Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1967 PC Apps CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zohina Application Apps. No. 67026 Generally bounded by: 60th Avenue (extended�,; Street Location of Property the west, 1ot lines of the properties on the west side of June Avenue; 5 t Avenue Co.R .No.1 ; and the west City limits. Parcels 500, 645, and 1910, Aud.Sub.216; Legal Description of Property Outtll_ot_s 1, 2, 3.4, and 5. Dahlen adglition. Owner: Name Address Telephone Applicant: Darrell Farr AddressY. Telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance X Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Approval of the preliminary plat of "Twin Lake North Addition Reason for Request Fee $27.00 Receipt No.22609 Applicant Yak 1, 1967 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration may 18, 1967 dune 12, 1967 May 25, 1967 July 10, 1967 August 14, 1967 August 28, 1967 September 11, 1967 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the 211- day of i4l Ar Y 19.41, the request represented by this petition was pprove disapproved subject to the following conditions. circle one) / � J t. N� y_ Vr..... , _ .. . z nwlo ,at .. tl L� �� � REPORT ON THE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LAKE IN TWIN LAKES NORTH ADDITION AND A CHANNEL CONNECTION TO TWIN LAKES for Darrell Farr Developer - Twin Lakes North Addition Prepared by Itasca Engineering, Inc. Cokato, Minnesota August 21, 1967 1 liereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Lawrence E. Samstad, P.E. Civil Engineer - Rog. No. 6220 REPORT ON TILE FEASIBILITY OF A PROPOSED LAKE IN TWIN LAKES NORTH ADDITION and A CHANNEL CONNECTION TO TWIN LAKES for Darrell Farr, Developer - Twin Lakes North Addition August 21, 1967 Purpose This report evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of a proposed lake as an extension of an upper arm of North Twin Lakes across Bass Lake Road continuing north approximately 1,000 feet. The proposed lake lies approximately 500 feet west of June Avenue North. This area, I understand, is to be part of a town house and apartment development. This report contains recommendations that are general in nature and does not include specific project designs nor any detailed drawings or specifications. At this stage the report includes only recommendations which have to do with the development of the proposed lake and its influence on the existing Twin Lakes. Review Items I have reviewed the proposed project maps and area soil borings. I have also reviewed soil studies and profile maps on the upgrading of County Road #10. Further, I have made a preliminary study for the North Suburban Water Conservation Committee on possible flood proofing and lake level maintenance measures for Twin Lakes which appears at the end of this report. In reviewing the basic plan of development in the Twin Lakes N(jrth Addition, it is apparent that the proposed extension of the upper arm of Twin Lakes is a plan which would be complimentary to the area. It would increase the esthetic beauty of the siirroundings in conjunction with impending development. Further, the proposed work, with some minor changes, would fit in with the requirements of the Villages of Brooklyn Center and Crystal and specifically the needs of the North Suburban Water Conservation Committee concerning proper maintenance of Twin Lakes. The development of the lake in Twin Lakes North Addition would in my opinion be complimentary to Twin Lakes itself and have multiple benefits. Change Required I would propose that you consider this lake as not only an area for esthetic beauty but also a storm water holding area and an area to be used for lake level maintenance of Twin Lakes. The only change necessary to accomplish this fact would be to move the boat house approximately 500 feet south and then establish an earth dam across the lower end of the proposed lake which is actually a drainageway for storm water runoff. (See enclosed drawing. ) The upper area of the lake along the drainageway should be allowed to fluctuate in water level. An easement should be given to Brooklyn Center and Crystal for the operation of this dike or dam to help alleviate flood water problems in the Twin Lakes Area. Twin Lakes North Addition -2- August 2111 1967 iThe small southern portion of the lake would then be contiguous and at the same water level as Twin Lakes, Small oar driven boats or small sail craft could then be launched at either level. During times when the water levels were equal some provision could be made to allow boats to pass from one area to the other. The north portion of the proposed lake shoild be dredged so that the area would remain a lake even at low water levels. With this change to your layout, I feel that the integrity of your plan, as well as the need for water control entering Twin Lakes from this area, can be accomplished without sacrificing any part of the development or creating any further problems, Advantages The advantages of the development with the change noted are many. First, as we stated here, this area can be used for storm water collection and control to help alleviate the flooding problems in Twin Lakes. Further, this area could be a part of a total project envisioned by the North Suburban Water Conservation Committee to use undeveloped areas such as this for storm water controls installed as a part of a planned program development for the Twin Lakes area. It might be noted in the report to the NSWCC which is included with this report as an appendix that the area of Twin Lakes North Addition is one of the few areas from which the communities bordering Twin Lakes can expect any relief from the flooding problems of Twin Lakes. There also may be future possibilities in correlating this development with flood control and lake level maintenance in a low undeveloped area which now lies between Crystal Airport and Twin Lakes. Second, the proposed lake will enhance the scenic beauty of the area visible from County Road 10 and an area which can be used by residents of Brooklyn Center and Crystal, as well as residents of your new development. Third, the dike or dam site can be disguised to blend in with the area and not become an obtrusive or