreman stated that aside from the fact that - -the contended-hardship was primarily economic, he was concerned -with-the potential precedent for approving construction on a-42 foot lot in this area since, according to his calculation, there were seven remain- ing parcels-in- this-subdivision which were 126 feet in width and thus there would- be a-potential for the creation-of up -to- 14- additional 42 foot width lots. .He noted that the established 63 foot lot width di- mension in this area, though substandard, was in keeping with-.the,-entire subdivision and encouraged that- additional land be acquired or that the subject parcel be combined with the adjacent parcel . Following further discussion there was a motion by Recommend Denial of Commissioner Engdahl seconded-by Commissioner Scott Application No. 76008 to recommend..denial of-Planning Commission Application (David Faddler) No. 76008 submitted-,by_ David--Faddler on the basis that the standards fora variance- are not clearly met; there is adjacent vacant.land-which would allow widening the subject parcel to- the established lot width of the area; and -an undesirable-precedent:-would be-established with -respect to remaining large parcels in this subdivision. The motion passed-unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:15- p.m. and reconvened as Recess the Planning Commission at 9:30 p.m. Planning Commission Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Approve Minutes: Engdahl - to- approve the January 22, 1976 minutes as January 22, 1976 submitted. - The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner January 29, 1976 Engdahl to approve- the January 29, 1976 minutes as submitted. -Voting -in favor were: Chairman Foreman, Commissioners- Pierce-and Engdahl . Not voting: Com- -missioner Scott who-stated she was not-present at that meeting. The motion passed. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 76009 Application No. 76009 submitted by W. J. Dale. The (W, J. Dale) item was introduced by the Secretary-who stated the applicant proposes- to- rezone from I-2 to C-2, the 12/76 -4- approximately 6-acre multi-parcel tract lying southerly of Lakebreeze, easterly of Azelia Avenue, and westerly of Trunk Highway 100. He explained that the present zoning for general industry has been the designated zoning since the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance were adopted, He explained that there have been no active development plans for I-2 uses in this area but the applicant had periodically proposed various C-2 type uses on a portion of the property. • Chairman Foreman recognized the applicant who stated that he had owned and held the property for approximately eighteen years and that he had no active development proposals even before it was zoned I-2 in 1968. He stated that he had.an interested party who proposed a restaurant for the easterly portion near Highway 100, and that perhaps the balance could be developed by himself, He stated he felt that C-2 zoning would facilitate the speculation and eventual development of the land, In response to a question by Commissioner Pierce as to whether a conceptual master plan had been developed for this 6-acre tract, the applicant responded in the - negative- Commissioner Engdahl stated his concern with the C-2 zoning proposal was the possible impact of the westerly portion upon the residential properties facing Azelia Avenue,. The Secretary stated that the State Highway Department had submitted a letter to the file indicating their general concerns and noting a long-term design proposal involving an interchange capability at France Avenue. He stated also that in the interim, the Highway De- partment was contemplating a service road concept which might affect the subject property,, Commissioner Scott responded that the Southwest Neigh- borhood Group had reviewed some preliminary plans and she recalled the concept of a service road. She also stated that at the time the nearby R-5 property was de- veloped with the Beach Apartments, a master plan of the area had been drawn showing a, connector road running across this property from Lakeside Avenue to Lakebreeze Avenue. Chairman Foreman read the correspondence from the Highway Department and announced that a public hearing had been scheduled. He recognized the resident of 4711 Azelia Avenue who also recalled the service road concept developed at the time the Beach Apartments were constructed, He also stated that his main concern was the indefinite status as to what would be built on the property if it were rezoned to C-2m The Secretary reviewed the various types of uses which would be permitted under C-2- versus those permitted under the existing 1-2 zoning. The Director of Public Works explained the concept of the service road coincides-with the earlier interchange plans of the Highway Department, but he noted that apparently due to funding and other considerations, the timing had changed, Chairman Foreman recognized the resident of 4717 Azelia Avenue North who stated her concern whether access to the commercial property would be onto Azelia or onto Lakebreeze. She also inquired as to the effect the -5- 2/12/76 rezoning .wdul.d.-h-ave__on..th.e neighboring-residential land values--and: stated tha.t.pe.rhaps_the proposed C-2 zoning was-more desirable-.than heavy-industrial use. Chairman-Foreman also recognized the resident of 4807 Azelia-:Avenue-North who- inquired whether_walkways would be installed along Lakebreeze-Avenue if:the- property were zoned commercial . se that-neighboring residents would have proper-pedestrian ;access. He stated-that-mere intense traffic on Lakebreeze would-aggravate an-already hazard- ous -situation-fer pedestrians-.who use- the- street right- of-way, The- Direeter- of-Public-Works explained the _priorities for-sidewalk-installation and stated the -situation-:in this are-a-would be reviewed at the time �I --development-were-proposed-® : The-resident-of.-4807 Azelia -. alse-inquired:-as-te-prevision for adequate transit ser- i - viee-:in-the-area:, and whether future-development would allow for proper-turn-around capability for buses. The Secretary and Director of Public Works commented as to the established design concerns of the City with respect to large developments and their ability to support mass transit. Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Close Public Hearing Pierce to close the public hearing, The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Engdahl stated that the request should be referred to the Southeast Neighborhood Group for further input. He suggested that in the interim, the applicant work with the staff with respect to the impact of the various land uses permitted in the C-2 district as well as the traffic generation which could be expected in the area. He- stated that a conceptual master plan of the area would also be in order. Commissioner Scott recalled earlier concerns of the neighborhood group and the Northport Citizens Association. She stated that consideration had been given to possible planned unit development potential of the 7-1 os property and- stressed that the group had felt then that I-2 zoning south of Lakebreeze was not the most desirable land use. Commissioner Pierce stated that while C-2 might appear to be a better overall use than I-2, he felt the Com- mission should consider the merits of rezoning the property to I-la - He stated that would provide for certain