The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1975 05-22 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 May 22 , 1975 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8 : 00 p.m. by Commissioner Cecilia Scott. oll Call: Commissioners Scott, Engdahl , Pierce and Horan. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes : Motion by Commissioner Pierce, seconded by 4-24-75 Commis*ioner Horan to approve the minutes of the April 24 , 1975 meeting as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Jacobson Commissioner Jacobson arrived at 8: 05 p.m. Arrives : Application No. 75012 Following the Chairman' s explanation, the first (Titus, Inc. ) item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 75012, submitted by Titus , Inc . The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant requested rezoning from Cl-A to C-2 , of an 8 . 3 acre parcel lying north and west of the Super Valu store and westerly of York Avenue . He stated the large vacant parcel presently consists of a single tract which also includes 1.65 acres easterly of York Avenue and west of Xerxes . He stated that the smaller parcel was not included in the rezoning request. The Secretary reviewed the various uses permitted in each of the subject zoning districts and commented on the submitted survey of the subject' s property. He commented that on April 30 , 1975 , the applicant had conducted an informal inform- ational meeting for neighboring property owners at which time proposed plans for a small retail convenience center including a restaurant, had been discussed. Commissioner Scott recognized Mr.. Lee Larson, who represented the applicant, and Mr. George Bestrom, who represented the owner, Dayton Development Company. Also present were representatives of the appli- cant' s architect, who presented graphics rep- resenting the conceptual plans for a commercial center on the subject property. Design of the building and the proposed landscaping scheme were discussed. The Secretary commented that the primary issue before the Commission at this time, was the petition for the rezoning only, and that the plans for site and building should be reviewed for informational purposes only. -1- 5/22/75 In further discussion, Mr. Larson stated that as to the type of tenancy, it would be service- oriented businesses primarily retailing easily handled merchandise. He stated that the key factors were good access and exposure, but at a lower rent than the regional center, Brookdale, itself would command. Commissioner Scott opened the public hearing and recognized 15 notified property owners, including the owners/residents of: 5836 , 5842 , 5900 , 5910 Brooklyn Blvd. ; 5835 Xerxes Ave. No. ; 5842 , 5835 York Ave. No. ; 5836 , 5842 , 5835 Zenith Ave. No. ; 5836 , 5900 , 5906 , 5835 Abbott Ave. No. ; 3301 , 3315, 59th Ave. Non Testimony was heard both for and against the subject proposal, and it was noted that seven of the property owners clearly stated their opposition. A brief discussion ensued, through the chair, between several property owners and Mr. Larson, regarding a number of concerns including: the buffer treatment between the subject property and the residential properties; noise generation by retail projects; the need for additional retail commercial space and shopping centers in the City; ramifications upon traffic generation in the area, particularly on 59th. Avenue North; various types of permitted uses in the C-2 zone versus the Cl-A district; the impact of the proposed development at C-2 zoning upon other commercial developments in the City; and the possibility of a liquor license being issued to a restaurant on the site. Regarding traffic generation, the Director of Public Works commented on the traffic intensity on Brooklyn Boulevard and the traffic flow through the area.. Mr. Larson stated that a center of this type would primarily draw people who already were coming to or from the Brookdale Shopping Center and would not draw a significant number of people to the Center itself ,, During further discussion, in response to a number of questions, the Secretary stated the rezoning would have to be determined on its own merits, as a matter of the highest and best land use for the property, and that a rezoning could not be made contingent upon a specific type of use During further discussion, comments were made as to the possible effect on neighboring land values and property taxes. In response to several questions as to whether a market analysis should be required or whether one was provided, Mr. Larson, stated that the applicant was prepared to make a substantial investment in developing the property on the basis of a significant demand for this type of commercial space. He noted that the development was a part of the Brookdale Center which was regional in scope and that the intent was not to compete directly, with the smaller neighborhood oriented centers throughout the City. 5/22/75 -2- Close Public Hearing Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Scott explained that it was customary for the Planning Commission to defer further consideration of rezoning matters, following the public hearing, until such time that, the appropriate neighborhood advisory group had an opportunity to review the matter and to provide input to the Planning Commission at a subsequent meeting. Action Tabling Application Motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by No. 75012 (Titus, Inc . ) Commissioner Pierce to table Planning Commission and Referring to Central. Application. No. 75012 submitted by