Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 10-01 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota October 1, 1970 The planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki, Robert Grosshans, Paul Ditter, Karl Schuller and Charles Nichols. Staff members present were: Tom Loucks. Chairman Jensen asked the Commission to defer approval of the minutes until later in the evening. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Application No. 70013 submitted by Byron Dunkley requesting the following variances for three parcels located at 5520 Lyndale Avenue North: 1) Variance from Section 15-104 of the Subdivision Regulations to allow a lot division by metes and bounds; 2) North parcel (Lot 12 and the North 54.34 feet of Lot 13, Garcelon's Addition) : a) Thirty-four foot front yard setback variance; b) Twenty-four rear yard setback variance; c) Fifty-three Foot lot depth variance; 3) South parcel (Lot 13 except the North 54.34 feet and Lot 14, Garcelon's Addition) : a) Thirty-four foot front yard setback variance; b) Fifteen foot rear yard setback variance; c) Forty-two foot lot depth variance. Chairman Jensen then stated that the public hearing had been closed on this Application at the meeting of September 24, 1970. Chairman Jensen then asked if any of the Commissioners had any commented in regard to this application. Commissioner Ditter stated that he felt that the Application was proper because of the additional supporting engineering, soil and architectural data that the applicant had submitted to the Commission, and he felt that there had been precedence set in the area in regard to setback requirements because a number of parcels to the north had similar setbacks. Motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend to the City Council approval of the variances as requested because similar variances had been granted in the same vicinity and a hardship would be created if the appli- cant was unable to utilize the parcels in question for the building of single family homes. Motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 70057 submitted by Billy Miller requesting a variance of 6.5 feet to construct an accessory building 1.5 feet from the principal structure. 1 1 1 -2- Mr. Loucks introduced the application stating that the appli- cant had partially constructed a glass and aluminum enclosed patio porch 1.5 feet from a principal structure at a site located at 5100 Ewing Avenue North. Mr. Loucks explained that the eight foot separation between principal and accessory buildings is a City building code requirement. He noted that the intent of the code in requiring the separation between principal and accessory buildings is to provide adequate light and ventilation for the principal building, in addition to providing separation for fire fighting purposes. Mr. Loucks stated that it is the opinion of the staff that the structure such as being proposed would not act as a detriment for light and ventilation of the principal structure. He further stated that the fire protection problem might be somewhat diminished because the four walls of the structure are made primarily of glass. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Miller who showed pictures of a similar type building and a sample of the type of materials used in such a structure. Chairman Jensen then asked Mr. Miller if he would get a letter from his neighbor indicating either his approval or disapproval of the proposed structure. The applicant stated that he would get such a letter and give it to the Planning Commission for filing. Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Nichols to recommend to the City Council approval of the 6.5 foot setback variance for an accessory bt-iilding because it would not violate the intent of the building code. Motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 70056 submitted by Val Videnhoff for Nu Dimensions Beauty Salon, Inc. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and stated that the applicant is requesting a special use permit to operate a ladies health salon in Northbrook Shopping Center. He indicated that it was the opinion of the staff that the use would be appropriate and the parking facilities at the center would be adequate to support such a use. Chairman Jensen then recognized Allen Turner of Nu Dimensions, Inc. who gave a brief statement in regard to the operation of such a facility. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Blake representing Northbrook Shopping Center who indicated that they had tendered a lease agreement with the applicant without knowledge that a special use permit was required. He further stated that they have been unable to obtain a building permit for internal improvements of the building until a special use permit is approved. Chairman Jensen then suggested that perhaps the Commission should consider placing a time limit on the special use permit. Commissioner Nichols asked the applicant if he would object to a time limitation. Mr. Blake responded that they had a five year lease agreement with the applicant and would request a permit for that length of time. Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to recommend to the City Council approval of a special use permit for a five year period to operate a ladies health salon. The motion carried unanimously. 1 1 1 -3- The next item of business was Application No. 70058 and No. 70059 requesting a variance from the Sign Ordinance to alter non-conforming signs. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who stated that the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 34-120 of the Sign Ordinance to alter non-conforming pylon roof signs at two Union 76 stations located at 6901 Osseo Road and 2000 - 57th Avenue North. Mr. Loucks stated that it is the opinion of the staff that if the applicant were allowed to alter the signs, it would negate the intent and enforcibility of the non-conforming use section of the Sign Ordinance. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Knott, Attorney-at-Law, representing the Union 76 Oil Company who stated that they would be altering the signs only to the extent of simply changing the national logo from pure to Union 76. He further stated that the change, from an aesthetic point of view, would be more desirable than the existing sign. Chairman Jensen then stated that the Commission's action, in his opinion, should not be one that would under-mind the Sign Ordinance. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Lawrence of Signcrafter's Inc. who stated that the signs in question could be interpretted as wall signs because the pylons upon which the signs are located are attached to the building. Mr. Grosshans stated, and Mr. Ditter concurred, that by Ordinance definition, a roof sign is a sign attached3 ,-tpon the roof or a non-freestanding sigh whicii jjro3©cts above the roof line of a building and that the signs in question would thus fall into the category of a roof sign. Commissioner Nichols then asked the staff if it could recom- mend any alternatives to remedy the signage problem being incurred by the applicant. Mr. Loucks responded that if the intent of the ordinance is adhered to, the applicant has the option of not altering the sign and utilizing it as it exists or if this is unsatisfactory, they could physically remove it. Motion was made by Bogucki and seconded by Schuller to recom- mend to the City Council denial of Application No. 70058 because there is not a hardship and it would negate the intent of the non-conforming section of the Sign Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Grosshans and seconded by Ditter to recommend to the City Council denial of Application No. 70059 because there is not a hardship and it would negate the intent of the non-conforming section of the Sign Ordinance. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 70049 submitted by James J. Lang for J. R. Anderson requesting a four foot side yard setback variance for the property located at 3201 - 64th Avenue North. Mr. Loucks introduced the Application stating that the appli- cant is requesting permission to extend an existing porch 18 inches and enclose the whole structure with aluminum and glass. The 1 1 1 -4- structure would be six feet from the side property line, thus requiring a four foot sideyard variance. Mr. Loucks stated that it is the opinion of the staff that the structure would not serve as a detriment to the abutting property and similar variances have been granted in the past, therefore the staff would recommend approval. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who stated that he had nothing further to add to the staff comments but did note that the abutting property owner, Mr. Bosmans, had submitted a letter to the Commission indicating that he had no objection to the variance. After a brief discussion regarding the application, a motion was made by Commissioner Nichols and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to recommend to the City Council approval of the variance because it is an appropriate use of the property and variances of a similar nature had been granted in the past. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 70015 submitted by R. L. Ernst for Kraus-Anderson. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and stated that the staff had complied with the Commission's directive of September 24, 1970, and prepared a draft resolution recommending denial of the application. After reviewing the draft resolution and making modifications, member Bogucki introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 70015 SUBMITTED BY R. L. ERNST FOR KRAUS ANDERSON, REQUESTING REZONING OF THE NORTH 163 FEET OF LOT 2, BLOCK 1, HELL- STAD ADDITION, THE NORTH 163 FEET OF VACATED IRVING AVENUE AND THE EAST 15 FEET OF THE NORTH 163 FEET OF TWIN CITIES INTERCHANGE PARK ADDITION, OUTLOT A, FROM R5 TO C2 WHEREAS, the applicant's proposal was heard at a public hearing on June 4, 1970; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application because it was inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on July 27, 1970, the City Council considered the Planning Commission recommendation, and at the request of the applicant, tabled the application in lieu of consideration for the vacation of Irving Avenue; and WHEREAS, on August 10, 1970, the City Council re-considered the application and tabled such to give further consideration to the vacation of Irving Avenue; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 1970, the City Council tabled the application and remanded it to the Planning Commission directing the Commission to: 1) Review the subject application assuming that Irving Avenue North would be vacated; 2) Review the subject application in terms of the pro- posed new land acquisition and suggested site layout; 1 1 1 i -5- 3) Review planning principles applicable to the current circumstances; 4) Review the R4 district on the north side of 69th Avenue North and ramifications thereon resulting from the subject application; 5) Consider the legal basis and the legal ramifications of a forthcoming Planning Commission recommendation; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 1970, the Planning Commission considered the subject application in accord with the City Council directive of August 31, 1970; and WHEREAS, as a result of having studied all of these issues, the Planning Commission finds the following: 1) That the vacation of Irving Avenue would not significantly change the nature of the application and its incompatibility with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) That the proposed new land acquisition would still constitute a marginal site and its inherent problems of poor parking and circulation; 3) That the Comprehensive Plan is not a static and inflexible guide in a period of changing zoning philosophy, but its intent of preventing commercial encroachment in a westerly direction along 69th Avenue is at mound 1-7.anni.ng And developmental principle; 4) That the Planning Commission and City Council have consistently endeavored to prevent commercial encroachment in a strip fashion, and that they did rezone the parcel to the north of the subject property to R4, leaving little doubt as to what their intentions are, and that rezoning of the subject parcel would negate existing zoning policy by increasing the vulnerability of the R4 parcel and others to the west for commercial usage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER that it finds that the present zoning of the applicant's property is consistent with the planning and zoning principles of the municipality and that a commercial zoning as is proposed by the applicant is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, consitutes a strip zone, would serve as a detriment to developmental and planning principles, and that the health, safety and general welfare of the City will best be served by denying Application No. 70015. The motion was duly seconded by member Ditter and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Bogucki, Ditter, Grosshans, Schuller, and Jensen; and the following voted against: none, whereupon said Resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Motion by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to approve the Spetember 24, 1970 Planning Commission minutes with the following amendment: 1 1 1 -6- Page 2: Paragraph 5: The Chairman then called for a motion. The 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 ramifications of granting substantial variances of the parcels in question. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Schuller. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki, Robert Grosshans and Karl Schuller. Voting against: Commissioner Ditter, who felt that the application should not be deferred and a vote should be taken at this time. The motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:05 P.M. J_. Chai an 1 1 1