commercial land uses but yet would retain the lower density of industrial development. He agreed with Commissioner Engdahl that the applicant should prepare a conceptual master plan and that pertinent proposed highway development in the area, specifically the service road concept, should be incorporated into that plan. Chairman Foreman stated that he could see the negative ramifications of- heavy industrial development adjacent to the existing single family residential along Azelia Avenue. He stated he had many of the same concerns however, with respect to commercial zoning, although the property could be viewed as a major gateway into i the City if it were properly developed. He stated his primary concern was with the intensity of the land use as well as the aesthetics of the area which in its present state left- much to be desired. He stated also that- the Highway Department was con- sistent in that the-future proposals and timing were not clear. He stated it was unreasonable to require the owner to hold the land vacant indefinitely subject 2/12/76 -6- to possible future plans by the Highway Department. He agreed that the applicant should develop a master conceptual plan for the layout of the area and that the Commission should consider other forms of land uses, including possible zoning to I-1 . During further discussion the Secretary stated the Commission traditionally also considered whether additional C-2 land was desirable on a community-wide basis and he recalled several recent rezoning pro- . posals involving substantial tracts of land. The Director of Public Works stated that sound land planning was vital , especially with respect to future possible land acquisition by the Highway Department. He suggested that it was possible that the land could be developed in the interim as long as the highway upgrading was kept in mind as proposals were reviewed during the plan approval and subdivision process. He stated that a conceptual master plan of the area would be an essential ingredient in that effort. The Secretary also commented that in contemplating a rezoning of the entire area, the Commission should re- view the merits of including the parcel adjacent to the southerly boundary of the subject tract. He noted this vacant land was also zoned I-2, and that, it would be reasonable to apply the advantages and disadvantages of a proposed rezoning action to that land as well . Table Application No. 76009 Following further discussion there was a motion by (W. J. Dale) Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to table Planning Commission Application No. 76009, and to refer the matter to the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment; to permit the applicant the opportunity to develop a conceptual master plan incorporating pertinent interim develop- ment proposals by the Highway Department which would affect the property; and to allow further analysis by the applicant and the staff with respect to traffic generation and the ramifications of possible different land uses in the area. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 76004 The next item of business was consideration of Planning (Jerry Harrington) Commission Application Noe 76004, submitted by Jerry Harrington, The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the application proposed rezoning of property at 67th and Emerson Avenues North, from R-3 to R-5 on the west parcel and from R-3 to R-1 on the east parcel . He stated the item was heard on January 15, 1976, and was tabled to permit review and comment by the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. He stated the advisory. group met on January 28, 1976, r and the chairman had submitted a letter to the file recommending unanimous approval Chairman Foreman recognized the applicant and a brief discussion ensued wherein the applicant stated that at the time the westerly parcel was developed, he would work closely with the neighboring property owners to assure proper landscaping and buffering. Chairman Foreman also recongized Mr. Adler, 6733 Emerson Avenue North, and Mr. Foster, 6732 Emerson Avenue North. Mr. Foster stated that he had not been aware of the neighborhood group meeting which he had understood would be open to interested residents. The Secretary stated that attempts to return Mr. Foster's call and inform him of the meeting had been unsuccessful, but that Mr. Foster should state any concerns he would have before the Commission. Mr. Foster indicated -7- 2112176 that he had no specific concerns beyond those al- ready mentioned at the public hearing in January. Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commission Close Public Hearing Pierce to close the public hearing, The motion passed unanimously. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Recommend Approval of Applica-- Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Scott tion No. 76004 to recommend approval of Planning Commission Applica- (Jerry Harrington) tion No. 75004 submitted by Jerry Harrington subject to the provision that, pursuant to Section 35-210 (2) "Review of Rezoning", the west parcel may be rezoned to R-3, should no structural improvement commence thereon within two years of approval . The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 76005 Application No. 76005, submitted by Jerry Harrington, (Jerry Harrington) and was introduced by the Secretary who explained the item was also heard on January 15, 1976 and was tabled pending disposition of the application just approved. He stated the request involves both parcels involved in the rezoning; but while the west parcel would be physically the same, the east parcel would be divided into six R-1 lots. A brief discussion ensued and the Director of Public Works commented on the design of the lots and the pro- vision for utility easements upon submission of the final plat. Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded ,by Commissioner Recommend Approval of Pierce to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 76005 Application No. 76005 submitted by Jerry Harrington, (Jerry Harrington) subject to the following conditions: 1 . Final Plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. The Final Plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. In other business the Secretary confirmed that a study Other Business: meeting had been scheduled to the morning of February 21 , at 9:00 a.m. for purposes of discussing the Council 's request for recommendation as to means for obtaining the input of the community regarding yard setback standards. In other business, the Secretary reviewed the status of Planning Commission Application No. 75045, submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Incorporated, and noted that the applicant had submitted a completed traffic engineering analysis of the Industrial Park. He stated the staff would be reviewing that report and developing a summary memorandum specifically directed at the re- zoning proposal . A brief discussion ensued as to the . nature of the proposed commercial use as reflected in the circulated promotional literature and public media. ► In other business the Secretary briefly reviewed several pending applications which would be on ensuing agendas, including the meeting of February 26. Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Adjournment Pierce to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11 :35 p.m. airman 2/12/76 -8-