HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 12-02 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of
the Planning Commission of the
City of Brooklyn Center in the
County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota t
December 2, 1971
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:05 P.M.
Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Scott, Ditter,
Foreman, Grosshans and Bogucki. Staff Members present: Mr. Murphey,
Mr. Merila and Mr. T remere.
Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of busi-
ness was Planning Commission Application No. 71052 submitted by
Marvin Gordon.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who commented that the
applicant is requesting rezoning from R-1 to R-3 to permit the
construction of three 8 unit townhouses. He explained that the
property in question is located on the south side of I-94 with
access over Lee Avenue or Noble Avenue extended. He explained the
appropriate zoning for this property was part of the Comprehensive
Study and zoning other than R-1 was consieered, but never effectuated.
Mr. Murphey also noted that the long narrow shape of the
property and the location makes it unique and difficult to develop
and that the public utilities are located in 66th Avenue and the
cost of lateral extension would probably preclude 9-1 development.
Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant who further explained
his proposal and demonstrated renderings of the townhouse develop-
ment. The applicant stated that the necessity of extending utility
connections for some distance would make the cost of developing
single family homes prohibitive. He also noted that the proposed
townhouse units would be sold.
Commissioner Schuller arrived at 8:15 P.M.
Chairman Jensen then recognized property owners within 250
feet of the effected area who had been notified of the application.
Mr. G. G. Leone of 4318 - 66th Avenue North stated he represented
the group of neighboring home owners, and he submitted a petition
to the Commission containing approximately 800 signatures stating
opposition to the proposed rezoning. Mr. Leone states that the
neighboring property owners were opposed to the applicant's
proposal for basically the same reasons they were opposed to a
previous proposal which requested rezoning from R-1 to R-5. He
stated that of prime concern to the neighboring residents was the
height of the proposed buildings and not townhouses per se. Mr.
L. H. Schuette of 4607 - 66th Avenue North inquired as to the
maintenance of the common or open areas of the development if each
of the units were to be sold to individual owners. The applicant
responded that a standard home owner's association would be formed
which would be responsible for the maintenance of the common areas.
There was a motion by Commissioner Bofucki and seconded by
Commissioner Schuller to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Chairman Jensen then commmented on the similar aspects of the
present application and those of Planning Commission Application
No. 69013 submitted by Mr. Jerry E. Harrington which was Denied
by the City Council on April 21, 1969. Chairman Jensen read those.
1
1
1
-2-
those portions of the Resolution No. 69-186 which were relevant
to the concepts proposed in the present application. He then
discussed the ordinance provisions of R-1 versus R-3 zoning and
stated that the Planning Commission should take this under further
advisement and possibly refer it to the Vest Central Neighborhood
Study Group for further input.
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Scott to table Planning Commissior
Application No. 71052 submitted by Marvin Gordon for purposes of
taking it under further advisement and referring it to the hest
Central Neighborhood Croups for examination. Motion carried
unanimously.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 71053 submitted by Marvin Gordon requesting approval of site
and building plans for three 8 unit townhouses.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated that the
plans as submitted are satisfactory for preliminary review. He
stated, however, that the approval should be tabled until a deter-
mination is made relative to Planning Commission Application No.
71052 requesting rezoning.
Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to table Planning
Commission Application No. 71053. Motion carried unanimously.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 71060 submitted by Paul DeZiel.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated that the
applicant is requesting subdivision approval for the proposed
DeZiel Addition located on the west side of Camden Avenue and
extending approximately 611 feet south from 73rd Avenue. Mr.
Murphey further explained the proposed plat does not make pro-
visions for the extension of 72nd Avenue from CandenAvenue along
the north side of Evergreen Park to connect with the existing
72nd Avenue. He commented that failure to extend 72nd Avenue
would create a problem in the development of the property lying
westerly of the proposed plat.
Mr. Murphey also noted that the applicant had submitted
Planning Commission Application No. 71061 requesting rezoning
from R-1 to R-3 for all of the lots in the proposed DeZiel Addition.
He :Mated that the property east of Camden Avenue adjacent to the
land proposed for rezoning is an R-4 use except 3 lots in the Naza-
rene plat, with approval having been given to the construction of
two story multiple dwellings in the R4 zone. He commented that
the proposed R-3 zoning would serve as a transitional land use
between R-4 on the east and R-1 on the west and would be compatible
with the City park on the south. He said that the land lying
north of 73rd Avenue is located in Brooklyn Park and is intended
for multiple dwelling construction.
Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who stated that
the land in question has been delineated to allow for 72nd Avenue
North as well as Woodbine Lane. He commented that the intent of
the application was to allow for the future development of con-
dominium townhouses by a building who would purchase the lots. He
also noted the reason for the subdivision request was that the land
has never been platted and this subdivision approval is needed for
clarification.
1
1
1
-3-
Chairman-Jensen called for comments from neighboring property
owners and recognized Mr. L. Linder of 1495 Trollhagen Drive. Mr.
Linder stated that he felt all the parcels in the area should be
rezoned the same concurrently. Chairman Jensen agreed and stated
that a mutual rezoning would not be impossible and would benefit
all the owners involved. The applicant stated he was not sure the
other owners would readily go along with this proposal, but that he
was willing to work with them to develop such a proposal.
Chairman Jensen commented that the application should be taken
under further advisement, considering the input of the comments
made at the Planning Commission meeting, the possible involvement
of a neighborhood committee and the resultant findings of said
committee, and the desirability that the three land owners could
arrive at a mutual agreement regarding the rezoning.
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to close the public
hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
The Director of Public Works commented on the size of the lots
and the density requirement of R-3 zoning as well as the necessary
provision for 72nd Avenue. Chairman Jensen noted that the City of
Brooklyn Park had been notified of the applications and had indicated
no objections to the proposal.
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to table Planning
Commission Applications 71060 and 71061 for further advisement and
consideration, including possible referral to the appropriate
neighborhood group. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting recessed at 9:35 P.M. and resumed at 9:55 P.M.
The next item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 71063 submitted by Bermel Smaby Realtors.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who explained that the
applicant is requesting approval of a subdivision by registered
land survey for the property in the northeast quadrant of the
Brooklyn Boulevard and 65th Avenue North intersection. He stated
that this is the property upon which an office building was approved
under Planning Commission Application No. 71031.
The Director of Public Works stated that he had reviewed the
application and that it was in order. Following further discussion
there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commiss
ioner Foreman to recommend approval of Planning Commission Appli-
cation No. 71063 subject to the requirements of the subdivision
ordinance and reviewed by the City Engineer. Motion carried
unanimously.
The next item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 71067 submitted by Carl F. Russert.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who explained that the
applicant is requested a variance from Section 35-400 of the City
zoning Ordinance to permit a house addition 7 feet from the interior
lot line. He stated that part of the house consists of a room that
was originally an attached garage and is about 7 feet from the lot
line. He noted the conversion of the garage to habitable space was
done several years ago and that there is sufficient precedent for
approval of an addition in line with the existing building and less
1
1
1
-4-
than the required 10 feet. Mr. Murphey noted that the granting of
the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other property
in the neighborhood and that the applicant contends the denial of
the request would be a hardship in that the additional living area
is badly needed.
Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant and instructed Mr.
Russert to secure a letter for the file from his neighbor on the
north stating that they had no objections to the proposal. Mr.
Russert commented that the neighbors had offered to compose and
submit such a letter, but he had not previously felt such a letter
was necessary. He noted that he would comply with the Commission's
request.
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner
Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to recommend approval
of Planning Commission Application No. 71067 submitted by Carl F.-
Russert subject to the usual conditions and the provision that
a letter from the neighbor on the north indicating no objection
to the proposal be submitted to the City to be placed on file.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 71070 submitted by Pearl Lynch.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated the applicant
is requesting a variance from Section 15-104 to permit subdivision
of her property using a metes and bounds description. He noted the
extension of Knox Avenue North across the petitioner's property
separated her property into two parcels leaving a small lot on
the east side of Knox Avenue and a parcel on the west side large
enough for two lots. He noted that due to the location of the
existing house at 7224 Logan Avenue North, an additional variance
for either the rear yard of the existing house or the depth of the
proposed lot was required.
Mr. Murphey commented also that several such variances have
been approved in the same block between Knox and Logan Avenues
and that as described in Section 23-112, there are special circum-
stnaces affecting this property, such that the strict application
of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable
use of her land.
Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Robert Nygren, an attorney
representing the applicant. Mr. Nygren explained the applicant's
situation and stated that it was the applicant's intent to• sell
the lot adjoining Knox Avenue. There ensued a brief discussion
of the needs for present and future variances and Mr. Murphey
commented that there would be some discrepancy whether a variance
were granted for a rear yard setback of the existing home or for
the depth of the proposed lot. The applicant's representative
stated that the applicant preferred a 40 foot rear yard setback
and that he would be willing to work with the City Engineering in
resolving any discrepancies which would arise.
