Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 03-04 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of mirnesota March 4, 1971 Chairman Jensen called to order the Board of Adjustment and Appeals at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Rob--rt Jensen, Board Members Henry Bogucki, Robert Foreman, Cecelia Scott, Karl Schuller, Robert Grosshans and Paul Ditter. Staff members present were: Tom Loucks, James. Merila and Richard Schieffer. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Application No. 70068 submitted by Riverside Motel consisting of an appeal from the denial of the building Inspector to issue a building permit. Chairman Jensen commented that the matter was heard by the Board on January 7, 1971, and it had deferred action on the matter to allow the staff to gather more data to determine whether any new construction must adhere to existing ordinance requirements; and if there were separate utility connections between the .de�tn -,d portion and the buildings not destroyed by fire and explosion. Chairman Jensen then recognized Richard Schieffer, City Attorney, who indicated that the non-conforming uses section of the Zoning Ordinance provides that any non-conforming use shall not be continued following 60% destruction of the building by fire, wind, earthquake or explosion, according to the estimates of the Building Inspector. The City Attorney stated that the Building Inspector had made his decision based in part on the following facts: That the original dwelling was constructed prior to the time when the municipality kept records of building permits; that a second building was constructed in 1939, a few feet south of the residence building; that in 1949 a third building was constructed a few feet south of the 1939 portion; that at some unknown point in time all three structures were connected by a common roof; that the most southerly structure, consisting of motel units 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, was totally destroyed by fire and explosion in 1970. The Building Inspector thereupon determined that no building permit could be issued for the rebuilding of that structure since it was more than 60% destroyed within the meaning of the ordinance. The City Attorney stated that this literal interpretation was justified by the wording of the ordinance. The L_zy Attorney acknowledged that the applicant had requested that the entire motel cotvplex, including the residence, be viewed as a single structure and that the percentage of destruction be determined by finding the ratio of the destroyed portion to the entire motel complex including residence, Mr. Schieffer stated that a modification of this approach was also a reasonable interpretation of the ordinance but stated further that even in taking this approach that it would be necessary to determine the criteria upon which destruction is based. Based upon Minnesota case law, the City Attorney stated. that the Board should consider and base its conclusion upon three tests: 1 -2- 1. The market value of the non-conforming use before and after the explosion; 2. The number of square feet occupied by the noncon- forming use before and after the explosion; 3. The nature and character of the part destroyed as it relates to the remainder of the non-conforming use. It was further stated that only the value of the non-conforming use should be taken into account and that the value of the residence should remain outside the calculations since the residence was a conforming use and this value would remain with the property no matter what happened to the motel. Thereupon the City Attorney presented an appraisal prepared by Wagenhal's Appraisal Company which he summarized as follows: MAWKET VALUE APPROACH TEST Total Value including Residence $ 85,000 Net Value of Residence if non- conforming structures and uses were removed and residence remodeled 13,000 Value of non-conforming motel use $ 72,000 Value of part destroyed 48,000 Value of remaining non-conforming motel use 24,000 Per Centage of Non-conforming motel use destroyed (48,000 L 72,000) 68.0% SQUARc, FOOT APPROACH TEST Square Foot of non-conforming motel use destroyed 2,004 Square Foot of non-conforming motel use remaining, exclusive of that contained in residence 11,123 Total 3,132 Per Centage of square foot destroyed (2,004 ; 3,312) 64.0% NATURE AND CH-OLACTER TEST 1. Destroyed portion has an income producing nature Annual Gross income of total complex 25,000 Annual Gross income of remainder 8,300 Annual Cross income of destroyed portion 16,700 Per Centage of gross earning capacity destroyed (6,700 . 25,000) 66.70% 2. Effect of the Lois Loss sustained will most likely result in an annual net loss if operated as a 5 unit motel. 1 1 1 -3- Mr. Schieffer again stated that the value of the residence would remain regardless of what happened to the motel and also that Unit 10, which is located in the basement of the single family dwelling should not be used in the square foot approach since upon conversion of the entire site to two-family residence status, the unit in the basement would revert to whatever use would be made of a finished walk-out basement in a single family residence. Chairman Jensen then ce*.nmented that it appeared that it did not matter whether the Commission viewed the destroyed portion as a single structure or as a part of a larger structure since, in either event, the portion destroyed would be greater than 60%. Board member Grosshans commented that the appraiser, Mr. Wagenhals, had described the Riverside Motel as a "ma and pa" type of complex in which the residence is an integral factor in the operation of the motel itself, and thus finds it difficult to separate the single family residence use from the motel use. Board member Ditter commented that according to the appraisal, if the residence were included, the destruction would be 56/ of the total complex. The City Attorney commented that the non-conforming use under consideration is a motel use which, if discontinued, would leave the single family home as a valid conforming use. Chairman Jensen then asked the Board of Appeals secretary to review information on utilities connections for the property. Mr. Loucks indicated that the City Engineering Department found that the destroyed portion had a separate sanitary sewer connection and that the single family residence had a separate sanitary sewer connection and that there was no indication whether the middle building was served from the southerly or the northerly connection. Water to the entire complex is supplied by one well which is inter-connected through the various buildings. Electrical power and telephone service is connected into the single family residence and transferred to the motel units from the residence. No infor- mation was forthcoming from Minnegasco regarding the gas service lines. Chairman Jensen then reviewed the facts, commenting that in his opinion, the single family dwelling should be considered a conforming use. Chairman Jensen then recognied Charles Coulter, Attorney at Law, representing the Applicant. Mr. Coulter indicated that the view that the single family home is not an integral part of the motel complex is inconsistent with the appraisal report and referred to paragraph 4, page 13, of said report and quoted the following: "In this appraisal, I am particularly aware that in a motel of this size, the house serves as an office, store room, privacy and living area for those who perform the services essential to the motel operations such as phone answering, checking in and out, maid service, maintenance, etc. In this case, I have also considered the City gal and power are metered through the house to the motel units. The private well serving the house is considerably larger than a well required for a house alone. It is designed to serve 10 units, any reductions results in a super adequacy of the well, as well as certain other connections made through the house. It must be considered that one of the units is actually in the house and is 1 1 1 -4- separately heated from the house. The exterior siding, canopies, roof lines and so forth have been merged and designed so that physically, the house is part of the motel