Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 09-03 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission in the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota September 3, 1970 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 7:36 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki, Charles Nichols, Karl Schuller, Robert Grosshans, and Paul Ditter. Members absent: Adrian Dorenfeld. Also present were: James Merila and Tom Loucks. Following the Chairman's introductory comments, the first item of business was Application No. 70048 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. Mr. Loucks introduced the Application stating that the staff was directed by the Planning Commission to seek an attorney's opinion in regard to the ramifications of spot zoning and what relationship further requests for commercial development would have to the Viewcon rezoning for a convenience center located at 5801 Major Avenue North. Mr. Loucks noted that the staff was not yet able to obtain an attorney's opinion. Chairman Jensen then recognized Charles VanEeckhout representing Viewcon, Inc. Mr. VanEeckhout stated that in his opinion, small convenience centers are a desirable accessory use to a multiple family district but did recognize that the City zoning ordinance does not provide for such accessory uses in an R5 district. He noted that the Zoning Ordinance in the R6 and R7 district refers to such accessory commercial uses and felt that there is little difference in this particular instance given the fact that there are or will be 468 families in the Twin Lake Apartment development. He also stated that given the nature of this particular develop- ment, the planning principles referred to the R6 and R7 districts appear to be particularly appropriate. Chairman Jensen then stated that the Commission, at its meeting of August 27th, had some reservations about rezoning the parcel in question and wanted to ask the City Attorney some specific questions in relation to the request and there was concern by the Commission about spill-over rezoning and spot zoning. He further stated that some additional considerations were that the area to the east is zoned R3 and the fact that the parcel in question is rather small (approximately 0.7 acres) and would require a substantial rear yard variance. Chairman Jensen further noted that the West Central Neighborhood Committee had recommended to the Commission that the rezoning be denied based on the reasons that it would create additional traffic hazards in an already high hazard area and that the request deviated considerably from the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bogucki, in responding to the contention of the Neighbor- hood Committee, that the area is already hazardous and that a convenience center would increase this problem; referred to a staff report that indicated that there had been six accidents in this vicinity in the past 18 months and that this is not abnormally high when compared to other high use areas. Commissioner Ditter stated that a convenience center oriented toward the apartment complex may, in some respects, eliminate traffic moving onto County Road 10 because the apartment dwellers will be able to utilize pedestrian access to purchase short trip convenience items. 1 1 1 -2- Mr. Merila commented in regard to the traffic considerations that it is the Engineering Department recommendation that the approach or access point be opposite Major Avenue which coincides with the existing approach now being utilized by the apartment complex. He further stated that, given that situation, there is little difference between it and normal intersections, but if the approach was off-set from Major Avenue, it appears that a traffic conflict would result. Chairman Jensen stated that this problem was looked at during the meeting of August 27th and that it was the concensus of the Commission that in the event the Application was approved, the applicant would be required to utilize the existing access points for the apartment complex. Mr. VanEeckhout then stated that the convenience center would be appropriate because the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the possible need for convenience centers to service citizens, and it would serve as this function for the residents and felt that it would not serve as a precedent for further rezoning because such a precedent is not relevant unless conditions are identical on other sites. Chairman Jensen stated that at the meeting of August 27th, it was the concern of the Commission that if the Zoning Ordinance contained a planned unit development section, requests of this nature could be better controlled and would be an excellent concept for this area. He further stated that the application appeared to be a reasonable use of the property, but there is and was a concern about commercial encroachment to the east. Subsequently, Chairman Jensen stated that the Commission should direct itself to the use of the land and allow the Council to direct itself to the legal question involved in the rezoning. A motion was made by Ditter and seconded by Nichols to recommend to the City Council approval of the rezoning on the basis that it is a reasonable use of the land and it would be looked upon favorably as a unit development with the added stipu- lation that the attorney's opinion be consulted by the Council in regard to the legal ramifications of the rezoning. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 70051 submitted by the U-haul Company for Bob Johnson's Texaco Station for a special use permit for truck and trailer rentals to be conducted at 6810 Osseo Road. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who stated that a special use permit for trailers had been in effect on this site since 1963. He noted that the staff had made an on-site inspection of the property and indicated that there were no particular problems with the rental activitt. The staff recommended that the permit be approved providing that all vehicles, both trucks and trailers, be stored or displayed at a point not to exceed the front building line and that the bulk of the vehicle storage be at the rear of the parcel behind the,,service station. It was further recommended that the special use permit be reviewed on an annual basis. Chairman Jensen then recognized a representative of the U-Haul Company and Bob Johnson's Texaco, who stated that they would like to have the availability of an area behind the building line but 1 1 1 -3- to the side of the building for display of various types of truck and trailers offered for rental at this site. He further stated that any additional equipment would be parked further behind this point and preferrably in back of the service station. Mr. Nichols noted that perhaps the Commission should consider limiting the number of vehicles to be stored or displayed at any one time on this particular site. The applicant noted that he would not be opposed to such action by the Commission provided that they are allowed to have on hand a reasonable number of vehicles. A motion was made by Bogucki and seconded by Schuller to recommend to the City Council approval of the special use permit with the maximum number of vehicles being limited to 6 trucks and 12 trailers with the display area at the front building line not to have more than one truck nor three trailers at any one time, and further, that the special use permit be reviewed on an annual basis. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 70053 submitted by Thomas Construction Company requesting site and building plan approval and a three foot sideyard setback variance. The appli- cation was introduced by Mr. Loucks who stated that Thomas Construction had submitted a plan for 128 units of apartments to be constructed at a site located at 69th and Lyndale Avenues North. He recommended that the following conditions be met: 1) That a 50 foot front yard setback be adherred to for the portion of the building located at the southwest portion of the lot. The site plan currently shows 35 feet. 2) That the City vacate 9 feet of a 60 foot utility ease- ment running from 69th Avenue North to 70th Avenue North in order to negate the variance request for a side yard setback variance. It was further indicated by Mr. Loucks that the actual variance would be 8 feet due to the fact that special ordinance require- ment provide that in an R4 district, the building must be buffered 15 feet from a residentially zoned lot. The normal requirement is 10 feet, however, the 15 foot requirement precludes a ten foot sideyard setback. If 9 feet of the easement is vacated on the east, it would allow the applicant to slide the building to the east thus eliminating the need for a sideyard variance. 3) That the building located on the northeast portion of the parcel be set back 35 feet rather than 32 feet -rom 70th Avenue North. 4) That the private street shown on the site plan running in a northerly direction from 69th Avenue North to 70th Avenue North be narrowed to 24 feet 4n width, in. add wt i.on to being curbed with concrete curbing. 5) That the area on the easterly portion of the lot contain some additional screening, either a fence or deciduous trees and schrubs to be densely planted in order to buffer the residential properties to the west. The Staff recommended approval of the site and building plans providing the aforementioned conditions conditions are adheredc.1to. 1 1 1 -4- The Chair then recognized Tom Barrett of Thomas Construction Company who stated that the applicant would comply with all the conditions as set forth by the staff and further indicated that they are aware of these problems and were currently working to clear them up. Chairman Jensen then called upon the affected property owners. Mr. Wenholz of 501 - 69th Avenue North expressed concern that the site and building plan currently before the Planning Commission is not the one that they were shown a year ago at the time the property was being rezoned. He wondered if the developer was required to adhere to that original plan. It was indicated to Mr. Wenholz by Chairman Jensen that the plan brought before the residents of the area and Planning Commission at that time in 1969 was a preliminary site plan. The Chairman recognized Berry Huisinga of 6925 Lyndale Avenue North. He indicated that he was not particularly pleased with the lack of screening of the building on the eastern portion of the parcel which is directly abutting his property. Mr. Barrett indicated to the Commission and Mr. Huisinga that they would not be at all opposed to providing some additional screening in that area to protect the residential property. Mr. D. W. Hickey of 720 - 69th Avenue North indicated that he had no opposition to the particular plan as presented. A motion was made by Commissioner Ditter to recom- . . mend to the City Council approval of site anC building plan providing the special conditions as set forth by -the staff and the normal conditions set forth for plan approval ar,-, adhered to. 1) A 50 foot front yard setback be adhered to on 69th Avenue North; 2) The City of Brooklyn Center vacate 9 feet of a 60 foot utility easement located on the property to allow the applicant to move the building on the south portion of the lot'--eastward, thus negating the need for a side yard variance; 3) A 35 foot setback be adhered to on 70th Avenue North; 4) The private road be narrowed to 24 feet and curbed with concrete curbing; 5) The easterly and westerly portions of the parcel be adequately screened to provide an adequate buffer for residential property; 6) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 7) Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to it�suance of the building permit; 8) T� perform;-,n,: � ,_•rctement and performance bond (in an amount Lo be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee site improvements as designated on the plans submitted to the City. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Grosshans and carried unanimously. 1 1 1 -5- The next item of business was Application No. 70054 submitted by Rige Investment Company for a height and setback variance for a fence located at 3601 - 48th Avenue Norths The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who stated that the applicant had constructed a fence 6 feet in height 6 inches from the property line for a property located at 3601 - 48th Avenue North. He indicated that the zoning ordinance prohibits a fence greater than 4 feet in height in the first 35 feet of front setback. He stated that the property owner, Rige Investment, appears to have constructed the fence without knowledge of the ordinance requirement and is now contending that if he is required to remove the fence and adhere to the four foot height requirement, he will be unable to adequately protect his property. In addition, the effect of the moving of the fence back to the 35 foot require- ment would negate the use of the property because it is rather long and narrow. Consequently, the 35 foot setback requirement would allow them to utilize only 115 feet of the depth of the property. Chairman Jensen noted that the Planning Commission had taken a field trip and looked at the property and it is rather apparent that the 35 foot setback in this instance may be rather excessive. He further indicated that the property has been, in the past, a dumping grounds for trash and various other debris and that the applicant has done considerable site improvement by filling the parcel and covering with a bituminous surface. He further stated that perhaps this is a rather unusual circumstance because of the odd configuration of the property and that the Planning Commission should consider whether or not the height limitation and setback requirement is appropriate in this instance. Commissioner Bogucki commented that he thought that the variances that the applicant was now requesting was appropriate, however, he did feel if the applicant, at some future time would desire to locate a building on the premises, it sheds a different light upon the matter. Specifically, it was his concern that they may be setting an unwise precedent by not requiring the proper setbacks in the I2 district. Commissioner Grosshans commented that the Commission should not be concerned with that matter at this time because it has not been presented to the Commission and perhaps they should not consider it until it is presented. At this point Mr. Loucks indicated that Rige Investment, in conjunction with the variance, had submitted a landscape plan to the staff indicating that they wanted to do more then simply put the fence six inches from the property line but would be more than willing to provide proper landscaping. In addition, Mr. Loucks submitted to the Planning Commission four letters from property owners in the area indicating that they would not be opposed to the variances as requested by the applicant. A motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend to the City Council approval of the height and setback variance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schuller and carried unanimously. The next item of business was No. 70052 submitted by Eckberg and Witry requesting a variance from the Subdivision Regulations, Section 15-104. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and stated that Mr. Eckberg who had subsequently sold his property to Mr. Duane Tegg had traded a parcel to Mr. J. J. Witry, Jr. and in turn Mr. Witry had traded a parcel to Mr. Eckberg (Duane Tegg) . 1 1 1 -6- Eckberg and Witry had filed with the County Registrar of Deeds the subdivision of the two parcels. The subdivision was then returned by the County to Mr. Nordberg who turned it over to Mr. Merila who informed the applicants that the subdivision was illegal and could not be processed because it did not conform with Section 15-104 of the Ordinance which requires that before dividing any tract of land, an owner or subdivider shall file with the City Clerk, and secure the approval of the Planning Commission and City Council. Consequently, Mr. Eckberg and Mr. W itry have placed an application before the Planning Commission in the form of a variance to facilitate the division of the two parcels involved. The Staff recommended approval of the variance to the Sub- division Ordinance indicating that this had been done a number of times in the past and that there were no particular problems with the two parcels involved, but it was simply a matter of making the division legal. A motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Nichols to recommend to the City Council approval of the variance request. The motion carried unanimously. With all regular agenda items completed, the Planning Commission next heard a preliminary report given by Steve Krogness of Brooklyn Center Industrial Park and Mr. Levy of Northwest Theatre Corporation in regard to a four unit, 1,875 seat theatre proposed for a site to be located east of Brookdale Ford. After a shoxt review by Mr. Levy stating the objectives of the project and review of a preliminary site plan, the Commission indicated that they would be very pleased to see such a development and would consider a site and building plan approval for the proposed project on the study meeting of September 24, 1970. Motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10;,50 P.M. Cha ' n 1 1 1