clumsy appearing structure. With proper land- scaping this area could be made to appear as a beautiful park area. Fourth, again in considering proper landscaping, what is now a low flat mosquito breeding area can be developed into an open water lake. Properly sloped .shorelines and waterlines, even with fluctuating water levels, can be relatively free of mosquito breeding sites. This, of course, would be an advantage to the entire area. Another feature of the proposed lake, a new area for small boating facilities or smallsail driven craft would be opened as a recreational benefit. Disadvantages As far as disadvantages go there are few that we can envision at this time. The question has been raised regarding the creation of a lake which might syphon off water from Twin Lakes by breaking the seal of Twin Lakes or allowing the water to drain out through some sub-surface flaw or channel. I have considered this thoroughly and in my previous report have indicated that the surface water level of Twin Lakes is really an expression of the ground water Twin Lakes North Addition -3- Augnst 21, 1967 table in the area from several miles west , eastward through Twin Lakes to the Mississippi River. The Twin Lakes North Addition area where your site is located is, of course, a part of that total area. Essentially this whole area is underlain by a loamy sand which is pervious and permeable to water. It is my opinion that no seal on Twin Lakes exists and that the surface level of Twin Lakes will raise and lower generally as the water table raises and lowers -- except specifically for times when heavy storm water runoffs occur. It is my opinion the dredging of your lake in the Twin Lakes North Addition and the connection t" Twin Lakes could not deplete Twin Lakes of any water,. I do feel, however, that it would, particularly during low water periods, help maintain the water level in Twin Lakes. The transference of an easement for lake level maintenance to the Villages of Brooklyn Center and Crystal in this area could further help ease this problem. It is my opinion that what might apparently be a disadvantage is truly an advantage to the Twin Lakes community. The only disadvantage foreseen is the possibility of future happenings which would disturb the water table in the area. The problem still exists in that improper handling of water in the entire Shingle Creek Watershed could cause the water table to recede, We most therefore indicate to you that you should exInut to create your lake, through dredging or whatever means you find necessary, to a depth of at least 8401 mean sea level datum elevation or even to the elevation 8351 . This will assure you of a lake even if water levels recede several feet. It might be at that time no connection would remain from your proposed lake tG the main area of Twin Lakes. However, yot would be assured of open water and maintained scenic beauty. Further, dredging this deep will also eliminate a good deal of algae and aquatic growth. General Elevation Taking a realistic look at your requirements and plans, as well as the needs of the Twin Lakes area, it is my opinion that they compliment each other so well that it makes your project not only a feasible project but also a required project for the general benefit of the area. It is my suggestion to you that you work closely with Villages of Brooklyn Center and Crystal and the North Suburban Water Conservation Committee in the development of y ovr project and that you consider giving these communities reasonable easements that they might require for flood control and lake level maintenance on Twin Lakes. These easements will not only be a benefit to the Train Lakes area U t will also be a benefit t" you and your development. Summary It is my finding and opinion that the dredging and development of a lake in the Twin Lakes North Addition, north of Bass Lake Road and west of June Avenue North and connected t- Twin Lakes by a small channel, will be a benefit t" the total area if the final plans involve flood control, lake level maintenance, mosquito control, and scenic landscaping. It is my opinion based on this study, as well as the study included in the appendix, i I Twin Lakes North Addition -4- August 21, 1967 i . that dredging of this lake will not impair the lake level of Twin Lakes and that it will not drain water from Twin Lakes but will assist in maintaining the level of Twin Lakes. It is my opinion that proper landscaping of this area will decrease the mosquito breeding problem in the area. It is my opinion also, that proper landscaping will also add to the beauty of the area and be an enhancement to property values in the community. It is my opinion that there should be no reason for objection to this project if proper easements are given to the communities involved so that the area may be maintained for the specific purposes of maintaining Twin Lakes in its present condition. The project, in my opinion, is complimentary to any long range plans for watershed development in the Twin Lakes area. 4 40 A P P E N D I X i PRELIMINARY REPORT ON THE STUDY OF MINIMUM WATER UVELS AND FLOOD PROBLEMS IN TWIN LAKES AND RYAN LAKE for the North Suburban water Conservation C<:,mmittc?e Prepared by Itasca Engineerinl,, Inc. Cokato, Minnesota March S, 1966 i I hereby certify that this report was propared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. -4a Lawrence E, Samstad,�P. E Civil Engineer - Rego No,,_6220 _ PRELIMINARY REPORT to the North Suburban W,,iter Conservation Committee oil the STUDY OF MINIMM WATER LEVELS AND FLOOD PROBLEMS IN TWIN LAKES AND RYAN LAKE March 5, 1966 Purpose The purpose of this preliminary report is strictly informational with respect to the goals of the study ., It encompasses the general bindings up to this time and indicates the need for further directive decisions by the North Suburban Water Conservation Committee before further work is undertaken and further monies spent Summary of Preliminary Findings The investigation of lake level control and flood control on Twin . Lakes and Ryan Lake opened a Pandora 's Box of problems which took the study into areas beyond the watershed of 'Twin Lakes. It is apparent that the scope of this control passes