Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 01-09 MINUTES OF THE SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP JANUARY 9, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider rezoning Application No. 90028 and was called to order by the Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren at 7:35 p.m. Those present included Charles Gellerman, Yvonne Quady and Bill Hawes. INTRODUCTION The Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren reviewed a memo submitted to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group regarding the rezoning application. He reviewed the location of the proposed single - family residential project on the Soo Line property west of France Avenue North and north of the Murphy Warehouse property. He noted that the proposed zoning is for R1 and Open Space and that it would be a single- family development with 29 single- family lots and two outlots for open space. He reviewed a plat drawing of the property and noted that there would be some setback variances granted as part of the PUD approval if the application was approved. He also pointed out a proposed 40' wide private open space zone along the south side of the single - family lots on the south side of proposed 51st. He explained that this 40' wide private open space area would serve as a buffer between the single - family homes and the Murphy Warehouse. He also explained that the land would be owned by the single- family homes. He noted that there has been some concern regarding the size of the homes proposed in the development, but that they are basically consistent with the size of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Warren stated that one of the most important questions for the Commission to advise on is whether the current land use designation of I -2 (Industrial) is appropriate or whether a residential designation would be better. Mr. Warren noted that other concerns regarding the layout of the property, the buffer and the size of the homes were secondary considerations which could also be considered. Mr. Warren explained that the notices of the meeting were sent without a time designated for the meeting and that some residents were concerned as to the validity of the meeting. He stated that it was an unintentional mistake and that apparently people found out about the time of the meeting in light of the attendance shown. Mr. Warren added that there had been dumping of fill on the property without a permit the previous week and that it was also apparently without the authorization of the applicant or the owner of the property. He stated that the City had ordered that the fill be removed from the site and that that removal was in progress. ADVISORY GROUP DISCUSSION Mr. Charles Gellerman, who served as Chairman of the meeting, then stated that he had lived in the area since the 1960's and he read 1 -9 -91 1 i two letters that had been sent to him from people in the neighborhood. One letter was from Daryl Sharpe, of 5042 France Avenue North, which complained that the proposed development had lots that were too small and that quality housing was needed in the neighborhood. The letter stated that there was concern regarding resale value of the homes to be built that would be adjacent to the warehouse. There was also concern that the homes would become subsidized and occupied by low- income residents. The letter concluded with concern regarding the fill that was dumped, asking why it was dumped without an approval and wondering if this is how the developer and /or the City proceeds without public approval. Mr. Gellerman also read a letter from Daniel Middlestedt, of 5100 East Twin Lake Boulevard. The letter complained about the notice that was received, stated that the lots were too narrow, and recommended that evergreen trees be planted along the south side of the development to screen it from the warehouse property and also recommended that the City obtain lots for recreational access. Mr. Rick Hartmann then stated that he did not know about the dirt that was placed on the property, that he was out of town when it took place. He explained that he had told one of his subcontractors about the project and that the subcontractor assumed that it would be alright to place fill on the property, but that no explicit authorization had been given. He stated that the fill was being removed. He concluded by stating that the project was not being started without the City's approval. Mr. Warren added that the City did not intend to cite the contractor for a violation as long as the City was getting cooperation in removing the dirt from the site. Member Bill Hawes asked whether the new property owners would own the buffer strip between the residential zone and the industrial use at the Murphy Warehouse. Mr. Warren responded in the affirmative and noted that there would be a berm and a fence within that buffer strip. He stated that if the 02 zoning is approved for that area, a covenant restricting the use of that area to open space use would have to be filed with the titles to the property. He added that the City could instead rezone the entire area to R1 down to the Murphy property. He explained that the industrial use would then become nonconforming similar to the Howe Fertilizer operation. He stated that the burden would then be on the industrial use to establish a buffer at some time in the future if the building had to be rebuilt. Mr. Warren again stated that the land use question is the most basic question and that the buffer, lot size and other issues are other questions to be answered if the rezoning in concept is agreed to. Mr. Warren then gave the advisory group