Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 09-24 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 24, 1970 The Planning Commission met in study 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 member present: Tom Loucks. Motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to approve the minutes of the August 27th study session and the minutes of the September 3rd regular meeting as submitted. The motion carried unanimously. Following the Chairman's introductory comments, the first item of business was Application No. 70013 submitted by Byron Dunkley requesting variances for a site located at 5520 Lyndale Avenue North. Mr. Loucks introduced the application noting that on May 7, 1970, the application was tabled by the Planning Commission, advising the applicant to seek professional aid as to the unique design and construction requirements of constructing single family homes on the two parcels in question. Mr. Loucks indicated that the applicant had complied with this request and is now submitting an application requesting variances of 34 feet of front yard setback and 53 feet of lot depth on a parcel described as Lot 12 and the North 54.34 feet of Lot 13, Garcelon's Addition. He further stated that the applicant is also requesting variances of 34 feet of front yard setback and 42 feet of lot depth on a parcel described as Lot 13 except the North 54.34 feet and Lot 14, Garcelon's Addition. Mr. Loucks then stated that in light of the engineering, soil and architectural data, the staff would recommend approval of the variances. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Byron Dunkley who stated that he had nothing further to add to what the staff has stated in regard to his appli- cation, but did note that he had complied with the wishes of the Planning Commission by obtaining additional engineering, architectural and soil information. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Wes McMahon, attorney for Mr. Benson, owner of the property located at 5519 Lyndale Avenue North. Mr. McMahon asked the applicant if he had checked with the Corp of Engineers in regard to potential excavating that he may have to do to build single family homes upon this site. Mr. Dunkley responded that he had not checked with the Corp of Engineers in this regard. Mr. McMahon stated that he had checked with the Corp of Engineers and that they stated unequivocally that the applicant would not be allowed to do any excavation on this particular site. Mr. McMahon then addressed the Commission and stated that his client is opposed to any variances that would be granted in order to deem the parcels, Lots 12, 13 and 14, as being buildable lots because he felt that the property was too small, it would be a very potential traffic hazard in light of the traffic on Lyndale Avenue and that building of single family homes on the river bank would serve as a detriment to the property owners in the area because it would cut off their view of the river. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Wilbur Holm, Attorney-at-Law, representing E. Hunsick, Mr. Bobendrier, Mr. Hendley and Mr. Renstrom. Mr. Holm addressed the Commission and indicated that the property owners he represented are totally opposed to any variances that would deem the parcels in question as buildable lots because construction of any type of facility would create a traffic -2- hazard can Lyndale Avenue North, would obstruct the view of the river of the residents of the area and would serve as an over-all detri- ment to property owners in the particular area. He further noted that the parcels in question require a rearyard setback variance. Mr. Loucks acknowledged that there is a rearyard setback deficiency and noted that the parcel on the north requires a 25 foot variance and the one on the south a 15 foot variance. The Chairman then called for a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was made by Schuller and seconded by Bogucki. The vote carried unanimously. Commissioner Ditter then stated that he felt the request was reasonable in that the applicant had produced all of the information as requested by the Planning Commission at the meeting of May 7, 1970. Commissioner Bogucki felt that perhaps there were some legal questions that should be answered by the City Attorney and recommended that the application be taken under advisement until such time as the City Attorney could be adequately appraised of the application and render a legal opinion. Chairman Jensen noted that perhaps the Camnmission should act upon the question at hand and not concern themselves with the legal ramifications, but look at the variances in light of their merits. Chairman Jensen then noted that he felt that the applicant's request should be based upon the standards for variance, namely: 1) That because of peculiar physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific parcels involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out; 2) Conditions in which the application for a variance are based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification; 3) That the alleged hardship is related to the require- ments of the ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land; 4) That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. Commissioner Ditter then responded that perhaps, in his opinion, that the applicant does in fact meet the standards required in the granting of a variance. The Chairman then called for a motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki to defer the application until such time as a legal opinion could be obtained from the City Attorney in regard to the rami.ficiations of granting substantial variances of the parcels in question. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Schuller and carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 70055 submitted by Brooklyn Plaza Corporation requesting a 155 car parking variance and site and building plan approval for a four unit, p } -3- 1,870 seat, theatre to be located at John Martin Drive and Highway 100. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who stated that the City Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space be provided for every three seats in a theatre. He stated that the one to three requirement as promulgated by the Zoning Ordinance may be somewhat nebulous when applying it to a four unit type of theatre such as being proposed. He stated, however, that the staff was somewhat reluctant to recommend approval of a 155 car parking variance because in the event that this deficiency would be proven as a detriment, the Commission and staff would have no recourse to remedy the situation. Mr. Loucks then noted that in regard to the application for site and plan approval that there is a deficiency in curbing on the north and westerly portions of the parcel and recommended to the Commission that these areas be required to have concrete curbing, that the plan does not indicate an internal sprinkling system, and also that there should be a change in align- ment on the southeast portion of the parcel and recommended changing of a curb "T" to solve this problem. He then stated that the staff would recommend approval of the site plan providing the special deficiencies and the normal requirements were adhered to by the applicant. Chairman Jensen then recognized Steve Krogness of Brooklyn Center Plaza Corporation who stated that they, as the applicant, are requesting 155 parking variance because it is the opinion of the applicant's architect, Mr. Jack Liebenberg who is an expert in the field, that one to three parking ratio is a bit restrictive and not reasonable in light of the four unit concept as is being proposed. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Jack Liebenberg of Liebenberg, Kapplan and Glotter Architectural firm, who noted that they have designed or are familiar with similar types of facilities that have had parking ratios in the range of one to four, one to five and even one to six and those particular developments have not experienced any ill effects or parking problems. He further indicated that a theatre operation is such, that when the parking lot is filled to capacity, they have no other alternative than to simply turn business away because of the lack of parking space. Mr. Levy of Northwest Cinama indicated that they, as a business enterprise, do not and would not want to turn customers away because of lack of adequate parking facilities and could not tolerate such a situation and indicated that they reasonably would not request such a variance of parking spaces if they felt that there would be a detriment to the operation of the business. The Planning Commission members then discussed the application. Mr. Bogucki pointed out that the Commission does have a concern for adequate parking facilities because they do not have any recourse to eliminate such problems once a variance would be granted. Mr. Grosshans commented that the Commission might concern themselves with a parking situation, as an example, in a different type of facility located on this site. The staff briefly analyzed the parking requirements for other facilities such as a restaurant or bowling alley or a potential office site and it was determined that if the use should change to something other than the proposed theatre, there would be more than adequate parking available in light of the ordinance requirements. Chairman Jensen, referring to Mr. Liebenberg and Mr. Levy's comments noted that perhaps the Planning Commission should recognize the uniqueness of the proposal and the fact that sufficient parking is as much of an objective of the applicant as is of the Planning Commission. 1 1 1 -4- Chairman Jensen then called for a motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Schuller to recommend to the City Council approval of a variance of 155 car spaces or a one to four space per seat ratio because of the uniqueness of this particular type of facility and the ability of the applicant to control the parking situation by staggering the times of the various showings at the theatre. The motion carried unanimously. The Commission then briefly discussed the site plan approval. Motion was made by Ditter and seconded by Bogucki to recommend to the City Council approval of the site plan based upon the special conditions as set forth by the staff as follows: 1) That all areas be curbed; 2) That an internal sprinkler system be installed; 3) That the parking "T" on the southeast portion of the parcel be changed to facilitate proper isle width; 4) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect .to applicable building codes; 5) Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit; 6) 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 to the City. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 70015 submitted by R. L. Ernst for Kraus Anderson requesting a rezoning from R5 to C2 for a parcel located at 69th and Humboldt Avenues North. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and stated that on June 4, 1970, the Planning Commission denied the rezoning because it was inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. He further indicated that the City Council had tabled the matter on July 27th and August 10th because of problems involved with the vacation of Irving Avenue and acquiring of additional land to satisfy a density requirement for the existing R5 zone. He noted that the City Council had referred the matter to the Planning Commission, directing them to consider the rezoning on the merits of the application and not to concern themselves with the vacation, - of Irving Avenue. Mr. Loucks recommended denial of the application because it is the opinion of the staff that the parcel is too small to adequately support a commercial development such as is being pro- posed and that the rezoning of said parcel would constitute strip ., zoning in a westerly direction along 69th Avenue North. In addition., the staff pointed out that it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and indicated that the Planning Commission and City Council has acted consistently in this area, by providing commercial facilities for the northeast quadrant of the City when it approved 1 i 1 the Rapid Shop Convenience Center on the southeast quadrant of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North. Mr. Loucks further stated that the Planning Commission and City Council rezoned the parcel to the north of the proposed rezoning to R4 to prevent any further commer- cial 4ncroachment in a westerly direction along 69th Avenue North. Chairman Jensen then recognized R. L. Ernst who gave a brief presentation in regard to the application and indicated that the proposed convenience center has merit in relation to planning principles and that it does not constitute a spot or strip zone. Chairman Jensen then expressed a concern that although he realized that zoning and comprehensive plans are not static documents, that perhaps the Planning Commission should adhere to certain principals when rendering recommendations on rezoning of the nature of this and future applications before the Commission. He felt that the present application before the Commission had not changed signficiantly since their denial in May of this year. Also, that it was in fact, still inconsistent with the Compre- hensive Plan. Mr. Bogucki stated that he felt rezoning of the subject parcel would constitute strip zoning and would be opposed to any such action that would rezone the parcel. Mr. Ditter commented it has been the objective of the Commission past and present to prevent any further commercial encroachment along 69th Avenue in a westerly direction. A motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Grosshans to recommend to the City Council denial of the request because it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to direct the staff to prepare a Resolution to that effect to be presented to the Planning commission at its meeting of October. 1, 1970. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Applications No. 70047 and 70048 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. , requesting a 35 foot rearyard setback variance and site and building plan approval for a convenience center to be located at 5801 Major Avenue North. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who stated that the staff was of the opinion that although the site is marginal in respect to required setback, there is reason to believe that if it was integrated with the Twin Lake North Apartment project, the setback requirement becomes somewhat diminished. He stated that the development will be utilizing the existing Twin Lake North ingress and egress points and it would indicate that they are tied together in a unit concept or at least an integrated unit development. Mr. Loucks also commented in regard to the site plan approval that the appli- cant had met all requirements with the only additional stipulation being that the five foot strip on the north portion of the building be augmented with some sort of deciduous trees or shurbs. Chair- man Jensen then recognized Charles VanEeckhout representing Viewcon, Inc. , who stated that they concur with the recommendations of the staff and would adhere to the existing curb cuts and it is their intention to consider the site as an integrated unit with the apartment development. Motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Schuller to recommend to the City Council approval of the 35 foot setback variance because the requirement is negated by the fact that the development as such could be considered an integrated unit development with the Twin Lake North Apartment complex. The motion carried unanimously. 1 1 1 -6- A motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Bogucki to recommend to the City Council approval of the site and building plans subject to the following conditions: 1) Augment the five foot strip at the north property line with deciduous trees and shrubs and remove the existing fence at the north property line; 2) Utilize the existing Twin Lake North ingrees and egress points; 3) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 4) Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of the building permit; 5) A performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business considered by the PlanniAlVV nmissi.on was a proposal set forth by Commissioner Jensen to meet-. a'dual session with the Conservation Commission on October 22, 1970. Chairman Jensen noted that he had been approached by Audre Mossberg, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, in regard to such a meeting and it was his recommendation that the two Commissions met in joint session on October 22nd and he further indicated that the staff should coordinance such a meeting. It was the concensus of the Commission to hold such a meeting and the staff was then directed to contact Mrs. Mossberg in that regard. Motion by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12 midnight. j 1 1 1