Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 11-07 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL NOVEMBER 7 , 1974 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8 : 04 p.m. , by Chairman Carl Gross. Roll Call: Chairman, Gross, Commissioners Engdahl, Grosshans, Foreman, Scott, Horan and Pierce . Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by 10-17-74 Commissioner Pierce to approve the minutes of the October 17 , 1974 meeting as sub- mitted. Voting in favor were Chairman Gross, Commissioners Engdahl, Foreman, Scott, Horan, Pierce. Not voting: Commissioner Grosshans explaining he was not present at that meeting. Application No. 71068 Following the Chairman' s explanation, the (Mrs. Kathleen Harrison) first item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 71068 submitted by Mrs. Kathleen Harrison. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained that the applicant had received a special use permit in 1972 following the City Council authorization on December 13 , 1971, for a beauty shop in her home at 3612 54th Avenue North. He explained that one of the conditions of the special use permit was that it would be subject to review for purposes of renewal in two years from date of issuance. Chairman Gross recognized the applicant and waived a reading of the names in that none of the notified property owners was present. Close Hearing: Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Scott to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary commented that there was no record of complaints against the use and he noted that a number of neighboring property owners had, in 1971, submitted a petition in favor of the proposed use. In response to the question by Commissioner Horan, the applicant stated that she presently had two dryers and had adequate parking for four cars on her premises. She also explained that a second exit way had been installed and that fencing had also been erected on the property. Action Recommending Following a brief discussion there was a Approval of Application motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by No. 71068 (Renewal) Commissioner Grosshans to recommend renewal (Kathleen Harrison) of the special use permit comprehended under Planning Commissipn. App,l.ic.ation No. 71068 submitted by Mrs. Kathleen Harrison, subject to the condition that the use is subject to applicable ordinance requirements and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation of the permit. The motion passed unanimously . The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 74052 Planning Commission Application No. 74052 (Suburban Engineering) submitted by Suburban Engineering for North Metro Construction Company. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks approval of a preliminary plat for a 2. 3 acre parcel between 73rd Avenue and Evergreen Park on the west side of Camden Avenue North. He stated the land was zoned R-1 and the plat comprehends six lots plus a 60 foot dedication for the extension of Woodbine Lane, a 30 foot dedication for future 72nd Avenue North extended and a 30 foot dedication for the west half of Camden Avenue North. Chairman Gross recognized several represent- atives of the applicant and an extensive discussion ensued relative to the future development of the R-1 parcels lying westerly of the subject land. The Director of Public Works commented that while the parcels to the west were not included at this time, the subject plat would not create a land-locked situation in that the parcels to the west, when subdivided, could be served by 73rd Avenue, Woodbine Lane and even 72nd Avenue North, subject to approval of the future plats. He briefly reviewed the history of previous attempts to subdivide and develop the area. The Secretary commented that each of the proposed six lots including the corner lot met or exceeded the ordinance subdivision requirements as to land area and he reviewed a graphic submitted by the applicant indicating the possible location of dwellings on the parcels. Following further discussion there was a Action Recommending motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Approval of Application Commissioner Pierce to recommend approval No. 74052 of Planning Commission Application No. 74052 (Suburban Engineering) submitted by Suburban Engineering subject to the following conditions : 1 , The final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. Final plat is subject to the require- ments of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 74053 Planning Commission Application No. 74053 (R. J. Patterson) submitted by R. J. Patterson, 3800 Commodore Drive. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks a special use permit for a home occupation involving small engine repair in a detached double garage on the premises. He explained that the application was similar to one approved under Application No. 74002 . -2- Chairman Gross recognized the applicant and an extensive discussion ensued relative to the nature of the proposed work and the hours of operation. The applicant explained that his intent was to perform minor repairs and tune-ups for lawn mowers, outboard motors and other recreational engines by appointment only. He stated his proposed hours of operation were 4 : 00 to 9 : 00 p.m. , Monday through Friday, and from 10: 00 a...m. to 6 : 00 p.m. on Saturday. Commissioner Engdahl inquired whether the applicant' s garage was heated and the response was heating equipment was available, but not working. Commissioner Horan inquired as to whether any welding was proposed and the applicant explained that, while he did have welding equipment on the premises, it was for his personal use and would not be used for the business . Commissioner Horan stated his concern as to flashing light caused by the welding equipment. Commissioner Foreman inquired as to provision for fire safety and whether a fire extinguisher was provided. The applicant responded that one was not provided at this time, but that he would secure one. The Secretary explained that a condition of approval should specify an inspection by the appropriate officials to determine that proper safety measures had been taken. In response to a question by Commissioner Scott, the applicant stated that he did not intend to have an "open"shop, that work would be taken only by appointment, and that it was part time. In response to a question by Commissioner Foreman, the applicant stated that there would be no sales of used equipment on the premises. Chairman Gross reviewed the ordinance require- ments and definitions with respect to single- family premises, including use of garages, and emphasized that the proposed use must be in- cidental and secondary to the residential character of the premises. The applicant stated that he was aware of the ordinance provisions and that the primary use of the garage would continue to be for the parking of the family vehicles . Further discussion ensued relative to hours of operation and the applicant stated that he would not conduct work involving the running of engines or motors on