Titus, Inc. , Neighborhood Advisory and to .refer the matter to the Central Neighbor- Group hood Advisory Group for their analysis and input at a subsequent. meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Scott directed the Secretary to direct the request to the chairman of the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group and to inform the group of the date of the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Action Tabling Application Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by No. 75013 (Titus, Inc.) Commissioner Jacobson to table Planning Commission Application No. 75013 consisting of site and building plans for a possible commercial devel- opment on the subject property until such time that the previous application is reconsidered. Motion passed unanimously. Recess The meeting recessed at 9 :45 p.m. and resumed at 10 :00 p.m. Application No. 75017 The next item of business was consideration of (H. P.. Anderson) Planning Commission Application No. 75017, submitted by H. P, Anderson . The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the appli- cant is requesting permission for a special home occupation at his residence at 6501 Brooklyn Drive He stated the occupation would consist of the manufacture of custom engraved signs and name tags and possibly rubber stamps. He stated the application .indicated the business would be conducted primarily by mail. Commissioner Scott recognized the applicant and a brief discussion ensued. The applicant explained that the business was purely a hobby- type eccupat.ron involving a small piece of equ '.pment which generated no noise and did not represent a. f .re hazard. The applicant further discussed the nature of his occupation and in response to a question by Commissioner Pierce, he explained that a small stock of plastic material would be retained in his basement. lose Public Hearing Commissioner Scott noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and that none of the notified property onwers was present. Motion by Commiss- ioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. -3- 5/22/75 In further discussion, the applicant stated that the possibility of a rubber stamp business was for future consideration, depending upon the success of the name plate engraving activity. Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Action Recommending Commissioner Jacobson to recommend approval of Approval of Application Planning Commission Application No. 75017 submitted No. 75017 by H. P . Anderson, subject to the following (H. P. Anderson) conditions: 1. The permit shall be issued to the applicant and shall be non-transferable. 2 . Retail sales of merchandise on the premises is expressly prohibited, 3. The permit is subject to all applicable ordinance requirements and violation thereof may be grounds for revocation. The motion passed unanimously. The next .item of business was consideration of Application No. 75015 Planning Commission Application No. 75015 (James Hannay) submitted by James Hannay. The item was introduced by the Secretary, who explained the applicant was seeking permission to build a new dwelling on the property at 5449 Emerson Avenue North, which is sub-standard in both width and area. He stated that several technical variances from Sect,-cn 35-400 were involved: 1. Ws.dth - 35 foot ^Variance from 75 foot requirement; 2 . Area - 4 , 366 square foot % aria.nce from 9 , 500 square foot requirement (or 1 ,516 variance from the "70% rule" requirement, which would permit construction on a 6,650 square foot lot) ; Si_deya.rd setbacks - the appl cant, proposes to center a. 26 foot wide house on the lot, resulting in a 7 foot: setback on each side; resulting i.n two 3-foot variances from the 10 foot requi.rementx The Secretary also commented that there was precedent in this neighborhood, and block, which consisted of a number of 40 foot lots.. He stated that the Clay Council in June 1970 , approved Application Nor 70026 , which comprehended virtually identical circumstances, including house width, on a parcel three lots to the south. Commissioner Scott recognized the applicant, and an extensive discussion ensued as to the proposed width of the house-, Mr. Hannay stated that a 26 foot width was desirable in that it represented a reasonable size house leaving adequate side- yard space, while maximizing the front and rear yard. He stated the house represented the best design in terms of number of bedrooms and other living space. 5/22/75 -4- In further discussion, the Secretary stated that another factor which had potential conflict with the ordinance, involves the applicant 's present occupancy of a small structure at the rear of the property abutting the alley. He stated that it was a former accessory building at least 30 years old, which has been converted over the years into a dwelling. He stated the applicant proposes to live there until the new dwelling could be occupied, at which time the structure would be then razed and any useable materials would be salvaged and used in finishing the basement of the new home. The Secretary stated the ordinance permitted only one principal building on a lot and prohibited the use of an accessory structure as a dwelling. He recommended that the demolition or removal of the existing structure should be specified as a condition of the variance. .An extensive discussion ensued. In response to a question by Commissioner Horan, Mr. Hannay stated that the intent was to dismantle the existing structure as soon as the new one was liveable.. Commissioner Engdahl stated that in light of the