Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 11-02 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota November 2, 1972 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman pro-tem Robert Grosshans. Roll Call: Chairman pro-tem Grosshans, Commissioners Bogucki, Scott, Gross, Foreman and Engdahl. Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Scott to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1972 meeting as submitted: Motion passed unanimously. Following the Chairman's explanation the first item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72074 submitted by A. E. Melling. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was seeking a variance from Section 15-104 of the City Ordinance to permit the subdivision of a parcel by metes and bounds description. He stated the applicant's intent was to create two buildable single family residential lots, one with front- age on to Lyndale Avenue North and the other on to Fifth Street North. It was noted that precedent existed for such action and that the contended basis for the variance was that formal subdivision proceedure.s would be unduly restrictive. An extensive discussion ensued and Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans recognized the owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Jacob Heinonen, who explained that the parcel was vacant of any structures and that the proposed buyer intended to construct single family dwellings on the properties. Chairman pro-tem Grosshans noted that none of the notified property owners was present. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Gross to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72074 subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Approval is subject to the applicable conditions of the platting ordinance. Motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72077 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for a 40,000 square foot addition to the Arctic Metals manufacturing facility located at 6530 James Avenue North. He stated the expansion was anticipated when approval was given for the existing facility on April 26, 1971. He stated the total area of the manufacturing plant would be 126, 550 scmare feet. The Secretary further commented that according to the initial plans, the minimum parking requirements wera exceeded by 39 .spaces_ -2- He stated it was the recommendation that concrete islands be placed at the ends of the parking rows to delineate the driving aisles. He further stated that while some loss of parking spaces would be real- ized the remaining number would be in excess of the required 159 spaces. He noted that a letter had been submitted to the file by the applicant stating that approximately 130 persons were currently em- ployed and that the maximum number of employees in any one shift was not expected to exceed 140. The Secretary also noted the indicated relocation of an existing standby L. P. gas "farm" which is presently located at the easterly . end of the site. He noted that the facility was not indicated on or approved with the site and building plans for the existing build- ing. Iie stated the proposed site was westerly of the present loca- tion, set in the midst of the parking and truck maneuvering area. The Secretary commented that the proposed construction of the standby gas "farm" in the area indicated was aesthetically undesir- able. He also commented that outdoor storage in the Industrial Park District was to be conducted within completely enclosed buildings. He stated that the Fire Marshall had indicated L.P. or natural gas could not be stored within a building, and thus it was the recommenda- tion that the storage tank be either buried or covered with earth in a fashion to form a berm. Chairman pro-tem Grosshans then recognized Mr. Krogness, Mr. Redman, Mr. Nordctuist and Mr. Columbus who represented the applicant. Mr. Columbus stated relative to the placement of the new tank, that the applicant would prefer to bury the tank rather than leaving it above ground, even as a portion of a berm; thus, more useable surface area would be provided. He stated the applicant did not desire any obstructions on the parking lot, including concrete parking lot delineators in that such obstructions would tend to limit future. expansion and could hinder the heavy truck traffic. Commissioner Gross stated concern that fast-growing trees should be provided along the easterly property line, particularly in that area near the proposed addition. Relative to the recommended concrete parking lot delineators, Mr. Bogucki stated that he disagreed with the applicant's contention that they would be unnecessary obstructions. He noted other in- stances where such parking aisle delineators had been used. Mr. Columbus responed that there was a difference between public commercial parking areas and private industrial parking lots. Commissioner Bogucki commented relative to parking problems in the industrial area including the applicant's present parking situation. The Director of Public Works stated that while striping of park- ing stalls was initially effective and acceptable, it remains so only as long as the striping is maintained. He noted that experience had shown that as lots age, problems would increase and once orderly parking situations became rather erratic. He stated that concrete parking lot delineators had been recommended for some time due to aesthetic and safety factors. Mr. Columbus stated the recommended concrete delineators repre- sented an unnecessary expenditure. A discussion ensued relative to the controls the applicant exercised over employee parking, and 1 1 1 -3- . Commissioner Foreman inquired whether employees had assigned space*.,. The response wa& in the negative. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki seconded by Commissioner Gross to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72077 submitted by B.C.I.p. 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 submit to the City to guarantee site improvements designated'. J the site plans. 4. provision shall be made in constructing the building to ensure compliance with the ordinance special requirements for the I-2 District with particular regard for limitations on sound, vibration and outdoor storage. 5. Concrete parking lot delineators shall be installed in the automobile parking area as indicated on the approved plans. v. There shall be no above ground storage of auxiliary or production fuels. The motion passed unanimously. >s The next item of business was continued consideration of planning Commission Application No. 70012 submitted by Darrel Farr Development Company. The Secretary introduced the item stating that on October 19th, the Commission had recommended approval of the amended site and building plans for the townhouse project subject to all previous conditions of approval as adopted by the City Council on December 13, 1971, excepting the landscape plans which were sub- ject to review by the Commission and approval by the City Council. He further explained that representatives of the applicant had met with members of the City staff as well as the residents June Avenue relative to the landscaping of the project, with pbirtieu- lar attention paid to the treatment of the berm along the property line. The Director of public Works commented upon the results of that meeting and explained the proposed treatment of the berm. Chairman Pro-tem. Grosshans then recognized Mr. Van Eeckhout and Mr. Maertens, representatives of the applicant as well as several of the June Avenue residents. Mr. Van Eeckhout further discussed the professional landscaper's suggested treatment of the berm area. Commissioners Gross and Engdahl inquired whether the neighbors were satisfied with the landscaping, and Chairman pro-tern Grosshans further noted that the species to be planted along the berm area were not indicated on the submitted plan. Mr. Van Eeckhout responded that upon approval of the Crsion, the applicant intended to get together again with the landscaper and, with the residents to determine the specific types. He noted that -4- specific plantinga were discussed at the earlier meeting. Several of the residents commented that their prime concern was that the intent of the developer be formally indicated on the approved plans as an assurance of what would be done. Chairman pro-tem Grosshans inquired as to the balance of the landscaping for the Phase I portion of the site. Mr. Van Eeckhout responded that essentially the original landscape plan which had been approved would be used, but that the species of trees had been rearranged on the site to permit the construction of newly located . buildings. Mr. Van Eeckhout further commented that while the basic land- scape plan met with the ordinance requirements, it was not absolutely final; rather, it was indicative of the intended landscaping and that the site would be substantially embellished beyond the minimum requirements. Commissioner pro-tem Grosshans stated his concern that there should be a final plan submitted, including an indication of the actual species, the location, and the number of the plantings to be placed on the site. He inquired whether a totally revised plan would be available for the City Council meeting. Mr. Van Eeckhout said that was the applicant's intent and that the applicant hoped to meet with the neighbors prior to the City Council meeting. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval of the landscaping portion of the site and building plans contained in Application No. 70012 as amended, providing that a complete landscape schedule will be available for city Council jnspectioti. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:40 P.M. and resumed at 9:55 P.M. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Applications No. 72078 and No. 72045 submitted by Fox Run, Incorporated. The items were introduced by the Secretary who explained that Application No. 72078 was a request for approval of a special use permit for a Planned Residential Development in the R-3 District. He explained that the permit would comprehend the pro- posed Master Plan and the first phase of the project. He noted that Phase I included a 120-unit condominium apartment building and 24 townhouse units. The Secretary further explained that each subsequent phase would require formal modification of the permit and hence, would be reviewed at similar hearings before use and building permits were issued for each stage. He noted the interrelationship of the present application with Application No. 72045 seeking Master Plan and Phase One site and building plan approval for the development. He noted previous con- cerns of the Commission included the proposed 'phasing, the proposed Homeowners Association, and