Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 12-20 MEMORANDUM TO: SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP Charles Gellerman 537 -4314 Yvonne Quady 533 -1229 J. W. Angel 537 -9598 Clifford Williams 566 -4360 William Hawes 535 -0995 Planning Commissioners Bertil Johnson 537 -1823 Kristen Mann 535 -7646 ��/' FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspecti6n 71':.'a_' DATE: December 20, 1990 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 90028 The Planning Commission considered the above matter at a public hearing on December 6, 1990 and has referred this rezoning and site and building plan request to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The application has been submitted by Rick Hartmann of Twin View Development, Inc. who has an option on the Soo Line property, west of France Avenue North and north of the Murphy Warehouse property. The request is to rezone this property to PUD (Planned Unit Development) /R1 and Open Space for a single - family development. The property in question is presently zoned I2 (General Industry) and is bounded by France Avenue North on the east, by the Murphy Warehouse property and the Soo Line tracks on the south, by the channel between Upper and Middle Twin Lakes on the extreme west, and by 51st Avenue North and single - family homes on the north. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for a single - family residential subdivision of 29 lots, most of which would be narrower and some smaller than required in the R1 zone) and for two large outlots which would be dedicated for public open space on the westerly portion of the property. The applicant is seeking PUD approval because he wishes to have narrower and smaller lots, shallower setbacks, and a multiple zoning designation. In addition to the public open space zoning on the westerly, lowland portion of the property, the applicant proposes a 40' wide private open space strip of land along the south side of the southerly single- family lots (immediately north of the Murphy Warehouse property) to serve as a buffer between the single - family homes and the warehouse property. Normally, this buffer is required of an industrial use when it abuts single - family residential property. There is no buffer required adjacent to open space. Also part of the PUD application is a set of proposed site and building plans. The proposed homes would range in size from 962 sq. ft. to 1,200 sq. ft. in area on the main floor with expansion potential into lower levels. The proposed homes are all split entries with two -car, attached garages. (The rezoning and site and building plans are reviewed in detail in the attached staff report.) There was concern expressed at the public hearing by many nearby residents that the homes would be too small. However, they are larger than many homes in the neighborhood east of France Avenue North and, with the lower -level expansion potential, are well within the norm for homes in this general neighborhood. The Comprehensive Plan does not recommend a land use for this property, but does warn about the potential adverse effects from an industrial use and indicates that rezoning should perhaps be considered. Over the years, staff have received inquiries from a number of parties interested in the Soo Line site. We have come to the conclusion that an industrial use of the property would probably not be in the community's best interests though that is what the current zoning allows. The proposed single - family and open space use seems to us as consistent with the long -term best interests of the surrounding neighborhood as any proposal we have seen. The applicant's representative, Mr. John Johnson of Merila and Associates, has submitted plans of the proposed development and written arguments (attached) addressing the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings contained in Section 35 -208 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Neighborhood Advisory Group is reminded that all rezonings must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines and this should be the major consideration when reviewing the proposed rezoning. The following information is enclosed for review: 1. The Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90028 and minutes of the December 6, 1990 Planning Commission meeting pertaining to Application No. 90028. 2. Section 35 -208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines. 3. Section 35 -355 of the City's Zoning Ordinance which is the Planned Unit Development ordinance. 4. A map of the area showing the location of the property to be rezoned in relation to other lots, roads, etc. 5. Site plans of the development and building plans for the alternative types of homes. 2 6. A copy of Sections 35 -310, 35 -340 and 35 -341 which list the permitted and special uses in the R1, 01, and 02 zoning districts. 7. Correspondence from the applicant's representative addressing the Rezoning Evaluation Guidelines. The Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, January 9, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway. The Planning Commission would appreciate your written comments and /or recommendations by January 25, 1991. If you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact either Planner Gary Shallcross or myself at 569 -3330. If for any reason you cannot attend the meeting, please contact us as soon as possible. It is important that we have enough members present to conduct business and there will likely be people from the neighborhood present. Thank you for your participation. 