municipal boundaries and even watershed boundaries, Essentially this is the problem. In order to adequately control the water surface levels on 'Thin and Ryan Lakes, areas to the west of the Twin Lakes Watershed should incorporate some type of water control. Specifically, Pomerleau Lake, Bass Lake, Bass Creek and Marsh, Twin Lakes and Shingle Creek are the surface expressions of the ground water table in the upper watershed of Shingle Creek and through the Twin Lakes Watershed. (See Fig, 1) Therefore, if this water table drops at any point it will adversely affect the other areas, Further investigation in my opinion would show that 'the, lake levels of Eagle Lake and Pike Lake are also involved with this correlation of watct• table and lake levels, At this point, it is imperati%e if the Twin Lakes surface lee-1 i,, t- be maintained during dry periods with any degree of assurance , the other water tables in the upper Shingle Creek Watershed must be maintained through cooperation with those other municipalities affected. Conversely, if the communities in the upper Shingle Creek Watershed wish to maintain Pomerleau Lake, Bass Lake, Pike Lake and Eagle Lake at or near their present condition, they must expect tho cooperation of the Twin Lakes Watershed area in maintaining levels in Twin and Ryan Lakes, NSWCC - Twin and Ryan Lakes - 2 - March 5 1966 The problem can be solved by mutual cooperation In this case, there is no question of mutual benefit because any improvement in water table or lake level control in dither area will benefit the other. Another point to consider is the control of surface waters in the total Shingle Creek Watershed to provide better infiltration of water to the water table. Flood control in the uppermost regions of they watershed is of prime importance and is and can be beneficial to the areas at the top of the watershed as well as areas downstream. A specific example of this is Twin Lake itself, where flood control is an important factor in controlling the lake levels, Our preliminary investigation shows that little: can be done in improving flood water runoff without improving the channel between Ryan Lake and Shingle Creek. (In any case this is neither the proper nor moral thing to do since ridding one area of flood waters by passing them on to another area below is only complicating the downstream problem ) Therefore, the investigation sought areas where flood control could he provided so that runoff from the areas draining to Twin Lakes could be controlled and in effect drained to the lake in a slow and controlled manner. Unfortunately, only a few acres (about 700 acres of the 51UOI acres in the Twin Lake Watershed) could be found for such control at this time since the area has been heavily developed residentially and industrially. Some of this excess runoff is needed to replenish ground water which can in turn be tile-drained slowly to Twin Lakes thus providing better . lake level control. Although only a few acres can be found at this time, they must be used NOW to provide the remaining elements of flood control, It may even be possible to combine this flood control with development of these acres for further housing and industrial sites. With just this problem, it is easy to see if development of the Shingle Creel: Watershed continues as the Twin Lakes Watershed (which is a .sub- watershed to Shingle Creek), flood problems on Shingle Creek will increase. More and more drainage of the upper Shingle. Creek Watershed will mean that lakes such as Bass and Eagle Lakes will fluctuate more and more, If the drainage is funneled directly to Shingle Creek, less and less water will infiltrate to the water table and thus the water table will begin to recede thereby adversely affecting all lake levels in the entire Shingle Creek Watershed. Essentially the problems of Bass and Eagle: Lakes as well as the other small lakes in the area will approach the problem of 'Twin Lakes if nothing is done prior to the urbanization of the upper Shingle Creek Watershed, The benefits of upstream flood control at this time may seem nebulous, however, much can be gained by such work. to Flood plain land can be improved, (In upper areas of the watershed this is usually marsh or intermittently wet low ground.) NSWCC - Twin and Ryan Lakes - 3 - March 5, 1966 2. Water controlled on the upper portions of the watershed has a longer time to penetrate the soil and replenish the water table, thereby providing more stable lake levels. 3. Land on which flood control is provided is more valuable land sincm the effect of severe rainfalls and runoff can be predicted,. A. Drainage structures can be decreased in sire rather than incrcasud, 5. Lakes and streams may be prudently maintained in their existing condition or in an improved condition, 6. Siltation control which is a bp-product so to speak of flood control can he effective in reducing sedimentation of lakes, 7. Urbanization of the arras involved may take place in an orderly manner rather than haphazardly which in turn can solve many municipal problems, With these and other benefits thor" is reason why flood control should be a • ar ppi he � � t d at this time huLoree further problems arise In summary , the Twin Lakes and Ryan Lake problem (which at first may seem an ease problem to solve pumping by water for lake level control } p }, and relieving excess water by greafor capacity drainageways) has a basics solution -- water control -- which in turn is complicated by Nature 's disrcgae•d for municipal or legal boundaries. Water control especially for this area is a matter of cooperation for individual and mutual be_nelit„ It: must be accomplished at this time to alleviate existing problems and head off impending- problems. It must be accom- plishvd in this cast by all communities of the Shingle Creek Watershed in order that all of these areas benefit by any proposed project. This report stresses that the solution to flood control and lake level maintenance on a ( rmanent basis: lies not only in the Twin Lakes Watershed but in areas contiguous to it in essentially all of the Shingl" Creek Watershed , The answer is cooperation between munici- paliti-s in this area to prov.idu water controls which area individually and mutually bcnefic�ial, Further work on drainage and other water control structures at tfiis time will be temporary in nature until the TOTAL area works together to solve each problem: NOTE: This is not a complete report and should not be quoted as such. It is meant to be informational and only indicates the need for clarifying decisions by the NSWUU in defining the direction in which further action should be taken,, r - I FIGURE. 