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner
Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend approval
of Planning Commission Application No. 71070 submitted by Pearl
Lynch stipulating that a 40 foot setback be maintained in the
rear .yard of the existing house. Motion carried unanimously.
1
1
i
-5-
The next item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 71068 submitted by Kathleen Harrison.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated the applicant
is requesting a special use permit for a beauty shop to be located
in the basement of her home.
Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant who stated that she
would be the sole employee of the beauty shop operation and that
she foresaw no parking problems, in that two spaces were available
in her driveway and that the work was scheduled by appointment only.
Chairman Jensen then inquired about provision for a second exit
from the basement area to be used as a fire exit. The applicant'.s
husband stated that they were in the process of constructing such
an exit and it should be completed by next spring.
Chairman Jensen noted that the affected neighbors had been
contacted by the staff and none were present. He indicated to
the applicant that a letter should be submitted for the file
indicating there was no opposition to the proposed special use.
Commissioner Ditter suggested that a time limit be placed on
the special use permit and the applicant indicated she had no
objection to that.
Following further discussion, there was a motion by
Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to
recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71068
submitted by Kathleen Harrison subject to the following conditions;
1. That a second fire exit be constructed from the
basement area;
2. That a copy of the state shop owners license shall
be placed on file with the City;
3. That the special use permit is granted for a two year
period - from the date of approval by the City
Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 71069 submitted by Richard Yacekl.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who indicated the
applicant is requesting a special use permit for a home occupation,
namely the sharpening of saws in his basement. Mr. Murphey further
commented that the ordinance provides for special home occupations
in R-1 districts and that Section 35-900 defines special home
occupations and lists several types of services. He noted that
although saw sharpening is not specifically mentioned, it is a
service type use similar to those listed.
Mr. Murphey further commented that it had been brought to
his attention, through the complaints of several neighbors, that
the applicant had erected a sign on his property indicating the
saw sharpening service, and that he had asked the applicant to
remove the sign, in that the permit had not been issued.
Chairman Jensen noted that property owners within 150 feet
of the applicant's home had been notified, and he recognized several
persons present, noting t2okthey were residents of the neighborhood,
1
1
1
-6-
but were not among those notified according to the provisions of
the ordinance. A discussion ensued wherein several of those persons
present questioned the use of a sign stating that it was a totally
residential neighborhood. The applicant responded that a sign would
be used only for purposes of- identifying the location of the service
and would not be used to advertise.
Responding to a comment by Commissioner Bogucki that saw
sharpening generated substantial noise, the applicant stated that
he would perform the service in the basement of his home and thus
noise would not be emitted from his premises. The applicant
also noted that he intended to sharpen saws and possibly ice
skates and that he intended to establish contracts with various
hardware stores.
There was further discussion as the result of comments from
those neighbors present who inquired as to traffic problems, notibg
the poor corner at 69th and Palmer Lake Drive which was already
considered a traffic hazard. Chairman Jensen commented that the
Commission was concerned that heavy traffic was not generated,
but that this could really not be determined until some history
of the home occupation had been established. Chairman Jensen
suggested limiting the permit for a year so that it could come
back for review and the traffic situation could be examined.
Commissioner Schuller commented that the applicant deserves the
opportunity to establish this business at least for a limited
period of time so that the applicant, neighbors, and the City
can learn more of the effects of this particular home occupation.
Following further discussion there was a motion by
Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to
recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71069
submitted by Richard Yackel stipulating that the special use
permit would expire one year from the date of approval from the
City Council. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman Jensen left the meeting at 10:55 P.M. and handed
the gavel to Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 71057 submitted by Mr. Kenneth Nordling for the Chippewa Park
Apartments.
The item was introduced by Mr. Murphey who stated the appli-
cant is requesting an extension of time for a temporary sign lo-
cated at the south side of the apartment complex and adjacent to
the I-94 freeway. He noted that under Section 34-140 of the City
Ordinances the project was entitled to a 320 square foot temporary
sign for a period not to exceed two years from November 25, 1968.