3 APPLICATION NOS. 90028 AND 90029 (Twin View Development, Inc.) The Secretary then introduced the next two items of business, a request to rezone from I -1 to PUD /R1 and Open Space the vacant Soo Line Property north of the Murphy Warehouse and west of France Avenue North (The PUD submitted also includes site and building plans for single- family residential development.) and a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the 17.8 acre Soo Line property into 29 single - family lots and two open space outlots. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application No. 90028 and 90029, attached). During his presentation, the Secretary pointed out that the applicant originally wanted to seek a rezoning of the property to R2 to allow smaller single- family lots. He stated that staff were concerned that the R2 zone would also allow for two - family dwellings which were not desired in the area. The Secretary also explained that there is no buffer by an industrial use when it is adjacent to 0-2 zoned property as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Johnson noted that, at the end of East Twin Boulevard, there is a dirt road which provides access for a couple of homes along the south end of Upper Twin Lake. He asked what would happen to the access for those homes along the north side of that access easement. The Secretary stated that nothing would happen and that no improvement was proposed by either the applicant or the City at this time. Commissioner Mann asked where the 100 year flood plain line was on the westerly lots of the proposed single- family subdivision. Mr. John Johnson, an engineer with Merila and Associates representing the applicant, then showed the 100 year 12 -6 -90 3 flood plain line on a transparency. Commissioner Holmes asked whether these westerly two lots were unbuildable. The Secretary stated that, while much of the property within those lots is within the 100 year flood plain, there is a possibility to regrade land within the flood plain and create buildable areas, provided that compensating storage area is also provided within the flood plain. Commissioner Holmes asked whether an industrial use would also be unbuildable in the area described as Outlot A on the plat. The Secretary stated that the same principle would apply to an industrial use, and that compensating storage would have to be provided within the flood plain area. In response to another question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary showed the location of the present zoning line and explained that a 100' buffer would be required of any new industrial use where it would abut with R1 zoned property at a property line. He stated that the proposed rezoning and development would move that buffer issue to the south. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the buffer requirement would start at the property line or at the spur track. The Secretary stated that the buffer requirement is measured from the property line. He explained that all industrial activity, including parking and outside storage, would have to be at least 100' south of the north property line of the Murphy Warehouse property and that a screening device would have to be provided. Commissioner Bernards asked, if the concept were accepted and the current 51st Avenue North right -of -away were vacated, would there be any expense to the abutting property owners. The Secretary stated that he was not aware of any expense to be incurred. He stated that there was no intent at this time to put a roadway through the existing 51st Avenue North right -of -way. He explained that the City does not have fee title to the land and cannot sell it. Therefore, he doubted that there would be any need to replat the property. He noted that the land for 51st Avenue North had come from the plat to the north and that it was, therefore, assumed that the land would revert to that subdivision. He then showed the Commission and those present a proposed cross - section of the land including the proposed residential uses from Oak Street to the Murphy Warehouse on an overhead transparency. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. John Johnson, the Project Engineer, then addressed the Commission briefly. He stated that the effort with the proposal had been to make the best compromise between competing concerns. There is a concern, he pointed out, for a buffer from the Murphy Warehouse, also for tree preservation and wetland preservation, etc. He stated that the proposed design had addressed these concerns and tried to come out with the best compromise that would still allow for reasonable development of the land. He stated that the applicant does intend to have the plat considered with the PUD and is willing to have the matter tabled to a date certain. He stated that that willingness has not been put in writing because the applicant does not know when the PUD 12 -6 -90 4 application will be back before the Planning Commission. He went on to explain that the applicant wishes to have the homes built and open for the September, 1991 Parade of Homes. He concluded again by saying that it would be impossible to do everything that would be desirable and still develop the property. He stated that it was necessary to make some compromises and that the proposed design is their best effort at that to date. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos 90028 and 90029) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the rezoning and the preliminary plat applications. She asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the applications. Ms. Diane Lerbs, of 5107 East Twin Lake Boulevard, addressed the Commission at some length. She stated that the land that is the subject of the proposal does not look very large when you drive by it and she did not feel that it could support the amount of development proposed by the applicant. She stated that she presently lived on a dead -end street which is quiet and expressed concern that linking East Twin Lake Boulevard to France Avenue North would bring more traffic by her house. She also expressed concern regarding the ecosystem of the lake. She added that it was sad that there were only two areas in the City for single - family development. She stated that she did not want to live in North Minneapolis and that the proposed development just brings her property closer to North Minneapolis. She also stated that she supported the bike trail system which was proposed around Twin Lake. She stated that she had seen many pheasants and foxes and other wildlife on the Soo Line property. She added that federal regulations now require that if a wetland is drained, it must be replaced. She stated that affecting the wetland will also affect Twin Lake. She stated that the proposed development would affect her property value negatively. She recommended that the developer provide much larger lots. She also stated that she would be scared for her children because of the linkup of the streets. She reiterated her support for the bike trail system in the area. She stated that if she thought that the development would add to her property value, she would support it, but that she did not believe it would. She pointed out that the trains in the area make a lot of noise, but that she has accepted this inconvenience as the price to pay to live in an otherwise quiet area. She concluded by stating that she will ask the City to buy her property if the development is approved. Mr. Howard Meyer, of 5036 France Avenue North, then addressed the Commission. He stated that he had tried to block the Murphy Warehouse many years ago, but was unsuccessful. He stated that the Murphy Warehouse was supposed to have a 50' wide buffer and that the residents along France Avenue were promised a fence, green area and trees. What the residents have, he stated, is a parking lot 12 -6 -90 5 and truck traffic. He noted that a cyclone fence had recently been Put up to stop the snowmobile traffic through the area. Mr. Meyer stated that his only objection to the project is with the width of the lots and the possibility of additional traffic being generated and possible problems with on- street parking. He also asked that the applicant provide drawings which would show how the buildings sit on the other side of France Avenue and where the street will connect relative to the driveways on the east side of France. He stated he did not want traffic coming down the new 51st Avenue North toward his driveway. Mr. Meyer acknowledged that the 29 homes proposed would add to the tax base. He stated that he had lived in the area since 1962 and was glad that something was being done with the land, but that he did not want 60 vehicles a day pulling toward his driveway. Mrs. Jeanette Meyer, of 5036 France Avenue North, pointed out that there is a high incidence of cancer along France Avenue. She noted that the southwest wind blows from the Joslyn property and that the contamination of the land there may have affected the health of residents along France. She stated that she felt the soil of the Soo Line property should be tested and found clean before children are brought into the area. Mr. Dan Middlestedt, of 5120 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that he was concerned regarding the houses backing up to the warehouse. He suggested adding coniferous trees to screen the area. He also stated that he felt the developer was trying to get too much out of the land. Mr. Middlestedt recommended that the houses be spaced out and that a higher quality of house be built. He pointed out that houses in the neighborhood have not been selling and he expressed concern that these houses would also have a hard time selling. Mr. Duke Dalrymple, of 5142 France Avenue North, stated that the house size proposed by the applicant spoke for itself. He asked what price range the houses would be sold at. Mr. Rick Hartmann, the developer, stated that the price range would be between $84,900 and $115 Mr. Dalrymple asked whether the homes would be owned or rented. Mr. Hartmann stated that they would be owned. Mr. Dalrymple asked Mr. Hartmann where he has built houses in the past. Mr. Hartmann then reviewed a number of projects in the Twin Cities that he had built and stated that he had a great deal of experience in building homes. Mr. Dalrymple stated that he felt there were too many homes and that they were too crowded together. He predicted that there would be a lot of low income people moving into the homes. He also expressed concern about the water main going through the Soo Line property. The Planner stated that, as far as he knew, it had been there for some time. Mr. Dalrymple stated that a soil test was needed and concluded by stating that he was opposed to the development. 