1 . PROFILE. OF GROUNDWATER TABL , ON AN FAST-WE'ST LINE': ALONG 61st AVENUE, IN I3ROOKLYN CENTER . , w CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application App. No. 67027 Generally bounded by: 60th Avenue (extended) ; Street Location of Property the west 1st lines of the properties o, n the west side of June Avenue; 58th Avenue(Co.Rd.No.10) ; and the west City limits, Parcels 500, 645, and 1910, Aud.Sub. 216; Legal Description of Property Outlots 112,3,4,and_5, Dahlen Addition; Owner: Name Address Telephone Applicant: Darrell Farr Address Telephone Type of Request: x Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Rezoning from R-1 (single family residential) to R-3 (Townhouse) and R5 (Walkup-2z story) . Reason for Request Fee $25.00 Receipt No.22609 Applicant May 1, 1967 Date i Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration May 18, 1967 June 12, 1967 Ray 25, 1967 July 10, 1967 August 14, 1967 August 28, 1967 September 11, 1967 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the 5- day of , 19,0, the request represented by this petition was ppro ed disapproved subject to the following conditions. ircle one) w „.. 'r ., ,,. . . .. .. .. ,....... >J.. . .. .... ... r ..�. .: i • '.4�: ... .. r � ,. i • -;�=, � - :'C': "i" ._. 2_z.S ti''.C};.?ms`s).;r��r'E "r�i...�..',� ,.. ., �, __�5�i'4_.��? `..1 . ._ ... I _ .. d r I S __. � _.. z ., _�,�s _ .. . .. ,.. i, • l CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Department of Planning and Inspection • September, 1973 FILL' MEMORA.MDUM Regarding Application Numbers 67026, 67027, 67054 65002, 70012, 73030, and 73031 Subject: Chronology of the development of the area known as Twin Lake North Addition. The development of this area, which today comprises the sites of the Twin Lake North Apartments and the Shores Townhouses (t::-_ second phase of which is proposed in the current Planning Commission Applica- tion No. 73031) officially dates back to May 1, 1967, when Mr. Darrel Farr submitted applications for rezoning and preliminary plat approval. Applications 67026 and 67027 were first considered together on May 18, 1967 and received extensive review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The items were tabled for further auvisement, "with the proviso that notification of the Commission's recommendation on the applications and the date of the Council 's hearing of the matter be mailed to the persons notifier3" of that evening's hearing. On May 25, 1967 the applications we,..-, -oconsidered and recommen- dation was made for approval of the ::y Laat application (No. 67026) . There was also a recommendation that the rezoning application (No. 67027) be approved as requested with the wz. ,terly portion of the property being zoned R-5 and the easterly portion being zoned R•-3. in further discussion, the then City Enc iz_e<: 1%ir. VanEeck..cut, discussed "a possible sidewalk installation program" . The minutes also indicate that "Chairman Jensen received a let,,:ar.. of protest to the Farr applications, acted upon previously in the _,_-. vening from a Mrs. Braun of 5825 June Avenue North for placement in =the files. The Commission discussed its actions on the applications with Mrs. Braun" . The City Council considered the two applications on June 12, 1967. The minutes of that meeting indicated that the Mayor "called upon interested parties in attendance for comment. After lengthy discussion on all points presented and after providing an opportunity.,, for all persons interested to offer their comments, the public hearing • was closed" . Those minutes also indicate there was a lengthy delibera- tion of the information presented and there was a unanimous motion to table the applications "thus providing an opportunity for the Council and staff to review and develop necessary information and providing for an on site inspection of the subject property" . ,,f i 1 _ .: ... . '.6 • File Memorandum Page 2 On July 10, 1967, the matters were reconsidered. There is in- dication that a "lengthy discussion ensued between the Council, the applicant, and interested parties in attendance, including represen- tation from the Upper Twin Lake Association". The minutes state that "the consensus of the Council was that, clue to the numerous factors involved in the development of this property, further time for study would be necessary" . The matters were then retabled. At the August 14th Council. meeting, a Mr. Dolan, representing Darrel Farr discussed the proposed Twin Lake North Addition develop- ment, and the matters were then retabled until the next meeting to allow for adequate review of what was termed the "Samsted Report" (the reference is to a report which was filed by Mr. Lawrence Samsted, a civil engineer working for Itasca Engineering, entitled "Report on the Feasibility of a Proposed Lake in Twin Lake North Addition, and A Channel Connection to Twin Lake" which was prepared for Darrel Farr) . On August 28, 1967 a public hearing was reopened, and the minutes indicate that the Mayor reviewed the history of the request before the Commission and the Council. He introduced Mr. ,Samsted, who explained the results of his study and an3wered questions from • the Council and other persons in attenuarce at the meeting. At the Mayor's request, Mr. Farr e_ia <: .v_L. Herbert Baldwin, the landscape architect on the proposed project, presented five various development proposals for the property* which had been prepared. The "development alternatives" were displayed and a discussion ensued. The August 28, 1967 meeting minutes then indicate that action was taken directing the City Manager and City A}torney "to assemble the facts ascertained by the Council with relation to the aprA i_on- tions No. 67026 and No. 67027, and to prepare a proper