Sundays nor at any time other than the hours noted previously. Commissioner Gross noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and he recognized the resident of 3718 Commodore Drive who stated that as a neighbor of the applicant, he had no objection of the proposed use but he was concerned as to possible noise generation particularly on Saturday mornings . He noted that his bedroom faced the garage but that he was satisfied with applicant' s explanation and proposed hours of operation. The applicant stated that should any neighbors have concerns involving the proposed operation, he would be available at all times to discuss the situation with them. -3- Chairman Gross noted that none of the other Close Hearing: notified property owners was present and there was a motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Following further discussion there was a motion Action Recommending by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Approval of Application Horan to recommend approval of Planning Comm- No. 74053 ission Application No. 74053 submitted by (R. J. Patterson) P. J. Patterson, 3800 Commodore Drive subject to the following conditions : 1. The use shall conform to all applicable ordinance provisions and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation of the permit . 2:, There shall, be no outside storage of materials involved in the permitted use. 3. Appropriate fire and safety measures shall be taken as determined by an inspection by City officials. 4 . The hours of operation shall be as follows: E E Monday - Friday 4 :00 P.M. - 9 : 00 P.M. Saturday 10 : 00 A.M. - 6 : 00 P.M. 5 . There shall be no retail sales from the premises and no out-of-door signery. 6 . The permit shall be subject to review one year from date of issuance. r The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 74054 Planning Commission Application No. 74054 (Douglas Quady) submitted by Douglas Quady, 4725 Twin Lake Avenue. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant was seeking a variance for permission to construct an addition to his house which would encroach 13 feet into the front yard setback and approximately 1 foot into the sideyard ;setback. The Secretary explained that the proposed addition would be atop an existing attached garage which protrudes into the front yard to a point 22 feet from the front property line and which was permitted under a 1966 interpretation of the then zoning ordinance. The Secretary explained that the main house had been built in 1.964 following a variance action by the Council to permit construction of the 25. 5 ' x 40 ' dwelling on the approx- imate 56 foot wide lot. He stated that that variance comprehended a 4 foot sideyard setback Variance, but that in other respects the dwelling met the ordinance requirements . He stated that the former owner had applied for a variance to permit construction of the garage in 1966 but that the application had been nullified following determination there was an ordinance provision for such construction through an "averaging formula" . -4- He explained that the formula provided that, in instances where structures on adjacent lots were located at other than required setbacks, the new structure could be located at a front yard setback equivalent to an average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacent structures . The Secretary noted that there had been a recommendation at the time that the "averaging formula" be eliminated because of potential problems with respect to inequitable and unaesthetic ramifications throughout the City, particularly with respect to waterfront properties. He further commented that in 1968 when the present zoning ordinance was adopted, the language was eliminated from the ordinance minimum land area requirements and that sub- sequent to that action, construction in the area has been according to the established setback requirements. He stated the applicant maintains that despite its non-complying character, the garage represents a once permitted structure which could serve as an adequate foundation for an addition. to the dwelling. Chairman Gross recognized the applicant who stated that he felt the property was a nice location for his home and that they enjoyed living in Brooklyn Center on Twin Lake. He stated however, that the house was becoming too small as his two children grew older, since it contained only two bedrooms and a single bath- room. He stated that the proposed location on top of the attached garage would be a logical place to add additional living space and he contended that the house appears as though it were only half done. In response to a question by the Secretary the applicant stated that he had considered remodeling the existing basement area of the home and that while it could be done it was not desirable . An extensive discussion ensued relative to the design of the proposed addition and Commissioner Gross inquired as to whether the applicant considered adding additional living space to the lake side of the home within the limits permitted under the ordinance. The applicant stated that the design and layout of the present house was not conducive to such an addition since that was the living area and that the west side of the house was a split entry design. Chairman Gross stated that he had visited the area and that he was concerned with the set- back of other dwellings along the same side of the street. He noted his concern as to the establishment of a trend or precedent in en- croaching into the front yard setbacks . In that regard, the Secretary commented that most of the structures, with exception of the applicant' s home, were converted lake cottages and that the random setbacks were established up to 30 years ago. He stated that such a cottage had existed on the applicant' s property. -5- had been removed in the early 19601s, and that the applicant' s dwelling represented one of the few structures constructed at ordinance standards along lower Twin Lake. He stated that, over time, the older existing structures could be expected to be removed or demolished in favor of new lake front const- ruction which would also be required to build at the established ordinance standards; and, that developments such as that proposed by the applicant, could serve as a precedent for such construction in the area. The Secretary also commented that the land adjacent to the dwelling on the south was vacant and could be platted to contain several single family lots (or two-family dwellings since the zoning in this area was R-2) . He stated that the Council had recently approved a preliminary plat for the land across the street and that the proposed plat comprehended three lots for two-family dwellings . Thus, there is a substantial amount of vacant land which could be expected to contain new structures in the near future . Chairman Gross inquired as to whether conversion of the garage to living area was possible under the building code and the Secretary responded in the affirmative. He stated that the obvious ramification would be that vehicle storage would be outside since