ordinance requirements, it was essential to clearly specify at which time the existing struct- ure should be razed or removed from the premises once construction of the new dwelling has commen- ced.. He suggested that perhaps stipulation could be made that the structure would be removed 150 days from the issuance of the permit, or 60 days from occupancy of the new structure, whichever occurred first. Mr. Hannay inquired as to whether a stipulation would mandate his vacating the premises, should. unforeseen circumstances delay the construction or completion of the new dwelling beyond the estab- lished limits. The Secretary responded in the aff .rmat .ve, unless specific arrangements would be made with the City. Commissioner Engdahl commented as to the applicant's responsibility as a property owner to see that the premises con- formed with applicable code requirements. Commissioner Scott noted that a public hearing had been scheduled and recognized the resident of 5447 Emerson Avenue North, who stated she had no objections to the variance. Close Public Hearing Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Action Recommending Following further discussion regarding the need Approval of -Application to stipulate the removal of the existing building No. 75015 once new construction had commenced, there was a (James Hannay) motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Horan to recommend approval of Application No. 70515 submitted by James Hannay, noting that the subject parcel was platted at its existing dimensions and that acquisition of -5- additional property from adjacent lots was not feasible; also noting the previous Council action contained in Application No. 70026 involving a neighboring property under similar circumstances; and, subject to the condition that the existing structure presently used as a dwelling, shall be razed or removed 150 days after issuance of a permit, or 60 days after occupancy of the new dwelling, whichever occurs first. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 75016 Planning Commission Application No. 75016, (James Williams) submitted by James Williams. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks permission to construct a major addition onto a dwelling which is non- complying as to setback. He stated that Section 35-111 provides that nonconforming structures may not be enlarged or struct- urally altered. He commented that the structure at 5322 Irving Avenue North, is on a 50 foot wide lot and was built in 1940. He stated there is an approx- imate seven foot side-yard setback deficiency on one side. He also noted that the front yard setback was approximately 25 feet. He stated the applicant intends to add two bed- rooms and to rework the exterior finish of the entire structure. He stated that given the size of the proposed addition, the entire structure would have to be brought into compliance with the building code He noted that City records indicated that the house was remodeled, including the upgrading of the plumbing and wiring in 1968 . Commissioner Scott recognized the applicant and an extensive discussion ensued. The applicant stated that he was a contractor and he felt that the structure was of such condition to merit the investment in a major, addition and upgrading. He stated that the renovation and expansion would represent an improvement in the neighborhood resulting in an enhancement of the area, which consisted of older, homes . He stated that it was his intent to sell the home when he had completed the remodeling work. The Commission reviewed the proposed addition plans and further discussion ensued.. Commissioner Scott noted that a public hearing Close Public Hearing had been scheduled and that none of the notified property owners were present° Motion by Commissioner Pierce, seconded by Commissioner Horan to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Action Recommending Commissioner Pierce to recommend approval of Approval of Application Planning Commission Application No. 75016 No. submitted by Mr. James Williams, subject to (Jamees s Williams)W the following conditions : 1. The proposed addition shall conform with existing setback requirements. 5/22/7 5 -6- 2 . The exterior finish of the existing structur( shall be rejuvenated so to be compatible witl the finish of the new construction. 3 . The entire structure shall be brought into compliance with applicable codes as deter- mined by the Building Official. Motion passed unanimously. Application No. 75001 The next item of business was consideration of (Ryan Oldsmobile, Inc,_ ) Planning Commission Application No. 75001, consisting of the approved special use permit for R. C. Ryan Oldsmobile, .Inc . , 6700 Brooklyn Boulevard. The item was introudced by the Secretary, who stated that it consisted of a con- tinued review of the site plan approved earlier this year, which the applicant proposes to amend. He stated that unauthorized site work consisting cf the removal of several trees and planter- delineators was accomplished in April . He explained that earlier review by the Commission centered on three basic concerns : 1 . Landscaping, to include replacement of subst.antiaa sized trees, which had been removed from the site and which were .indicated on the existing approved plan., 2 . Pain ng�and upgrading of the site, particul- arly the area to the rear of the service building, which was not improved, but which was being utilized for new and used car storage . Als-o included was the repair of i thcse paved areas disturbed during the remora L of the concrete