Mr. Murphey further commented that the owner of the Chippewa
Park Apartments was notified on gctober 5, 1971, that the time
limit for his sign had expired and that it must be removed. He
noted that Mr. Nordling contended that he had 33 vacant apartments
and still has, need for the sign. Mr. Murphey stated his opinion
that, due to the fact that the applicant did not apply for
or have granted him a time extension prior to November 25, 1970,
he was in violation of the Sign Ordinance.
Commissioner Bogueki asked the applicant what his hardship
was, since hardship must be established according to the variance
procedure. The applicant responded that he had numerous vacancies
and had determined that the sign is essential for attracting
1
1
-7-
tenants as indicated by present tenants who noted they were
attracted to the apartments by the sign. Commissioner Bogucki
commented that it was difficult to see why the sign was still
needed since occupancy was low even with the sign.
The applicant responded that the low occupancy was cue to
several factors, among them the state of economy. The applicant
noted that the original sign had been granted with the stipulation
that it was allowed for a two year period or when the Chippewa
Park Apartments were 90/ occupied, whichever came first. He stated
that once the occupancy of 90% had been achieved, he would
immediately remove the temporary sign requested in this application,
and would seek a permit for a permanent identification sign as
allowed under the ordinance.
Chairman Protem Grosshans noted that notices had been sent
to adjacent property owners and that none were present. Commissioner.
Ditter commented that if said sign were to be granted it should
be for no more than a year so that the City could then review
again whether there was a continued need for the sign.
Motion by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend denial of Planning
Commission Application No. 71057 submitted by Kenneth Nordling.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Tremere commented that action by the Commission and the
Council would be relative to a new variance and permit rather
than an extension of an existing sign and permit, since the original
permit expired in November, 1970, and the sign was, in fact, not
currently authorized.
Following further discussion there was a motion by
Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to
recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71057
stipulating that the variance be granted for a period of one year
from the date of approval by the City Council, or the date when
a 90/ occupancy is realized by the Chippewa Park Apartments,
whichever comes first.
Further discussion ensued wherein Commissioner Bogucki
emphasized that the applicant had not sufficiently indicated a
hardship as required under the standards for requesting a variance.
The applicant responded that his hardship was that the sign was
considered essential for renting the vacant apartments.
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans called for a vote. Those voting
in favor of the motion were: Chairman Pro-tern Grosshans,
Commissioners Scott, Ditter, Foreman; those voting against:
Commissioner Bogucki. (Chairman Jensen was not present) - The
motion carried.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
No. 71071 submitted by Developers Diversified.
Mr. Murphey introduced the item stating that the applicant
is requesting a variance from the Sign Ordinance to allow the
installation of signs as indicated on revised plans. He
commented that the original site and building plans were approved
exclusive of any signs. He reviewed prior Commission discussion
which had given special consideration to a mansord panel along
the front of the building extending five feet above the parapet
wall which would serve as a background for a 405 square foot sign,
-8-
and that interpretation of the Sign Ordinance classifies such a
structure as a roof sign.
Mr. Murphey further explained that the Sign Ordinance provides
that an applicant eligible for a freestanding sign may elect to
have a roof sign instead, providing the roof sign does not exceed
the area requirements set forth in Table 34A of the Ordinance. He
commented that the K-Mart Store is eligible for a roof sign 250
square feet in area and not over 6 feet above the roof.
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans recognized Mr. James Karabec
who represents the developer. Mr. Karabec reiterated the appli-
cant's contention that the proposed sign is a wall sign, not a
roof sign, and that a variance is not required. He further noted
that the revised plan showed that the portion of the original
proposed sign, which extended above the mansord panel, namely
the staff of the letter "K" in K-Mart, had been shortened to be
within the limits of the sign backing.
A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the interpretation of
the sign ordinance which defines the applicant's sign as a roof
sign. Commissioner Schuller asked the applicant why a 250 square
foot sign would not be satisfactory, noting that the K-Mart abut-
ment on two arterial streets permits a second freestanding sign
as well. Mr. Karabec responded that the proposed sign was
standard identification of K-Mart Stores. He further stated
that, given the developer's interpretation of the ordinance,
making the sign a wall sign, the 405 square foot size was relatively
small considering the size wall sign K-Mart was eligible for
under the ordinance.
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans stated that he did not agree with
the interpretation of the ordinance making the applicant's pro-
posed sign a roof sign. He noted also that since the interpre- -.
tation stands, based upon previous staff and Council decisions,
the issue currently before the Commission is whether to recommend
a variance for a 405 square foot roof sign.