12 -6 -90 6 Mr. Roger Reger, of 5024 France Avenue North, stated that his biggest objection is with the width of the lots and the number of lots. He stated that he felt that fewer homes should be built. Ms. Jill Sherritt, of 5237 Drew Avenue North, stated that there were too many homes in the proposed development. She stated that the developer is making money out of too small an area. She stated that she did not want to lose the bike trail around Twin Lake. She stated that when she looked at the small lots, she was concerned regarding resale of the property. She wondered whether the area would become low income. She asked who would buy the homes and who would rent them. Mrs. Danae Morrison, of 5104 E. Twin Lake Boulevard, simply pointed out that there had been a house on the street for sale for five years and had not sold. She expressed skepticism that the houses proposed would sell in this area, Mrs. Dorothy Thompson, of 3807 Oak Street, stated that she wanted to see the wildlife and the trees remain. She expressed concern with the number of homes proposed and the amount of traffic that would be generated. She also expressed concern that the homes would be occupied by low income people and that they would become rental. Mrs. Diane Lerbs stated that she lived on the lake and didn't pay as much as $100,000 for her house. She doubted that the builder could charge the prices that were being quoted by the developer. Mrs. Dorothy Thompson asked what the price of the homes would be. Mr. Hartmann again stated that it would be from $84,900 and up. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant how he had arrived at 29 homes for this development. Mr. John Johnson stated that the selection of homes being built in this development was based on what was selling in this part of the Metro area. He stated that they were generally split entry homes and that the squares on the drawings show the area within which the home and the garage would be built. He stated that not as much area as was shown in these squares would actually be occupied. Mr. Harlan Lewandowski, of 4000 51st Avenue North, pointed out that there were foxes that live in the area north of the Murphy Warehouse. He stated that the community cares about this piece of land and that, although it does not own it, it does use it. He asked about the possibility of a cul -de -sac being built instead of connecting with East Twin Lake Boulevard. The Secretary stated that he thought the street was longer than allowed for a cul -de- sac, but that that possibility could be looked at. Mr. Randy Windsperger, of 3847 Oak Street, expressed concern regarding the size of the lots. He stated that he appreciated the trees in the area and noted that many of them are red oaks. He noted that those trees are susceptible to construction and that the 12 -6 -90 7 oaks would probably die from the construction. He also stated that the lot size was very tight. Mr. Thomas Kuusisto, of 4020 51st Avenue North, stated that one of the concerns of people is that there are fewer lots along Oak Street than along the proposed 51st Avenue North. He stated that he wanted to see the City's standard kept and not varied from. Mr. Kuusisto stated that, with the proximity of the development to the lake and the wetland, would an Environmental Impact Study be required? The Planner answered that he was not certain, but that he did not think there were enough lots in the subdivision to require an environmental assessment. He did point out that the development would be reviewed by the Watershed District. Mr. John Johnson stated that the threshold established by State statute would require that there be 200 or more homes before an environmental assessment is required. He stated that the number of lots proposed is so few that it almost falls into the exempt category. An unidentified person asked whether the extra space from the old 51st Avenue North right -of -way would go to the owners of property along Oak Street. The Secretary stated that he thought so, but that he would try to have the City Attorney's comments on that question for the next meeting. Mr. Jerry Bisek, of 5101 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that he would like a study of the wetland and the impact this development would have on that wetland. He stated that affecting the wetland would also have an impact on the ecology of the lake. Mr. Rick Hartmann, the developer of the proposed project, then tried to answer some of the concerns of the neighbors. Regarding the foxes and wildlife in the area, he pointed out that concern for the wildlife was one of the reasons that a substantial part of the subdivision was being dedicated to open space. An unidentified gentleman pointed out that the wetland could not be developed anyway and nothing