resolution approving the request contained in those applications; including in the resolution, various findings of the Council" . There was also action directing the City Attorney to prepare a report "to the effect that the installation and maintenance of the proposed landscape area along the east side of the townhouse/multiple-residence project can be guaranteed through either deed covenants or by a performance agree- ment and performance bond of approximately five years duration" . On September 11, 1967, the Council adopted Resolution 67-287, "A Resolution Approving Applications No. 67026 and 67027 Submitted by Mr. Darrel Farr" . • The resolution noted, among other things, that the Planning Commission had reviewed the request contained within the two applica- tions at public hearings following published and mailed notice, and had considered factors relating to the request, especially with re- lation to their affect on overall planning for the City which File Memorandum Page 3 resulted in the Commission's recommendation for approval. The resolution also indicates that the City Council had reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and in gathering further infor- mation, had made the following findings : 1. The development proposed by Mr. Farr, that of townhouses on the east portion of the property and multiple residences on the west portion of the property "is not in disagreement with the general goal" described in the Comprehensive Plans 2. The transitional device, proposed by the developer in his "Plan C" along the east side of the development, consisting of a landscaped berm, will provide proper transition between the development and the single family homes abutting it to the east" ; 3. The lake which the developer proposes to dredge on the property has been shown to be a feasible concept through a hydraulic study commissioned by the developer, and also is in accord with long range plans of the City with regard to maintenance of the water levels of waterways throughout the watershed to insure perpetual use of this proposed lake as a means to water level stabilizat ,on, 'however, "the City will expect easements for drainage over the proposed lake area and damming facilities" . Substantial documentation is contained in the two above mention- ed files including copies of the City Manager' s report to the City Council on the feasibility of development of this area, the Samsted Hydraulic Report, and a copy of the "Development Aiternative C" which was approved by the City. It is noteworthy that two points of concern at that time, were the screening of the transitional or buffer area between the now Shores Townhouse site and the single family dwellings along June Avenue; as well as the involvement of the City relative to easements in the lagoon or ponding area. In October, 1967, an application was received from Mr. Demol Farr requesting approval of site and building plans for a townhouse and apartment development. The Commission reviewed those plans on November 2, 1967 and recommended approval to the City Council. In- cluded in the recommendation were the standard conditions of approval a,s well as certain stipulations including: that a walkway easement across the northeast corner of the property between 59'h Avenue and • Kyle Avenue with the walkway to be constructed by the developer. Application No. 67054 was "dropped by the applicant prior to its submission to the City Council" . The plan had comprehended a planned i .. • File Memorandum Page 4 unit type of development for the entire 35 acres now zoned R-3 and R-5. Included in this file (No. 67054) , is a copy of a memo from Director of Parks and Recreation Mr. Gene Hagel to the then City Engineer,, Mr. Chuck VanEeckhout. It is dated November 2, 1967 and it relates to the portion of the proposed development which encom- passes the site of the Shores Townhouse development, particularly the now proposed Phase II . Mr. Hagel noted the followings 1. "Pedestrian access to the park from June Avenue at 5912, Avenue is absolutely essential. Children (and adults) will come from this direction and will not walk the extra block north and again one block south to get to the center of the activities in the park, namely the park building, skating rink and apparatus area. it has been demonstrated time and again that where no path or access is provided, the children will make one. This will be done regardless of the annoyance and complaints received from residents in the Farr Development; 2. "Again, I want to reiterate m.r pre _ous stand regarding the lack of a physical separation between the park and the dwellings of the Farr Plat. 7� , , e-11.3.mation, and based upon past experience, which bears out inevitable conflict where private and public use are in close proximity, I can only emphasize the importance of providing the separation" . It is interesting to note that the plat submitted by Mr. Darrel Farr indicated, for planning purposes, a 15 foot wide corridor. (pathway) connecting 59112 Avenue with Kylawn Parka The next stage of the development of tbis area occurred when, on January 12, 1968, Mr. Darrel Farr submitted application No. 68002 proposing site and building plans for a large apartment complex on the westerly portion of the property which is zoned R-5. The item was considered by the Planning Commission on February 1, 1963 and an extensive discussion ensued following a presentation by Mr. Farr and a Mr. Ralph Wagner of Dolan Engineering. Duzin.g staff discussion, certain minor engineering details were ,pointed ol�t relating to access to County Road 10. The Commission recommended approval of Application No. 68002 • subject to the standard conditions and other stipulations including: "the lot line between the future lots 1 and 2 of Twin Lake North Addition shall be revised to provide a minimum of a 10 foot setback for the apartment buildings from the future lot line" . File Memorandum Page 5 All of the Commissioners voted in fave2.