the drainage and landscaping provisions for the entire site. He stated the Commission had granted conceptual approval at the July 13th meeting and that final action on the site and building plans was contingent upon the disposition of the special use permit. He stated that the entire project as proposed consisted of three phases, the first comprehending a 120-unit apartment building at the northwest end of the site and 24 townhouse units at the southwesterly 69th Avenue end. He further explained that an open drainage way 1 1 1 -5- running through the site was proposed and that the Director of Public Works had worked extensively with the applicant's engineering staff. He further noted that certain easements relative to utilities and access had been sought by the applicant and that documentation should be submitted. The Secretary further commented that the applicant had yet to supply complete site plans for the townhouse and condominum apart- ment portions of Phase I for which site and building plan approval was sought. Chairman pro-tern Grosshans recognized Mr. Richard Walsh the developer for the project who commented relative to the proposed phasing. He noted that the location of Phase I was determined on the basis of soil tests and the availability of utilities. Relative to the proposed Homeowner's Associations he stated that there would eventually be six separate associations: one for each of the condom- inum apartment buildings and one for each of the three townhouse developments. He noted that the recreation facilities indicated in Phase II would be reserved for the townhouse development only, since the condominum apartment buildings had internal recreational facilities. Mr. Walsh emphasized the need to secure permits prior to January 1, 1973 due to the increased levy which would be realized by the recently adopted sewer availability charge formula. He also stated his intent to commence construction of Phase I as soon as possible and noted the definite commitment of financing for the eni7 i ve project. An extensive discussion ensued and Commissioner Gross, commented relative to the split design of Phase I and the possible ramifications upon the balance of the proposed development. He noted particularly this design could have serious effects upon the drainage for the entire site, if the balance of the site was not developed. Commissioner Gross suggested that the applicant consider con- structing the townhouse development indicated in Phase III as part of the Phase I development rather than the proposed townhouses near 69th Avenue. Mr. Walsh responded that this had not been proposed due to the seeming nonavailability of utilities and that the pro- hibitive expense of providing them now. A discussion ensued between Commissioner Gross and the Director of Public Works relative to the availability of water at the north- easterly end of the site and it was concluded in discussion with Mr. Walsh that the development of townhouses easterly of the proposed condominum apartment building in Phase I would be feasible. The applicant indicated he would pursue this proposal and examine the other pertinent aspects of such a development. Chairman pro-tem Grosshans stated his concern with the proposed number of Homeowners Associations. Mr. Walsh responded that the buyers for townhouses in Phase I would initially pay less for their units since the recreational amenities intended for the townhouse developments would not be constructed until Phase II. He further explained that at such time the recreational facilities became avail- able for the townhouse owners an agreed upon charge would be paid by the Phase I owners. Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans then noted that a number of neigh- boring property owners had been notified of the Public Hearing for the special use permit and he recognized Mr. Hackleman of 7019 Regent Avenue North, Mr. Germundsen of 5018 71st Avenue North, and Mr. and 1 1 1 -6- Mrs. Tyler of 7043 Regent Avenue North. Mr. Germundsen commented that he was primarily concerned with the effect the project would have upon the drainage in the area and . noted the already completed grade changes which had been made for the adjacent Creek Villas Development. Mr. Tyler stated he was also concerned with the effect upon the drainage and stated that he hoped the developer would work with the neighbors relative to the landscaping along the area abutting the property line. Mrs. Tyler stated she had no objections to the plans, but noted her concern with the proliferation of apartments in the area. She further commented that she was concerned that the open water-way be appropriately fenced or screened as a safety factor. Extensive discussion ensued relative to the issuance of a special use permit and Commissioner Gross stated that careful con- sideration should be made relative to drainage problems which must be rectified. The Director of Public Works responded that the specific alignment and character of the drainage channel must be deferred until additional data is secured from engineers studying the Shingle Creek water shed under a multi-community contract in which Brooklyn Center is a participant. He responded to a question by Commissioner Bogucki that the time frame for this study would be approximately twelve more months, but that the initial phase of the proposed project could be under- taken pending