there was no possibility for even a detached garage unless additional land was acquired. Chairman Gross stated that since the precedent of a variance is undesir- able, the conversion of the garage would present a possible option to the applicant. Commissioner Horan stated that while the con- tended hardship was primarily economic it appeared that the only way the applicant could reasonably expect to add on to his house was in the proposed fashion and that it was signif- icant that the boundary and setbacks would not be effected since the construction was vertical rather than horizontal. Chairman Gross respond- ed however, that an economic hardship was specifically excluded as grounds for a variance by the ordinance standards . The Secretary added that zoning concepts in general, involved more than just setbacks but also light, air and view considerations and that the structure originally approved under the averaging formula was a below grade garage . Chairman Gross and Commissioner Foreman stated their concern with the undesirable precedent which could be established by granting such a variance, particularly since it was not clear that all of the variance standards were met. He stated that there were many non-complying structures in the City and that it was question- able whether the location of the subject house on a waterfront was "unique" interms of en- croaching into established yards. -6- Commissioner Grosshans questioned the literal interpretation of the ordinance wording with respect to non-complying structures versus non- conforming uses . He noted that the use of the property was single-family residential as permitted by the zoning ordinance and that the main question was one of a structural variance. Chairman Gross then polled the Commission and Commissioner Pierce stated that while the main issue is one of a proposed expansion of a non- complying structure, he would be unable in other instances to approve a 13 foot encroachment into a front yard setback . He stated that he could not support the request then because of the undesirable precedent which could be estab- lished. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he could not support the request on the basis of the precedent-setting aspects as well as the fact that there were other alternatives avail- able to the applicant. He stated that he was concerned with the effect on the neighboring properties from an aesthetic point of view as well as the undesirability of creating a trend in the neighborhood of encroachment into the established front yard. Commissioner Grosshans restated his concern as to the ordinance language regarding non- conforming uses and structures, but he stated that it was apparent through a literal reading of the standards for variance that the applic- ation did not meet those criteria. Commissioner Horan stated that there was a need to address the boundary integrity of the property and that he felt there was some merit in examining the specific circumstances in light of the ordinance provisions for variance. He stated he felt that the applicant' s case did speak to the ordinance variance standard. Commissioner Scott stated that while the applicant could speak to each of the ordinance variance criteria she felt there was over- riding concern with respect to the expansion of a non-complying structure and the ramificat- ions such structure could have on the area with the establishment of an undesirable precedent. Commissioner Foreman stated that while he could not support the specific variance request at this time, he felt there was merit in the Commission and Council looking at setback re- quirements for properties having waterfrontage and that perhaps an examination of the ordinance requirements would be in order. He stated at this time however , he could not vote against the ordinance requirements by supporting the variance request. Chairman Gross stated that he felt there might be merit in examining the ordinance standards with respect to this type of property and that, sub- ject to the direction by the City Council, the Commission would take action on the application based on existing standards and the merits of the request. -7- The Secretary stated that the primary consider- ation as to establishing precedent for this type of action involved similar properties especially in this area. He noted that most of the lots in this subdivision were approx- imately 56 feet wide and that any action with respect to one such property could be expected to be a basis for similar requests for other properties. Chairman Gross noted that none of the notified Close Hearing: property owners were present and he waived the reading of the names . There was a motion by Commissioner Pierce, seconded by Commissioner Scott to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Following further discussion there was a motion Action Directing by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Resolution Recommending Horan to direct the preparation of a resolution Denial of Application denying Planning Commission Application No. No. 74054 74054 submitted by Douglas Quady, noting the (Douglas Quady) following: 1. The application fails to meet the ordin- ance standards for granting variances . 2. There is concern on the part of the Commission as to the literal reading of the non-conforming use provisions of the ordinance with respect to expansion of non-complying structures. 3m The Commission recognizes that subject to the determinations of the City Council there may be merit in examining the ord- inance standards with respect to water- front properties throughout the City. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 68041 Planning Commission Application No. 68041 (Douglas Johnston) submitted by Douglas Johnston representing the Chippewa Park Apartments at 65th and Camden Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the applicant requested certain modif�ca-tns relative to the location of the rental office and that a review of the premises with respect to a site plan .and existing signery was in order. Chairman Gross noted that neither the applicant Action Tabling nor a designated representative was present and Application No. 68041 there was a motion by Commissioner Grosshans (Douglas Johnston) seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to table the consideration of the item until such time that the applicant could be present at a regular meeting. The motion passed unanimously. A brief discussion ensued relative to the Other Business : proposed rescheduling of Commission regular and study meetings. -8- Reschedule Meetings: Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Scott to direct the Secretary to reschedule the regular Planning Commission meeting to the second Thursday of each month beginning in January 1975; and that generally the study session would be held on the fourth Thursday of each month commencing in January 1975 . The motion passed unanimously . Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously . The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11: 30 P .M. ha:irman 11/7/74 -9- 1 1