• ��� .i-'� '.:�� oce �tion of Mr. Ausen, who stated "he objected to the provis4,on of access from the property only toward County Road 10, rather f_,v,)r ng a combina- tion of accesses from this apartment Gevelo menc and the future town- house development to the east, both to Count-y Roar? 10 and additional access to 59h Avenue North, or streets to the :czth of Kylawn Park" . The Council considered the application on February 19th and the minutes state, "the Council, developer and several area residents discussed the project at length" . Ttite-re was the.. action to approve the application subject to the standard ccndi.tions and the 3tipula- tions including that one noted above. On March 9, 1969 the Planning Commission was presented with a r petition revising Application 6 0 c�� s ' s' f request on �o. 8 02 It �n r Feu o a . p g PP 1 � �. for approval of site and building plans for .a recreation building to be located on the property known as Outlot A within the Twill Lake North Apartment project. The recommendation was foi approval and the item was considered by the City Council. on arch 24, 969, F.pj. li-ca- tion No. 68002 (revised) was unanimously approved ]:�v, the city c:ounci.].. On November 26, 1969 a representati-ve n TT-1-c- :, Inc. submitted • an application for site and building approval. for a 102 unit townhouse development on the land .,ones: I'.- 3. mhe Planning Commission considered the application on April 2, vvhich time the rem-om- inendation for conceptual approval of the Plan was made to the City council. The Council initially reviewed the planE at its April 13, 1970 meeting. During the discussion, the City Manager ind:icatea that existing and pi-:,n approval procedu%%az not adequatsly xercyi,i.ze this type of townhouse development, particularly with re- spect to setback requirements and the usual procedli.nal sequences. Former City Engineer Mr. Van2eckhout, ,ho was now employed by 1,71ie;acon, Inc. , spoke in behalf of the application. The minutes of the ApKil 13, 1970 Co-uncil meeting indicnte "dis- cussion of the application with Mr. VanEeckhout, the Council, sta.-f and interested property owners centered oa 1. Landscape and berm treatment arid exter_-c of the open s;x:ce between the townhouse development and the rear yards of neighboring property owners with the possibility that this work would be done as t11r., first phGr�e of the project development; • 2. The makeup of a homeowner's association development corpora- tion or condominium agreements, which would provide for f - - File Memorandum Page 6 • maintenance of the common land areas assor•i-ted with this type of townhouse development; 3. The probability of platting the development after it is completed rather than before, which is the usual_ require- ment; 4. The possible installation of an interim period snowfence on p p the development to inhibit the blowing of dirt and debris onto neighboring residences. The action taken by the Council at that meeting was to approve the site and building plan concept and to direct the Manager to develop and recommend methods of resolving inconsistencies and con- flicts between the subject proposal and the orainance structure. The Application was next considered by the Council at its May 24, 1971 meeting and action was taken to remand it to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendation. The Planning Commission again considered tae pl4posal on June 3, 1971 The Secretary explained that the 102 townhous= units were to be developed in two phases, the first :innsi.ating of a 4-unit clustered model to be located on the =c,ixth -o.-----on of the property adjacent to County Road 10, and the 40 units, tennis court., pool, basketball court, shuffle board court, and tot lot were to be constructed when the units were presold. It was also stated that it was the undarr�tdnding that when phase one was completed, each unlit would be surveyed and a plat sub- mitted for approval. Mr. VanEeckhout was recognized and he noted than it was the in- tent of his company to construct a 4•-unit cluster for model purposes and that upon presale of 60 of phase one of the development, they would begin construction. He further stated that it "is intended that the swimming pool will not be constructed as part of Phase One of the development" . He stated that relative to Phase Two, the re- maining units would be developed in a similar fashion to Phase one, with the exception being that construction would commence coincident with a lower presale ratio. It should be injected here, that e-t the present time none of the units in Phase One has been :sold. • Chairman Jensen recognized several neighboring property owners and the minutes indicate that discussion ensued, during which the allegation was made "that the buildings being proposed resembled _ _ i pile Memorandum Page 7 eastern row houses. It was further commented to the effect that the • property owners felt they had been misled at the rezoning hearing in which the developer proposed a much more desirable townhouse develop- ment" . Chairman Jensen commented, according to the minutes, that upon consideration of the rezoning application, the Commission had con- sidered the land use and not necessarily a specific proposal being proposed by any particular developer. The minutes of that meeting also indicate that "further dis- cussion ensued relative to the possibility of the developer con- structing the berms and providing the landscaping as shown on the plans prior to the commencement of construction, and the feasibility of providing a walkway through the property to allow pedestrian traffic to get to Kylawn Park from June Avenue" . There was then action taken to recommend approval of the Application, No. 70012 subject to the standard conditions and these stipulations: 1. That the site plan be approved with the prcvision that Phase Two be reviewed by the Planni Commission upon com- pletion of Phase One to detexrine if -;:here are any necessary adjustments to the :-.ot_.11. ievelopment plan prior to entering into Phase Two; 2 . That a model 4--unit cluster be allowed to commence prior to the construction of the 40 remaining units in Phase One of the development; 3e That a snowfence or other effective screening device be erected to prohibit blowing of debris and earth materials onto the properties along June Avenue during the construc- tion period. 