members the minimum lot sizes, widths and setbacks for the R1 zoning district. Mr. Hawes asked what the minimum side setback would be in the development. Mr. Warren answered that it would be 10 feet (though a 5' setback could be allowed in certain special circumstances) and 3' for a garage. He noted that no side yard setback variances were sought. He explained that the variance 1 -9 -91 2 would be on the front yard setback in the northerly lots in order to preserve as many trees as possible. He added that the squares on the transparency show the setbacks on each of the lots, not the building pads, and that the numbers within those setback areas indicate the floor elevations, not the square foot areas of the houses. Mr. Hawes asked whether an industrial development would do away with the trees that presently exist on the property. Mr. Warren explained the existing right -of -way dedication for 51st Avenue North and that it was possible for an industrial use to dedicate another 30 feet of right -of -way and petition for a street to be put in. He pointed out that homes fronting on Oak Street would then back up to 51st Avenue North. Member Charles Gellermann stated that when the apartments were proposed for this property, consideration was given to putting in a street in this location, but that the land was too low. Mr. Hawes concluded that an industrial use could have a road. Mr. Warren responded in the affirmative, noting that right -of -way could be dedicated and a petition could be submitted for roadway improvements. He stated that, if the proposed rezoning were approved, the City would vacate the existing right -of -way for 51st Avenue North and that a utility easement would be retained in that area. He explained that in all likelihood, the land area within the existing 51st Avenue North right -of -way would go back to the houses along Oak Street as an addition to their property. Mr. Gellerman stated that if the right -of -way land were added to the development, it could add to the value of the lots and improve the overall development. Mr. Warren responded that the land would normally revert to the property to the north since that is the plat from which the land was dedicated. He added that the City Assessor has indicated that adding to lot depth does not add much value to a property. Mr. Gellerman stated that in Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove and some other communities they are going to 80' wide lots because narrower lots are not appealing. Mr. Rick Hartmann, the applicant, stated that wider lots also involve more land for people to take care of. He stated that there are houses selling on these size lots for $85,000 to 100,000 and up. He explained that he would build some custom houses first to use as models and that other houses would be built as they were sold to buyers. Mr. Gellerman expressed concern regarding the size of the homes. Mr. Hartmann stated that he himself lived in a 960 sq. ft. house and that he had four bedrooms because he has four levels in the house. He stated that he lives on a 75' wide lot and that it's a lot of land to maintain. He stated that greater depth to the lot would allow the homes to be moved back from 51st Avenue North, but that the homes were being kept forward in order to save the trees. DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD An unidentified resident stated that the warehouse walls behind the project would devalue the homes built in that area. Mr. Hartmann stated that at least the warehouse would not be a surprise to 1 -9 -91 3 people who move in. He stated that people would be able to see ahead of time what their neighbor would be and would not lose value because of the warehouse coming in later. Mr. Duke Dalrymple, of 5142 France Avenue North, stated that he thought the houses would be rented out and that the issue is over land use. He asked why the City should allow narrower lots. Mr. Warren responded that the overall land area in the development is quite ample and that a good portion of the property is dedicated for open space and that this somewhat offsets the narrower lots. Mr. Dalrymple stated that the applicant was not giving away anything he could actually use. Mr. Warren acknowledged this to some extent, but noted that the City is pursuing acquisition of land around Twin Lake and that, in other locations, would have to pay for land. He pointed out that Mr. Hartmann is proposing to buy the land and give part of it to the City. He explained that the City would have to buy the land if it dealt directly with the Soo Line. Mr. Dalrymple stated that the land couldn't be used by Mr. Hartmann anyway. Mr. Warren pointed out that the City could not use it either without buying it normally. Regarding lot widths, Mr. Warren explained that some lot variances have been granted in other locations of the City in certain circumstances. Mr. Dalrymple asked why a standard lot size was not being applied for. Mr. Warren responded that the applicant has a right to ask for smaller lots as part of the Planned Unit Development application. Mr. Dalrymple stated that the City was giving away lot size for nothing. He stated that he felt the land should remain industrial. Mr. Gellerman inquired as to the plans for planting trees. He suggested that a row of tall trees might help to screen the warehouse and thereby help sell houses in the development. Mr. John Johnson, the project engineer from Merila and Associates, then showed the members present a cross section of the buffer treatment to be constructed. He noted that it would include a 6' to 8' high fence and a mixture of trees. He stated that a solid wall of trees is an option. He