the final engineering results. The Da rector of Public Works further commmented as to the sig-- c,;.fi: -ance of the drainage design for the entire site and Qtated that it was essential the problems be rectified not only from an engineer- ing perspective but from a proper planning and design aspect. The Commission proceeded to review the submitted plans and it was noted the major deficiency inhibiting special use permit author- ization at this time relates to the submittal of totally inadequate detailed plans for Phase I of the project. The Director of Public Works explained that contacts with the consulting engineers as well as the architect retained by the applicant indicate that they were not prepared to develop and submit the necessary detailed plans because they had not apparently been specifically authorized to do so by the applicant. Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans noted that it was apparent complete site plans were not available for the Phase I of the development and that in light of the need for further deliberations relative to the drainage of the project it did not appear final approval could be granted at this time. Mr. Walsh inquired about securing approval of the special use permit and the site and building plan approval in that he was con- cerned for the requirements of providing very costly complete plans prior to any approvals. The Director of Public Works responded that the reference was not to final construction plans but rather the concern was with complete detailed site plans as required as part of the standard plan review and approval process. Commissioner Gross stated that the applicant should indicate on the site plans the intent to include the now Phase III townhouses in the first phase of the development. Regarding the proposed Townhouse Home Owners Associations, Commissioner Bogucki state six separate organizations would create an unwieldy situation and he suggested that the townhouses be included in one association and that the 1 1 1 -7- condominum apartments be included in one. Mr. Walsh responded that the problem was primarily with the townhouses in that the cost of providing recreational amenities for the Phase I units had not been programmed for the development. Commissioner Bogucki stated that his primary concern was with the maintenance and utility provisions for a number of separate associations located in the same project. Further discussion ensued relative to the Homeowners Association structure and Commissioner Bogucki stated that the City Attorney should be asked to thoroughly review and comment on the proposed associations prior to City Council consideration of the application. Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Gross to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. A brief discussion ensued relative to the timing of the consid- eration of the applications and there was amotion by Commissioner Bogucki seconded by Commissioner Gross to table Planning Commission, Application No. 72078 until the study meeting to permit the applicant the opportunity to further develop the required data. Motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Gross to table Planning Commission Application No. 72045 until the study meet- ing to permit the applicant the opportunity to further develop the required data. The motion passed unanimously. M(Aiorl by Coaunissi.oner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Scott to Airect the staff to arrange a special meeting for the consi.derati.on of various study items prior to the regularly study meeting on November_ 16th, Motion passed utnani.mously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72080 submitted by Clarence Dudley. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks site and building plan approval for an addition to his home which is a non-conforming use in a C-1 District. He noted that the applicant proposes to operate a beauty shop in the addition to the structure located at 6510 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary then reviewed the various ramifications of the non-conforming use provisions of the City ordinance and of the long- standing Planning concern in the City that business uses be dis- couraged from occupying residential structures. The Secretary noted that the ordinance stated that a non-con- forming use of a building existing at the time of the adoption of the . ordinance may be extended throughout the building provided that no structural alterations except those- required by ordinance, law or other regulations are made therein. He further noted that no such noncon- forming use of land shall be enlarged or increased or occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such use at the time -of the adoption of the ordinance. He explained that the applicant was informed of this and that he responded by submitting preliminary site and building plans for approval as stipulated under the C-1 ordinance provisions. It was noted however that the C-1 use did not permit residential occupancy. An extensive discussion ensued and Commissioner Foreman noted correspondence in the file from the Building Department to the applicant referring to the applicant's unlawful installation of 1 1 1 -8- footings and foundation and backfill for the proposed addition to the home. The correspondence explained a stop order which had been issued on the construction. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether construction had in fact proceeded on the site. The Secretary re- sponded in the affirmative. Mr. Dudley responded that the situation regarding the zoning and non-conforming use had never been clearly explained to him and thus he had not knowingly proceeded in an unlawful manner. The Secretary commented that a building permit was required of all such major construction and the applicant responded that this had not been his understanding. He stated that he needed to install the footings and foundation prior to the winter season. The Commission then proceeded to examine the submitted site and building plans and an extensive discussion ensued. Commissioner Bogucki stated that the issue appeared to be that if the application was reviewed in the context in which it was submitted, i.e. , a pro- posal to proceed within the provisions of the C-1 classification, certain decisions involving variations from established policy would have to be made. He noted that since residential occupancy of commercial sites is not permitted in the C-1 zone, the applicant would be required to vacate the premises for dwelling purposes. Commissioner Bogucki further stated that consideration of the informal policy of discouraging commercial uses within residential structures would be necessary, and that such a practice did not seem to be desirable aesthetically and, it was not consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Secretary stated that one of the planning goals for the Osseo Road frontages noted by the Comprehensive plan suggested that existing single family residential areas be preserved until such time that a planned redevelopment of the total area is presented for consideration. He noted the plan stated this was preferrable to a lot-by-lot change of use which often results in untimely deter�,oratoh in unrelated new development. The Secretary further commented that a one-man beauty shop operation as proposed by the applicant could be a permitted special use in the existing home, in that it would be a continuation of a valid non-conforming residential use. Commissioner Bogucki responded that there appeared to be another alternative which was the opportunity for the applicant and::. the owners of the two neighboring parcels which were zoned C-1 to request a rezoning to R-1. The applicant stated he did not feel the neighbors would be interested in such an action. Commissioner Gross emphasized that it was essential to follow the established policy relative to permitting commercial uses in residential structures and to carefully evaluate the ramifications of the proposed action upon the non-conforming use provisions of the City Ordinance. In further discussion, the applicant stated that for sometime he had been led to believe by City Officials, both elected and appointed, that he could proceed with the addition to his home and use it for a beauty shop operation. He stated that if he had been aware of the present concerns he would not have begun work. Commissioners Bogucki and Foreman inquired which elected official and which staff member had informed him he could proceed with construction without a permit and that such construction was permitted in that particular zone. Mr. Dudley responded that -such information was confidential. 1 1 1 -9- The Secretary noted that the applicant had been specifically informed of the ramifications of construction and development in a C-1 zone and further, that the applicant had been asked if he had considered operating a beauty shop in his home as it exists, as a part of a non-conforming use.. Mr. Dudley responded that he did not feel the City should permit beauty shop operations in homes and that separate facilities such as his proposed addition should be required?. thus, for that reason and for the reason that there was not enough space he had not con- side-red having a shop in his existing home. In further discussion Commissioner Gross and Commissioner Bogucki reiterated the suggestion that the applicant consider a rezoning to the R-1 use in conjunction with the neighboring property owners. A discussion ensued relative to the disposition of the appli- cation as a site and building plan approval request. It was noted that since the applicant has indicated his intent to maintain the residential use and in light of the informal planning policy of the City not to encourage the use of residential dwelling structures for commercial purposes the application could not be recommended for approval without substantial variances from the ordinance and established policy. The secretary commented that an evaluation of the submitted plans on their own merits indicated they were not complete. Further di.ec"soloii etlstied relative to the need to resolve vax1ous basic policy matters prior to any final consideration of the submitted plans and the applicant indicated that he desired a final determination on the matter as soon as possible. Motion by Commissioner Bocq»cki socoflded by conanissioner Foreman to recommend denial of planning Commission Applicat.i.or_ No. 72080 noting the following: 1. The proposal is inconsistent with the informal planning policy which does not comprehend the use of residential type structures for commercial purposes, particularly along Brooklyn Boulevard. 