building in actuality as well as appearance. Any move to separate the house from the motel building would involve considerable remodeling costs. " He then indicated that, in terms of market value, it was concluded that the loss to the property would be approximately 56 1/2 per cent presuming the property would be allowed to continue to operate and thus, it was indicated by Mr. Coulter, that it does not meet the 60 per cent requirement, because the appraisal report treated the house and motel as one building. Chairman Jensen then commented that while the house does perhaps serve a dual purpose, in the absence of the motel use, it would still retain its value of a single family residence and asked Mr. Coulter if he would not agree with that interpretation. Mr. Coulter indicated that he would not agree with that and indicated that the house is essential to the motel use. Following additional discussion, a motion was made by Board member Bogucki and seconded by Board Member Schuller to direct the staff to prepare a resolution based on all the facts presented recommending denial of the applicant's request, said resolution to employ the single unit and multi-unit considerations and apply the tests presented to each concept. The motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Board Member Grosshans and seconded by Board Member Schuller to adjourn the Board of Appeals meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:13 P.M. Chairma 1 1 1 Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota March 4, 1971 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 9:25 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki, Robert Grosshans, Paul Ditter, Karl Schuller, Cecelia Scott, and Robert Foreman. Staff members present: James Merila and Tom Loucks. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Application No. 70019 (amended) submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park for Holiday Inn, requesting site and building plan approval. The item was introduced by Mr. Loucks who indicated that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a 159 unit motel to be located at the northwest quadrant of Humboldt and 65th Avenues North. He indicated that the Commission and City Council had previously recommended approval of site and building plans for a motel on this site in May, 1970 however, the previous proposal has been withdrawn and a new site plan is submitted for consideration by the Commission. It was noted that all site plan requirements are in order in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and is recommended the plan be approved subject to the usual plan approval conditions_ Commissioner Ditter commented that upon examination of the building elevations, it appears that the facia would consist of brick material. Mr. Krogness, representing B.C.I.P. , commented that the facia would consist of a painted concrete block. Mr. Ditter commented that there appears to be an inconsistency between plan and Mr. Krogness ' statement and suggested that perhaps the application should be tabled until the question in regard to the facia could be clarified. Mr. Krogness indicated that he would check, via telephone, as to what materials were going to be used on the facia, and give the Commission an answer this evening. In the absence of Mr. Krogness, Commissioner Bogucki asked the staff if there was going to be an internal sprinkling system in the motel units. It was indicated by Mr. Loucks that the Council, upon exami- nation of the previous application, has indicated that only the commercial area would be required to be sprinklered and further, he felt that this determination would still apply to the amended site plan. Mr. Krogness returned and indicated that the facia of the building would be of brick and aluminum materials and would be inclusive of the front, side and rear elelvations. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend to the City Council approval of the site and buildings plans of Appli- cation No. 70019 (amended) subject to the following conditions: 1 1 1 -2- 1) That the exterior facia consist of brick and aluminum as indicated by the applicant; 2) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 3) Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit; 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 improve- ments as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 71003 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, requesting site and building plan approval. The item was introduced by Mr. Loucks who indicated that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a 3- screen, 1,586 seat theater to be located on Tract B. R.L.S. # 1300, which is described as being located at John Martin Drive and County Road 10. He indicated that the Commission had previously recommended approval of site and building plan approval for a theater on this site in September, 1970, but the application had been withdrawn and a different developer is submitting a proposal for consideration. It was indicated that the applicant meets all the requirements in regard to site and building plan approval and it was recommended that the application be approved subject to certain conditions. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to recommend to the City Council approval of the site and building plans of Appli- cation No. 71003 subject to the following conditions: 1) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 2) Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit; 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; 4) That bituminous curbing be allowed commencing at the northwest property corner and extending east 250 feet along the north property line to provide possible joint parking for future development of the adjacent property to the north. It was further recommended that this curbing be replaced with concrete curbing within a three year period. 1 1 1 -3- 3) That the curb cut be widen to 30 feet in lieu of 24 feet as shown on the plans; 4) That the area noted as green strip should contain a .4 to 5 foot berm to break up the large areas of parking proposed on the plan; 5) That the lighting plan not be finally approved until installed and adjusted. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 71004 submitted by Bernu Construction Company requesting site and building plan approval. The item was introduced by Mr. Loucks who indicated that the applicant is requesting approval for a two story office building to be located at the intersection of Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10. He commented that it is the intention of the applicant to convert the existing car wash building on the site by remodeling it and adding a one story addition. It was rioted that the site and building plan is in order and it was recommended that the plan be approved subject to the usual conditions. After a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Gr.-veshans, and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to recommend to the City council approval of Application No. 71004 subject to the following conditions: 1) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes 2) Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit; 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 improve- ments as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was Application No. 71005 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park requesting site and building plan approval. The item was introduced by Mr. Loucks who indicated that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for a 35,000 square foot commercial building to be located at the north- east corner of John Martin Drive and proposed Commerce Avenue. It was indicated that the site plan is in order and approval is recommended. Motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend to the City Council approval of Application No. 71005 subject to the following conditions: 1 1 1 -4- 1) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 2) Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit; 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 improve- ments as indicated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:15 A.M. Chaff n 1