planter-delineators earl .er this year, 3 Del_neatcn of all parking, driving, and eha_rle display areas according to the apprc, ed plan. The Secretary stated that the applicant had submitted an updated site plan indicating exist- ing ccndit.,c:ns as well as proposed landscape ..mprc ements _ He indicated that the large area rc the rear of the storage building was indicated as a. future storage area,, He reviewed the or.igin- ally, approved site plan approved for Vel.ie Olds- mcbile, and compared it to the plan submitted by the applicant_ Commissioner Scott recognized Mr, Ryan, and an extens-i e discussion ensued. Mr. Ryan indicated that. most of the trees which had been removed from the site were not in good health or were stumps, He stated that many of the plantings ndreated on the original plan had been removed by the previous operator. With regard to the large concrete planter-delin- eators, Mr. Ryan said that they represented obstacles to efficient vehicle storage and display as well as to efficient snow removal. -7- 5/22/75 Regarding the paving and upgrading of the rear area, My . Ryan stated that whereas he :recognized the need to improve the area so that it could be used, he was not in a position to do so at the present time in consideration of a lease agreement he had with the owner of' the property. He stated that a possible purchase agreement would not be in effect for approximately two years and thus he would propose to defer grading and paving of that area. Mr „ Ryan acknowledged that there was a drainage problem in the rear, area and a brief discussion ensued with the Director of Public Works. The Secretary commented that the ordinance required that all driving and parking areas should be paved unless otherwise improved with landscaping. He stated it was the recommendation that the subject area should not be used for vehicle parking or storage, but rather, be maintained as an open area with viable turf to be used for snow storage purposes in the wintertime, A review ensued as to the proposed landscaping, and Commissioner Scott stated that consistent with the original approved ,plans , additional plantings such as trees of a species and size as those indicated on the revised plans should be planted in the permi.eter, boulevard area in front of the dealership. She noted that the original plan called for six trees and inquired as to whether any of the trees were in existence The Secretary responded in the negative. An extensive discussion ensued, and Mr . Ryan stated his objection to plantings in the front boulevard area in that they would tend to obstruct the view of the new and used car display. Commissioner Engdahl stated that it was doubtful that a total of six trees preperly spaced over almost. 600 feet would cause an obstruction to the display area . Commissioner Horan noted that the recently approved sign variance permitted the applicant a substantial amount of signery with high visual impact. He stated it was doubtful six trees of the size and species indicated would cause any obstruction. In further discussion, the Secretary and Director of Public Works commented that with respect to the indicated customer parking area to the front of the site, a concrete delineator, should be provided between that area. and the new car display area . Mr. Ryan stated that he would propose to utilize striping and perhaps posts and .rails to delineate the subject area causing minimum interference with snow removal. The Director of Public Wooks commented that a concrete delineator consisting of curb surrounding an island would be consistent with other comparable approvals. He stated that the objection to concrete delineators on the basis that they caused obstruction to snow removal,, was a commonly heard argument, but that in his opinion, the advantages of such permanent delineators fair outweighed any inconveniences to periodic snow remova.lN 5/22/75 -8- Action Recommending Following tur-ther discussion, there was a motion Approval, of Site Plan by Comm ssicne_r Pierce, seconded by Commissioner Amendments Contained Hcran tc reccmmend approval of the amended site in Application. No. plan contained in Planning Commission Application 75001 Nv . 15001, submitted by R. C. Ryan Oldsmobile, (Ryan Oldsmobile) Inc . , sub3ect to the following conditions : 1 . In addit-�cn to the trees specified on the submitted plan, six additional trees of cclmpara.b-te size and species shall be distributed equidistantly along the west and achy*h perimeter of the site. 2 . A concrete delineator as approved by the City Engineer , shall be installed between the indicated customer parking area and ,,.,et cle display and storage area at the t-rrr.t t the site , 3. A'. parking, driving and vehicle storage areas shall be properly striped as indicated c;n the approved, plans. 4 A pe;°torrrance agreement and supporting ri-nanc al guarantee (in an amount to be de�e.rrr:. red by the City Manager) shall _be submitted t assure completion of the req 1 _,ed slto improvements 5 _ rte un-np,-c�,ed area to the rear of the u ser ce b .ding shall not be utilized r d }ny _ r parking vehicles until waded and paved as approved b"; the c t_5- " 6 . Feq,,� t e d sc reen ing between the site and abutting re-sidential properties shall be p:-cpely n irtaimed to assure structural anal ae&thetic integrity,. M,_ t-: cn F-;;csed ,�nan .mcusly . Ad}ourn.ment M-ticr, h� C mmissicner Jacobson , seconded by C mym. sL . cner Engdahl to a.d�curn the meeting. The m.ct cn pas:sed unanimously. The Planning CCMm'-=a 1Cn meeting adjourned at 12 :15 a.m. Chairman -9- 5/22/75 1 1