2. Given the intent and desires of the applicant, the proposal is not feasible without a substantial variance regarding residential occupancy of a commercial use. 3. The proposal is not consistent with the planning goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan relative to the retention . of residential uses in the subject area until such time that a planned redevelopment of the total area is presented for consideration. 4. An alternative exists for the accomplishment of the applicant's stated goal to operate a beauty shop, in that a special use permit for such an operation could be granted for the existing home in its non-conforming use status. In further discussion Commissioner Gross stated that the Council should be asked to note the applicant's alleged extenuating circumstances and that consideration should be given to the possibil- ity of rezoning the C-1 parcels upon petition from the owners. Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans then called for a vote, the motion passed unanimously. 1 1 1 -10- The next item of business was consideration of planning Commission Application No. 72079 submitted by Green Giant Restaurants Inc. The Secretary introduced the item stating the applicant seeks approval for a special use permit for live entertainment and a special use permit for accessory off-site parking. He stated the requests were in conjunction with the applicant's intent to refurbish the restaurant and to exercise a liquor license. The Secretary commented that the permit for live entertainment was in order and that the submitted seating plan for the rennovated facility indicated a stage area near the center of the restaurant. Relative to the permit request for off-site supplemental parking, the Secretary noted that this was the first application made under the recently adopted ordinance amendment. He stated the proposed site for the accessory parking was across the service road easterly of the restaurant, and south of the Midwest Federal site. The Secretary explained that the plans submitted indicated 36 parking spaces would be provided on that site and that there were currently 68 spaces on the principal site for a total of 104 spaces. The Secretary further explained that the seating plans sub- mitted, indicated accommodations for 183 persons, and the manager of the restaurant had stated there would be a total of 13 employees at the maximum shift. Since minimum parking must be provided at the rate of one space for every two seats or employees, a total 90 "paces were regta .red and thus a balance of six spaces remained, An extensive discussion then ensued relative to the relation- ship between supplemental parking spaces and seating. The Secretary commented that the potential extra seating which might be incorporated into the restaurant seating plan with the applicant and that it was agreed 8 additional seats would be feasible. He noted that this would leave a balance of two parking stalls beyond the ordinance requirement for use by waiting customers or customere who elected to stand at the bar in the central lounge area. Chairman pro-tem Grosshans recognized Mr. Dave Hottman, who represented the Green Giant Restaurant, as well as the manager of the restaurant. An discussion ensued relative to the need for parking. The Director of Public Works commented that complete land- scaping plans for the supplemental parking site had not been sub- mitted and Mr. Hottman responded that they were being finalized by the applicant 's garden center landscaping office. Commissioners Scott and Gross stated their concern that such plans should be available for Commission review. Commissioner Bogucki stated that in this instance it did not appear there was a major problem, given the small size of the site, the limited amount of landscaping which could be undertaken, and the fact that certain site improvements such as berming were indicated on the plans submitted. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72079 submitted by Green Giant Restaurants to include; 1. A special use permit for live entertainment subject to the condition that the permit shall be reviewed on an annual basis from the date of issue. 1 1 1 -11- 2. A special use permit for accessory off-site parking subject to the following :condi.tions: a. That drainage and grading plans are subject to the Engineer's review. b. The permit shall be reviewed on an annual basis from the date of issue. C. That a detailed landscaping schedule shall be submitted to the City prior to the City Council review of the application. Following further discussion Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans called for a vote relative to the special use permit for live entertainment. The motion passed unanimously. He then called for a vote relative to the accessory off-site parking special use permit. Voting in favor were Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans, Commissioners Bogucki, Foreman and Engdahl. Voting against were: Commissioners Scott and Gross noting that a detailed landscaping schedule was not available for Commission review. The motion passed. in further business the Director of Public Works discussed a proposed upgrading and realignment plan prepared by the County relative to County Road 130 (69th Avenue North) . Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Foren►an seconded by Conuninnioner scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 1:30 A.M. -----Chairm - - --- -- _ .- 1 1 1