stated that the applicant was trying to meet concerns regarding a buffer from the industrial use on the residential property and also trying to preserve trees along the north side of the property and to dedicate land for open space. He stated that when all of these things are added together, there are some compromises that can be made and others that cannot. Mr. Warren explained that the open space buffer along the south side of the residential lots would alleviate the industrial use from having to provide the buffer on its property. Mr. Warren explained the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for landscape buffers where industrial uses abut residential uses. He pointed out that the existing Murphy Warehouse presently does, and has in the past, abutted I -2 zoned land and was not required to have a buffer. Mr. Ken Nelson, of 5126 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that the area north of the tracks which the applicant proposes to dedicate 1 -9 -91 4 for open space, used to be used for dumping by the Joslyn operation south of the Soo Line tracks. Mr. Warren noted that soil tests were being done on the property and added that he was not aware of any contamination of the soil north of the tracks. Mr. Nelson again reiterated that the area north of the tracks was used for dumping by Joslyn and that he reported this to the PCA (Pollution Control Agency). He related some of the history of the use of the area by Joslyn and that it used to be burned in the spring when he was a young child. He noted that he had lived in the area for approximately 50 years. Mr. John Johnson, representing the applicant, stated that soil tests done from soil borings of the area found no evidence of volatile organics. He stated that test wells had been installed by the PCA and that there was no contamination in two out of three of those wells. He noted that one of the wells south of the tracks did show ground water contamination. He stated that the ground water moves southeasterly and that the contamination appears to be confined to the area south of the tracks. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Warren then discussed some of the past history of the property. Mr. Warren explained that the City, in the early 1970's, was interested in acquiring some land adjacent to Twin Lake for open space, but that the condemnation awards were too high and that the City decided not to buy the land. Mr. John Johnson showed a map of the area and noted the flood plain boundary. He stated that the Soo Line property is a 17.5 acre parcel and that the applicant intends to develop approximately 9 acres while dedicating approximately 8 acres for open space. He stated that of the 8 acres for open space, 6 acres are in the flood plain and that five of those acres are wetland. Mr. Johnson stated that there is a use for the flood plain area, that an industrial use could use the area for some outdoor storage. Mr. Daniel Middlestedt, of 5120 East Twin Lake Boulevard, cited sections of Minnesota Statues 462.257, Subdivision 7 and 462.397 as requiring notice of any zoning action to be sent at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Mr. Warren stated that the City follows the City ordinance which requires a 7 day notice. Mr. Middlestedt stated that he felt a statute overruled a city ordinance. Mr. Warren noted that Brooklyn Center is a charter city. Mr. Middlestedt noted that the developer wants more homes than would normally be permitted by ordinance. He asked whether the developer has purchased the property or not. Mr. Rick Hartmann answered in the affirmative, stating that he has a contract on the property. He added that he has a commercial use in mind for the property if a residential use is denied. Mr. Middlestedt stated that his position was for some modification of the project. He encouraged the construction of larger homes, more in the range of $100,000 to $120,000 price range rather than the $85,000 proposed by the applicant. He stated that the area of right -of -way being 1 -9 -91 5 vacated should be added to the buffer adjacent to the industrial use rather than to the lot depth of homes along Oak Street. He also encouraged the placement of test wells to determine if there was any ground water contamination north of the tracks. Mr. Jerry Bisek, of 5101 East Twin Lake Boulevard, concluded that the other use possible for the property would not be residential. Mr. Shallcross, the Planner for the City, explained that the property is zoned industrial and that an industrial use would be a permitted use of the property. He stated that the City would not be able to negotiate the specifics of the project as long as it met basic ordinance requirements. Mr. Howard Meyer, of 5036 France Avenue North, complained that the residential street proposed by Mr. Hartmann would open up onto his driveway. He stated that he did not want to be threatened by the developer and that he would just as soon see an industrial use of the property rather than residential. Mr. Duke Dalrymple, of 5142 France Avenue North, stated that he felt the developer was being arrogant like the developer of the Bill Kelly House. Mr. Hartmann stated that he was not trying to be arrogant, but that the property would have to be developed. He noted that the taxes on the property are $30,000 a year and that he could not afford to carry this property for any length of time. Mr. Gellermann asked those present how many favored the present I -2 zoning, how many would favor an R1 zoning and how many would favor R1 with modifications. An unidentified gentleman present asked about the possibility of open space. Mr. Warren explained that the