Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 08-06 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota August 6, 1970 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 7:35 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki, Robert Grosshans, Paul Ditter and Karl Schuller. Commissioners absent were: Adrian Dorenfeld and Charles Nichols. Staff members present wero: Jim Merila, B. E. Peterson and Tom Loucks. Chairman Jensen asked the Commission to defer approval of the minutes until later in the evening. Following the Chairman's introductory comments, the first items of business were related to Applications No. 70048 and 70046 sub- mitted by Viewcon, Inc. requesting rezoning from R5 to C2 and a variance and site and building plans for a convenience center, respectively. The property is commonly located on the parcel at 5801 Major Avenue North. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks, who commented that the applicant is requesting permission to construct a con- venience center which will contain a superette, a beauty shop and dry cleaning establi-shment. He further stated that if the applicant is granted rezoning, he will also be requesting approval of a 35 foot rear setback variance as well as site and building plan approval for a convenience center. The Chair then recognized Charles VanEeckhout, the applicant, who stated that there is a need for a convenience center adjacent to a large apartment complex such as Twin Lake North. Mr. VanEeckhou-:, stated that he has contacted residents in the area and that they were not opposed to the project. In regards to the variance, he stated that the property is approximately 111 feet deep at one point and the respective setbacks total 90 feet, thus leaving room only for a 21 foot deep building which would result in undesirable parking and a small building. He stated that because of the peculiar shape and size of the lot, it could cause a hardship of workability and appearance. Chairman Jensen then asked the applicant if he had considered another use for the land other than a convenience center. Mr. VanEeckhout responded, yes, they have thought of the area for R5 but had not given serious consideration to other uses. Mr. VanEeckhout stated that because there is a common boundary on which a variance is desired and because there is an opaque fence presently located on three sides of the subject property, they would desire to remove the fence in order to provide pedestrian access from the Twin Lake North Apartment complex. It was noted by Mr. Loucks, that since the proposed commercial development is being offered as an integrated unit within the Twin Lake North project, that the curb cut shown on the convenience center preliminary site plan should be eliminated. It was recognized by the staff that two curb cuts within 30 feet of each other (pro- posed curb cut and curb cut for apartment complex to east) could create some traffic problems. Mr. Van Eeckhout responded that because of mortgage problems, they would prefer to have the curb cut on County Road 10 located on the commercial site and would be willing to close the Twin Lake North curb cut if necessary. I '� -2- Chairman Jensen then called on affected property owners to present their arguments either for or against the proposed appli- cations for rezoning, variance and site and building plans. The Chair recognized Mrs. Sigurd Edling, 5735 Halifax Avenue, who had no comment. Mr. G. A. Johnson of 5727 Major Avenue North expressed the reservation of a possible traffic problem in getting onto County Road 10. He wanted to know if the subject applications would increase traffic. Chairman Jensen responded that the most apparent threat at this time would come from the development of the vacant R3 zone adjacent to Twin Lake North. Mr. Johnson stated that he was nuetral in regards to the present application. Chairman Jensen commented that the Commission has been aware of the McGlinchy property for some time. He expressed concern that perhaps a precedent could be established by rezoning the parcel for commercial usage. He pointed out to the Commission that they should be fully aware that the R3 parcel located to the east is vacant and perhaps future commercial requests would be forthcoming from that area. It was then noted by Mr. Jensen that it has been the policy of the Commission in many instances to consult with neighborhood committees on rezoning matters. He stated that this policy should be adhered to in this instance. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to close the public hearing. The motion carried . unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Karl Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Henry Bogucki to table and refer to the West central Neighborhood Committee Application No. 70048 requesting rezoning from R5 to C2 and Application No. 70046 requesting a variance and site and building plans for a convenience center until the August 27th study meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The Commission next considered Application No. 70047 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. requesting site and building plan approval for an office building for a parcel located at 5930-50 Osseo Road. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who called upon the appli- cant, Charles VanEeckhout, to explain the site and building plans to the Commission. Following this discussion a motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 70047 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. requesting approval of site and building plans for an office building be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) Utility and drainage plans and adequate site elevations must be presented to the City Engineer for approval; 2) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 3) A performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. 1 1 1 -3- 4) Any mechanical equipment and vents on the roof or at grade level must be aduately screened; 5) Outside solid waste disposal containers, if any, shall be adequately screened subject to the approval of the Building Inspector; 6) Installation of an underground lawn irrigation system to be approved by the City Engineer; 7) The two parcels (5110 and 5120) be combined into one parcel. Motion carried unanimously. The next item for consideration was Planning Commission Appli- cation No. 70041 submitted by Loyd Brandvold requesting a variance to build on a substandard lot. The property is commonly located at 312 - 55th Avenue North. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that the lot in question was made substandard by a right-of-way acqui sition for Interstate 94 and consequently, the lot has a number of deficiencies: 1) Lot area of 7,630 square feet and the ordinance requires 9,500 square feet; 2) Sixty feet wide at the established building setback line and the ordinance requires 75 feet; 3) 27.75 feet wide at the rear lot line and the ordinance requires 30 feet. The Chairman called on the applicant, Mr. Brandvold, who pre- sented to the Commission site and building plans for a residential home. Mr. Loucks commented that the staff was not aware that such plans existed and consequently had not reviewed there. Chairman Jensen then called on the affected property owners; Mr. J. L. Maloney, 315 - 55th Avenue North, and Mr. Steve DeMaggio, 5945 Emerson Avenue North, who were in favor of said application. Chairman Jensen commented that the applicant is asking for a sizeable variance because of land taken by the State resulting in the substandard lot. Commissioner Ditter responded that there are many substandard lots in this area. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Schuller to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 70041 submitted by Loyd Brandvold requesting a variance on lot size, building setback width, and rear yard width, be granted because of a hardship caused by Interstate 94 right-of-way. The motion carried unanimously. The next item for consideration was Planning Commission Appli- cation No. 70042 submitted by Thomas Stanchfield requesting a variance from the side yard setback for the property located at 6001 York Avenue North. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who stated that due to an administrative error, the applicant's contractor was permitted to pour footings five feet from the side yard property line for a 22 by 24 addition being built on the applicant's property. When the error was discovered, the Building Inspector 1 1 1 -4- issued a stop order to cease construction until such time as the setback requirement could be resolved. Mr. Loucks commented that it was the contention of the applicant that since the error was made by a City Official, it would create an unnecessary hardship if he was required to alter his plans at this point. Mr. Loucks commented that the Stanchfield residence faces on 60th Avenue but has a York Avenue North address. The Chair then recognized Mr. Thomas Stanchfield who commented that the contractor had excavated a considerable amount of his back yard and moved two trees in order to pour the footings when work was stopped by the Building Inspector. The Chair then called upon the affected property owners for comment. Mr. D. C. Skells, 6007 'York Avenue North, a neighbor to Mr. Stanchfield, commented that he is not in opposition to the Stanchfield application request for • variance. Chairman Jensen then requested that Mr. Skells write • letter to the City to the effect that he is not opposed to the Stanchfield application. Mr. Skells agreed to do so. There followed a discussion among the Commissioners regarding the type of hardship involved. Commissioner Bogucki commented that the Planning Commission has considered applications like this in the past where other home owners have wanted to add on an addition and that the policy of the Planning Commission has been to anticipate such problems. Commissioner Ditter commented that the proposed Stanchfield addition would be adjacent to Mr. Skell's garage and that the addition will be a brick wall over the north end. Chair- man Jensen responded that setback requirements are established in the public interest for fire protection so that the fire department can get in between buildings. After this discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 70042 sub- mitted by Thomas Stanchfield requesting a five foot sideyard variance be approved because any substitution of the proposed addition would cause an undue hardship to the applicant. The motion carried unanimously. Following this motion, Commissioner Bogucki commented that essentially this variance is not a request based on a hardship but an accommodation which is really a reasonable request. Chair- man Jensen commented to the Planning Commission that in the near future the Commission should examine sideyard setback requirements. The next application to be considered was Planning Commission Application No. 70043 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center requesting rezoning of Lot 5, Block 2, Northtown Plaza lst Addition, commonly described as that property east of Orchard Avenue in the 6700 block. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that the City Council action of July 13, 1970, initiated pro- ceedings to rezone said parcel from R2 to R3 in order to be con- sistent with Planning Commission Application No. 70014, submitted by Richard Zejdlik requesting rezoning from R1 to R3 that property adjacent and west of the subject property on Orchard Avenue. The Chair then recognized Mr. Richard Zejdlik, owner of the subject property, who commented to the Commission that they did not want to preclude their rights to realest an R4 or an R5 zone. Mr. Zejdlik stated that at this time, they were not in a position to plan and develop the entire area, however, they are aware that the City Council is rezoning the property in order to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Jensen assured Mr. Zejdlik that he always had the right to petition for a different zoning. 1 i 1 -5- Motion by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to close the public hew-Aring. The motion carried unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 70043 submitted on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center requesting rezoning from R2 to R3 of Lot 5, Block 2, Northtown Plaza 1st Addition be approved because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission next considered Application No. 70044 submitted by Gail E. Zirbes requesting a variance for the parcel described as Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, Lakebreeze Addition. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 15-104 in order to permit subdivision by metes and bounds. The Chair recognized Mr. and Mrs. M. N. Fadden of 4711 Azelia Avenue North and Mr. L. M. Neilsen of 4707 Azelia Avenue North, who reviewed with the Commission the proposed subdivision of the property owned by Mr. Zirbes. Following this review, a motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 70044 submitted by Mr. Gail E. Zirbes, requesting a variance from Section 15-104 because platting procedures have been waived in similar circumstances by the City Council in the past and to require the applicant to follow the platting procedures would be a hardship. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of consideration was Planning Commission Application No. 70045 submitted by Standard Solvents requesting a waiver on the sideyard setback and site and building plan approval for property commonly described as being located at 4906 France Avenue North. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that Section 35-400 (3) provides that interior sideyard setback requirements may be waived in commercial and industrial districts where abutting commercial and industrial property owners wish to abut along the common wall built along the property line. The applicant, in this case, was requesting site and building plan approval for an addition to their existing structure and further, a waiver of sideyard setback as provided by Section 35-400 (3) . The Chair then recognized Mr. Bruce Sandberg and David Heegaard, representatives of the applicant, who presented to the Commission a letter of approval from the abutting property owner, Mr. Carl E. Anderson, Sr. , president of the Anderson Automatics, Inc. Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Ditter, to recommend to the City Council that Appli- cation No. 70045 submitted by Standard Solvents, requesting a waiver on sideyard setback and site and building plan approval be approved subject to the following conditions: 1) That the applicant be granted a waiver because the request for a sideyard setback is consistent with Section 35-400(3) and that the applicant has presented a letter stating approval from the abutting property owner; 1 1 1 -6- 2) That utility and drainage plans must be presented to the City P11t7imF.er for approval. 3} Building p1.an_i are F, zb�cc+: t the <�prroval of the Building Inepect or with r_espec,. app3icable building code 4) A performance c reement anO. performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the city Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:44 P.M. and reconvened at 10:10 P.M. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to approve the following minutes as submitted: Study meeting minutes of June 30, 1970; the regular meeting minutes of July 2, 1970; and the Study meeting minutes of July 30, 1970. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loucks next announced that Odell-Peterson Realty were withdrawing Planning Commission Application No. 69049 regarding a special use permit for a nursing home, as per their letter of July 19, 1970. The next item for consideration was Planning Commission Application No. 70034 submitted by Bruce R. S. Johnson on behalf of Mound Cemetery Association requesting preliminary plat approval as required by City Ordinance and State Statutes for the Mound Cemetery Second and the Mound Cemetery Third Additions. This application had been tabled by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of July 20 1970, at the request of the City Engineer, James Merila, in order to determine if individual grave sites on cemetery plans must be delineated. Mr. Merila commented that he had contacted the City Attorney who reviewed the requirements of the State Statutes and reported that this application was in order. Mr. Merila then stated that the Mound Cemetery Association has delineated the burial sites for the Second and Third Additions even though not required by law. Motion by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to reco-commend to the City Council tj,.at Application No. 70034 submitted by Bruce R. S. Johnson on behalf of Mound Cemetery Association requesting preliminary plat approval be approved because said application is consistent with City Ordinances and State Statutes. The motion carried unanimously. The next item for consideration was Planning Commission Application No. 68060 submitted by Lee Berg requesting an extension of a special use permit for storing and rental of trailers at the Brooklyn Union 76 Service Station located at 6901 Osseo Road. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who commented that City Council action, on November 18, 1968, approved said application with the provision that it be reviewed within one year. He stated that the staff had reviewed the application and would recommend one year retroactive extension commencing from November 18, 1969. The applicant had informed the staff that he wishes to get our of the trailer rental business and that a one year retroactive extension would be adequate time to culminate the operation. 1 1 1 -7_ Motion by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend to the City Council that Planning Commission Application No. 68060 be granted a one year retroactive extension of his special use permit to expire November 18 , 1970, in order to allow the applicant time to get out of the trailer rental business. The motion carried unanimously. The next item for consideration was Planning Commission Application No. 69037 submitted by Mrs. Thomas Huesmann requesting an automatic extension for two additional years of a special use permit for a special home occupation consisting of a beauty shop located in the basement level of her home at 7243 Newton Avenue North. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who stated that the original application was approved by the City Council on July 14, 1969, with the stipulation that the special use permit be reviewed within one year with an automatic extension for two additional years. Staff commented that there were no problems existing in regard to the operation of this special home occupation. Motion by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 69037 be extended for two additional years until August 1, 1972. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission next instructed the staff to develop a draft ordinance amending Chapter 35 regarding the definition of a home occupation and to submit said draft to the Commission at its August 27th study meeting. Motion by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:01 P.M. n Chairman 1 1 1