4. That additional berms be provided in areas adjacent to single family residences where ;germs were not indicated on the site plan; 5. That the homeowner association agreement is consistent with state and/or local laws governing such agreements. On June 14, 1971 the City Council reconsidered Application No. 70012. Administrative Assistant Tom Loucks explained the site • plans to the neighborhood residents who stated they had not seen them previously. Councilman Willard asked Mr. Loucks if there were any substantial differences in the present plan with provious ones File Memorandum Page 8 • which had been shown to the planning commission. r. . Louc%s replied that the basic layout was the same and he showed the Council and some of the residents the orig_',.nz�l plan and explained it The Mayor opened the discussion to the audience. The minutes indicate "the first resident was Mr. Floyd Biihler, 5337 June Avenue North. Mr. Buhler said he felt the neighborhood residents had been deceived and that the renderings of plans gown for the housing units by the developer at the rezoning hearing indicated much more sub- stantial, expensive and attractive units than those which were now being presented for approval by the Council. He also noted that he was opposed to having a snowfence constructed on his lot line for the duration of the construction of the project. He stated that he felt the developer should construct various berms first and not after the development had been underway" . Mr. Victor Henry of 5819 June Avernie North noted that there had been substantial natural drainage in the area bor;lering the June Avenue properties and said this drainage use to go into the peat area which the developer was now digging out. He inquired as to who would be responsible for the drainage cnce the area was altered, noting his concern over the possible flooding of basements and yards of the neighborhood resident..-4. • The city En g ineer res p onded t ?a-t -.,as s ome drainage p--,- o- vided in the plans and that in the approval resolution it was noted that proper drainage must be provided" . The Engineer also noted that the City was "responsible for the approves . of the e e-.vation specifications in the plans" . Also recognized was Mr. Almen, of 5925 June Av,n.ue 14orth who inquired as to the possible use 59 Aveiiuo as a.y lAnr] of all access area to the development. The minutes indicate "the City Manager replied that there would be no access from 593z Avenue since itt was not on the plans. He recalled an earlier proposal that 59% Avenuia easement might be reserved for access by C_..y an6 emergency vehicles, but that the.r.P was no recommendation by the City for its use as an access road at this time" . After the public hearing was closed, the Mayor recognized Mr. Farr and Mr. VanEeckhout and an extensive discussion ensued. Sub- stantial deliberation occurred concerning the construction of a berm along the easterly property line during the initial phase of the excavation and construction of the beam:,, Fnd it was noted by Councilman Heck that once the berms were built the fence should be • set back to the construction site where it could better retain the debris from construction. File Memorandum Page 9 The minutes indicate that Mr. VanEeckhout, :Lepresent .ng the developer, "noted that this was a good .ides f'wo,:a a safety sense in that contractors have problems with small child era getting into the construction site while heavy equipme.nt is wor;.i:ng" . There was also some discussion as to the nature of the home- owners association and the association agreement.. and the Mayor com- mented "that he foresaw few problems as long as the association was an active entity, but he wondered what the affect would be if the homeowners association went bankrupt or ber_ama defunct" . He noted that "the City has no ordinances at this time which govern con- dominiums" . There was then a discussion concerning the need for and the provision for variances and easements of the property. There was concern "that approving the entire site plan would apparently entail giving the developer blanket variances" . The minutes indicate that "the City Mang<jer sug este7 ti-d.at the Council might just approve the plans for the �4-unit model cluster only since no variances were involved. Tice Council then could have specific approval of the other phases at a later tinge" . • Action was then taken to direct tie Ma.ragar to prepare a resolution approving Application No. 77G'03.? n.:-)IL the following: 1. That a model 4-unit cluster would be allowed to commence prior to the constructiors of the remaining units in phase one of the development; 2. That the master site plan be approved with the provision that the balance of Phase One and U'-iasa .1,v?o be raviewed by the Planning Commission and Council upon completion of the 4-unit model cluster to determine if theze are any necessary adjustmen-ts to the total development plan prior to entering into the balance of Phase One and Phase Two; 3. That additional berms beyond those indicated on the site plan be provided adjacent to the single family residences along June Avenue; further, that such berms be constructed as early as possible and that such work be prosecuted in a reasonably continuous fashion subject to the influences and con8traints of accepted constru.csi.on practices; • 4. That a snowfence or other affective device be erected on the east property line and maintained during the con- struction of the berms and subsequent thereto, that such f • • File Memorandum page 10 • device be relocated on the westerl v si 6e of a:uch beans to contain construction debris on the construction site and to inhibit children's accesa to the construci-ion site. Another condition of approval was "that the platting require- ment be waived because of the uniqueness and pecularities of the condominium development until such time as a ?.i_vea phase of the development is completed" . On December 13, 1971, the City Council aga _n was petitioned to consider Application No. 70012. The city Manager reviewed the conditions of approval and he stated "that the applicant had com- menced construction of the 4-unit model cluster and that he de- sired to proceed concurrently with the construction of the remain- ing 58 units in phase one" . The Manager further noted