City could not zone the property open space without compensating the property for the taking of the developable value of the land. Another gentleman asked whether another Murphy warehouse could be put up. Mr. Warren responded in the affirmative. He stated that the development plan would have to meet setbacks, buffers, etc., but that an industrial use of the property was permitted under its current zoning. An unidentified woman asked about the possibility of a park. Mr. Warren explained briefly that the City is interested in developing land around Twin Lake for park purposes and noted that the developer in this case would be dedicating a substantial portion of the land to the City for open space. Mr. Ken Nelson, of 5126 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that kids from the proposed development would go to the park up East Twin Lake Boulevard. He asked whether it would be necessary to widen East Twin Lake Boulevard to accommodate this additional traffic. Mr. Warren answered that there was no plan for widening the right - of -way at this time. He stated that he would have to consult with the Director of Public Works to determine if there was any plan for widening in the future. The Planner noted that there were plans for trails in the area. An unidentified woman concluded that the developer would do what he wants to do with the property and asked whether this was correct. 1 -9 -91 6 Mr. Warren stated that zoning separates certain uses and that single- family development was not allowed under the current zoning. He explained that the developer proposes to rezone the property to a PUD /R1 designation. He further explained that rezoning does not normally control specific lot sizes and house sizes, but that those aspects were on the table with the PUD proposal before the City. He explained a little bit of the PUD process and noted that it was new to the City staff as well as to the neighbors. He concluded by explaining that the developer cannot build a single - family development now, but does have property rights to build an industrial use if the rezoning fails. Mrs. Yvonne Quady, of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, explained to those present that she had been involved years before in negotiating compromises regarding the Beach Apartments in her neighborhood. She stated that the neighbors banded together in that case and got a fairly good development because they were willing to compromise. Mr. John Johnson stated that the plan proposed by the developer is consistent with the park plan being looked at by the City Public Works Department. He also explained, that, although the right -of -way through the proposed residential area would be bigger, the street itself would not be bigger than those in the area. An unidentified woman asked what would happen to the wildlife in the area. Mr. Johnson stated that he felt that it would probably shift its habitat if it cannot live with the neighbors that move into the area. He referred people's attention to the park plan for this area and the desire to install walking trails. There followed a brief discussion of the trail proposal in this area. Mr. Johnson stated that the trails are provided in their development plan. Mr. Roger Reger, of 5024 France Avenue North, stated that he felt there wouldn't be much opposition if there were fewer and bigger lots. A woman present asked what the developer's schedule was for building on the property. Mr. Johnson stated that it was their desire to build models in the spring so that they would be open for the Parade of Homes in the fall. He stated that he felt an industrial use of the property does not make sense for the neighborhood. There followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility of tilting the roadway in some fashion to avoid lining it up directly with the Meyers' driveway on France Avenue North. Mrs. Ammon, of 5042 Ewing Avenue North, stated that she felt those present should work with the developer to try to get a good development. She noted that the City got Brookdale Ten some years before and that the City should work to get a better development this time. Mr. Duke Dalrymple argued for fewer and bigger lots. Mr. Warren stated that he did not believe the City could require lots larger than the basic City requirement in the R1 zone, namely, a 75' wide lot. In response to a question from Mrs. Meyer, Mr. Warren gave the buffer and setback requirements for an industrial 1 -9 -91 7 use on the Soo Line property. Mr. Dalrymple asked whether an office use would be permitted. Mr. Warren indicated that it would not be permitted in the I -2 zone. Mr. Gellerman asked whether it would be possible to rezone the property to commercial. Mr. Warren responded that he doubted that such a rezoning would be requested. He stated that he did not see the area as a viable commercial zoning district because of its location. He added that he did not think multiple family is acceptable and, if it were zoned for townhouses, there would be even more units than is being sought by the developer now. He concluded that the City would be left with the existing I -2 zoning if the R1 zoning were rejected. Mr. Dalrymple stated that the neighborhood does not need more small homes. Another unidentified woman expressed concern regarding traffic from the residential development. Mr. Shallcross explained that one of the staff's concerns in looking at this property over the years has been the possibility for truck traffic going further up France than it already does and intruding into the residential neighborhood. Mrs. Meyer pointed out that such traffic would be during the day and would not be as