was really being given away. Mr. Hartmann went on to state that he had the soil tested and that he was having it checked for any contamination. He also pointed out that the 962 to 1,200 sq. ft. floor area range for the new homes is the main level area. He stated that more area within the home could be finished off so that it would be as large as the homes in the area. He concluded by stating that the development would certainly not deplete the value of other properties in the area. Mrs. Diane Lerbs stated that she felt that Brooklyn Center has enough rental property right now and doesn't need more. Chairperson Malecki stated that there would be a meeting of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group to consider the application. Mr. Ron Oland, of 3829 Oak Street, stated that he did not believe it was possible to put 29 homes on the property. Commissioner Mann stated that she had a real problem with the square footage on the 12 -6 -90 8 homes. She stated that she had recently reviewed the Housing Study that was done last year and cited a passage which stated there was a lack of housing variety in Brooklyn Center. She stated that she would not want to see anything less than 1,500 to 2,000 sq. ft. houses. The study also stated that the Southwest Neighborhood has the most amenities in the City, including the lakes and Northport Park. She stated that she felt the area should be developed with large homes and that if not, the area should be left open. Commissioner Sander stated that she was familiar with the area. She stated that she felt the lots proposed were small. She added that the builder is a good builder, but that she would like to see larger lots. She also stated that she had a problem with the proposed buffer and added that resale of homes in the area would be tough with small lots. There followed a discussion of the impact of the proposed development on the ground water table in the area and the concern with contamination seeping into the water table. Mr. John Johnson, representing the applicant, stated that the ground water is at elevation 847 to 849, just under the elevation of the wetland. Mr. Johnson stated that there would be a change in the grade of 4' to 5' from France Avenue to the center of the development. Chairperson Malecki asked if the warehouse would have to provide a 100' buffer if it were burned down. The Secretary answered that that would only be the case if the lots to the north were zoned R1. He stated that, if a 40' wide open space buffer were inserted along the south sides of these lots, then no 100' buffer would be required. He noted that a public open space walkway would have alleviated the warehouse of the requirement for the buffer as well. The Secretary pointed out that the applicant approached the owner of the warehouse about conveying the buffer land to them, but that the warehouse was not interested, considering it a maintenance burden. He stated that through the PUD application, the City could waive the buffer requirement and could add the open space buffer as proposed or that it could bring the R1 zone down to the warehouse property and make the building on that property nonconforming, similar to the Howe Fertilizer property. The Secretary reminded the Commission that the first question to deal with is one of land use and whether single- family and open space is acceptable in this area, or whether the industrial zoning should remain. Chairperson Malecki stated that people in the area aren't concerned about residential use, but that this use may be a problem. She stated that she was not really comfortable with the 40' buffer, adding that she felt the open space designation was a matter of playing with numbers. The same land was involved either way. She asked about a bike trail through this area. The Secretary reviewed the proposal for bike trails in the area and stated that he did not feel the applicant's proposal is in conflict with those plans. 12 -6 -90 9 The Planner brought up the fact that a PUD is supposed to be contained in a redevelopment area as designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that it would be necessary to bring a Comprehensive Plan amendment back for the Planning Commission to consider at its next consideration of this matter. He asked the Commission to give some direction as to the area that should be designated as a redevelopment area. Commissioner Ainas suggested that the whole I -2 area be considered a redevelopment area. Commissioner Bernards agreed. The Planner also noted that engineering staff are not satisfied with the drainage proposal in France Avenue North. He stated that instead of drainage running over land two blocks north to 52nd staff have considered the possibility of sending it southward by a storm sewer to 50th Avenue North. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS 90028 AND 90029 (Twin View Development, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Johnson to table Application Nos. 90028 and 90029 and refer the matter to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. He noted that the motion was also to acknowledge the consent of the applicant to table the plat application until action on the Planned Unit Development. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 12 -6 -90 10