After further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Schuller, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to recommend denial
of Planning Commission Application No. 71071. Voting in favor
of the motion were: Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans, Commissioners
Scott, Bogucki and Schuller. Voting against were: Commissioners
Ditter and Foreman. The motion carried.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application
PIo. 71072 submitted by Developers Diversified.
Mr. Murphey introduced the item, stating the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow a driveway with a zero clearance
to the property line. He noted that the driveway will have a
varying clearance along Highway 100 for a distance of about 250
feet, and that the request is consistent with driveway clearance
in the Brookdale and Northbrook Centers.
After a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
Ditter, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend approval of
Planning Commission Application No. 71072 submitted by
Developers Diversified. The motion carried unanimously.
1
-9-
The next item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 71073 submitted by Developers
Diversified.
Mr. Murphey introduced the item stating the applicant is
requesting a variance from the Sign Ordinance to permit a 177
square foot freestanding sign with a total height of 35 feet.
He noted the ordinance permits a 250 square foot sign with a
total height above the first floor elevation of 32 feet.
A discussion ensued relative to the requirements of the
Sign Ordinance, and Mr. James Karabec, representing the applicant,
asked for a clarification of the need for a variance for the
proposed freestanding sign.
Mr. Murphey indicated that a variance of three feet was
negligible and would result in little benefit to the applicant;
thus there appeared to be no grounds of need or hardship upon
which a variance could be based.
Mr. Karabec stated that the height requirement had not been
clear before, and that now that the situation had been explained,
the applicant could construct a sign meeting the ordinance
provision.
Mr. Karabec withdrew Planning Commission Application No. 71073.
The next item considered was Planning Commission Application
No. 71074 submitted by Developers Diversified.
Mr. Murphey introduced the item stating the applicant is
requesting a variance to allow a 40 foot driveway on the north
and east drives of the K-Mart parking area. He noted that
Section 35-703 of the ordinance requires that access to off-street
areas shall be restricted to driveways 30 feet or less in width.
Director of Public Works James Merila stated he had reviewed
the application with the applicant, and that the anticipated high
traffic generation by the project substantiates the need for
additional driveway width to provide for left and right turn
lanes for exiting traffic.
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans recognized Mr. LaBelle representing
LaBelle's Inc. , located across the street from K-Mart. Mr.
LaBelle commented he was concerned with the high traffic volume
particularly from each of the driveways.
Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commiss-
ioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Schuller, to recommend
approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71074 submitted
by Developers Diversified, recognizing the need as stated by the
Director of Public Works. The motion carried unanimously.
The next item of business was consideration of #71055 sub-
mitted by R. L. Ernst.
Commissioner Foreman stated that he would not take part in
the deliberation of this application since he was an officer and
director of a corporation which was presently negotiating for an
option on a property which included the parcel in question.
1
1
-10-
Mr. Y.urphey indicated this was a continuation of previous
examinations of Mr. Ernst`s proposed development of a convenience
center at 69th Avenue and Humboldt Avenue North. He stated the
applicant had delivered revised plans for the commercial building
and was again requesting preliminary site and building plan approval.
Chairman pro-tem Grosshans reiterated the consensus of the
Commission that since the applicant intended to pursue the develop-
ment of the entire parcel around the convenience center site, the
Commission needed complete plans of the entire development, before
recommending approval of a portion.
The applicant said no specific plans for development of the
parcel, other than the convenience center, were available. He
stated that the financial commitment for the convenience center
should serve as some assurance that the remainder would be
developed. He said more time was needed to adequately prepare
plans for the overall development since a decision had not been
made on a specific use.
Mr. Merila commented that it was essential to examine
the planned development of the whole parcel so that the City could
adequately evaluate such things as access. There ensued a brief
discussion of the driveways indicated on the revised convenience
center plans.
Mr. Murphey introduced the next item which was Planning
Commission Application No. 71065 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. He
stated the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat
of Twin Lake Beach Addition which is the property located at 4201
Lakeside Avenue upon which a 120 unit apartment building has
recently been built.
Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans noted that a representative of
the applicant was not present. The Director of Public Works stated
that the plat appeared to be in order and conforms with the
platting regulations.
Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by
Commissioner Schuller, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recom-
mend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71065
submitted by Viewcon, Inc. , subject to the regulations of the
Platting Ordinance and review by the City Engineer. The motion
carried unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner
Schuller to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:15 A.M.
Chair�fan
1
1