objectionable as residential traffic toward her property at night. Mr. Ken Nelson expressed concern about the possibility of some traffic moving up East Twin Lake Boulevard to get to Brooklyn Boulevard and then to Highway 100 if the entrance ramp at 50th Avenue North were closed. Mr. Warren stated that that seemed to be a circuitous route. He stated that it was far more likely that residents that live along East Twin Lake Boulevard will use 51st Avenue North to get to France Avenue North. Mrs. Meyer agreed and stated that there would be more lights shining at her house. Mr. John Johnson, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has told him that he is willing to increase the lot size to 75' for interior lots and 90' for corner lots, but that he still wants the setback and buffer compromises as indicated on the plan. He stated that he doubted that the applicant would be able to get title to the vacated right -of -way since it would go back to the property owners abutting Oak Street. He told those present that lot width was not perceived by the applicant to be an issue, but that some modification could be made to the plans to accommodate that concern. He also stated that the road could be shifted so that it didn't line up directly with the Meyers' driveway, but that it would either reduce lot depth or the width of the buffer, depending on which way it was moved. Mr. Warren suggested the possibility of adding screening on the Meyer property to reduce the problem of the headlights. An unidentified man asked whether the applicant would be able to do what he wants if the property is rezoned. Mr. Warren explained that the only thing that could be developed on the property under the PUD designation would be the approved development plans. An unidentified woman asked, if the property remained industrial, 1 -9 -91 8 would the City still go after land for a park and seek public input? Mr. Warren stated that there would be informational meetings, though not public hearings in the formal sense as with the rezoning. He stated that park development is something that the Park and Recreation Commission looked into. He added that no final plan has been decided on at present. Mr. Ken Peterson, of 3850 Oak Street, stated that the lots along Oak Street are 80' wide or more. He stated the development should either have larger lots or that the property should be left industrial. Mr. Shallcross pointed out that, if the property were left industrial, there is at least a possibility that a street would be put in behind the homes along Oak Street and that all of the trees which presently buffer the Murphy warehouse would be removed. A woman present asked that another meeting be set up to look at a revised plan. She stated that she did not want truck traffic in the area. She added that she would prefer larger residential homes to industrial development. Another gentleman present asked whether a revised plan was available to look at. Mr. John Johnson stated that nothing has been worked up yet, but that another plan would be developed with wider lots. He stated that the applicant needs to know if the residential zoning is acceptable. Otherwise, there isn't much sense in pursuing this option. Mr. Bill Hawes, a member of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, stated that he would definitely prefer residential use rather than industrial. An unidentified man noted that Mr. Hartmann was in business to make money and discussed the possibility that, if the residential use were denied, perhaps no industrial use would be profitable. Mr. Warren stated that, if the R1 zoning were denied, an industrial use would probably come about eventually. He stated that if an R1 zoning were later approved, the City could be sued by Mr. Hartmann for not approving his rezoning. There followed a brief discussion regarding notices and the need for another meeting. Mr. Warren explained the background of the proposal and the process that is normally pursued in reviewing a rezoning. An unidentified gentleman suggested that perhaps a limit should be placed on the number of houses rather than on the exact lot size. Mr. Warren stated that he believed it would be better to require a minimum lot size and added that he did not feel that the City could dictate a larger lot size than the standard minimum of 75' in width. Mr. Dalrymple stated that he felt the problem was the number of homes and that a traffic analysis should be done to determine what the impact would be on France Avenue North. Mr. Warren stated that a traffic analysis certainly would not show an adverse impact on France Avenue North. He stated that the impact would not be much different than the impact of Oak Street or other streets which feed 1 -9 -91 9 into France Avenue North today. He stated that the streets are designed to carry far more traffic than they actually do. Mrs. Meyer stated that she wanted residential development, but not with cars coming toward her house. She stated that if the development were set up according to the plan, she would prefer keeping the I -2 zoning. Mr. Gellerman stated that there would be another meeting and asked what the preference of the advisory group was. Mr. Hawes stated that he preferred residential development. Mrs. Quady stated that she preferred residential development with a minimum lot size in line with the City standards for the R1 zone. Mr. Gellerman stated that he had not made up his mind yet and would be contacting people in the neighborhood over the next couple of weeks. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business of the advisory up, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Chairman 1 -9 -91 10