that special attention was given on June 14, 1971 to the hcmecv7ners agreement and that it was the Council 's intent to permit the applicant to proceed with the model until such time the homeowners agreement document had been refined and that the .final approval "of the en-- tire project rested upon this" . He s•"atPc, ll)at the applicant had placed on file, a copy of the final homeowners association docu- ments on October 19th. The Mayor recognized Mr. VanEeckhou}, who commented as to the homeowner agreement documents and also:• s`Cz,,.Lcd that "the applicant would like to immediately proceed with the total development, getting at least 20 units under construction this season" . The Council then took final action, in ef-:ect, reaffirming their approval of Application No. 70012 subject to the standard conditions as well as the following: 1. That the master site plan be approved with a provision that Phase Two be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council upon completion of Phase One to determine if P P there are any necessary adjustments to the total develop- ', ment lan prior to entering into the construction of P P g Phase Two; 2. That additional berms beyond those indicated on the site plans be provided adjacent to the single family residences along June Avenue and further, that such berms be con- structed as early as possible and that such work be pro- secuted in a reasonably continuous fashion subject to the influences and constraints of accepted construction • practices; i • S .. File Memorandum Page 11 3. That a snowfence or other effective device be erected on the east property line and maintained during the con- struction of the berms and subsequent thereto that such device be relocated on the westerly side of such berms to contain construction debris on tie construction site and to inhibit children's access to the construction site. The developer then proceeded with the construction of the Phase One of the project then known as the "Chessman Townhouses" . Apparently, due to nonacceptance in the market place, construction came to a halt and the project sat dormant for several months during 1972. On October 5, 1972, the Planning Commission reviewed a pro- posed amendment to Application No. 70012 now submitted by Darrel A. Farr Development Corp. (formerly Viewcon, Inc.) . The Secretary stated that "the applicant had submitted new conceptual plans for the townhouse project . . . which indicated site modifications, another building and a reduction of the total number of dwelling units from 44 to 40" . The Secretary also noted that there was fa "notably lacking from • the new drawings, a landscaping plan" . IIe� rther noted "that there had been some alteration of the proposed berming and that the installation of swales for drainaga purposes was indicated on the new plans" . Chairman Jensen then recognized a Mr. Mcinerny and a Mr. Maertens representing the applicant, and who explained that the original project was unmarketable and thus tra site and buildings "had been redesigned in a fashion considered more palatable to current buyers" . The minutes indicate that "in response to questions by the Commission, the Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed drainage and site plans and stated that the basic drainage plan was similar to the original, although so:Pe contour lines were not indicated on the new plans. He also emphasized the prior concern of she Commission and Council with affective screening to be pro- vided along the east property line" . The minutes indicate "Mr. Maortens stated that it was the applicant 's intent to construct the affective screening and that • it could be accomplished that fall" . `. . I �_ • I i i I I I • I i • File Memorandum page 12 • The October 5, 1972 planning Commission minutes also indicate some concern as to the applicant's failure to provide the required fencing and other affective screening. The Secretary noted correspondence which had transpired between the City and Mr. VanEeckhout who "stated a fence had been originally installed but that several residents had indicated they would prefer the fence removed. Mr. VanEeckhout further stated "that the neighborhood along June Avenue had been canvassed by a Viewcon, Inc. employee, who was able to contact most of the residents and that they would prefer to have the fence taken down" . The Chairman then recognized several of the neighboring property owners, including Mr. Buhler, who noted their concern with the slow progress of the development as well as the concern as to safety of small children in the area. Several of the residents indicated that the water was collecting in their back- yards, due to the incomplete drainage construction of the town- house project. Mr. Maertens emphasized that the applicant desired to proceed before the onset of winter with various site improvements includ- ing utility installation and construction of footings. He stated "this would be done with the assurance that the Building Inspection • Department would be given complete revised pans in the near future" . The Secretary responded to this and stated that the Building inspector could not issue permits based upon available data. He also noted that the applicant had indicated to the staff on several occasions that the plans were conceptual.. One of the neighboring property owners, Mr. Buhler stated his concern "with the continuous development of the project and commented that the Council had assured the residents of the neighborhood that they would have the opportunity for full review of submitted plans" . It was the consensus of the Commission that "the conceptual plans were acceptable, but that more detailed data was required relative to landscaping, building design and screening" . in further discussion it was noted that since certain utility in- stallation and street constructions plans had been previously ap- proved and were not to be changed, that perhaps work could pro- ceed in that respect. It was also noted that since the berming along the east property line had been a condition of prior approval , work could proceed also in that area. Several residents commented that they desired an assurance from the City that the earlier ap- proved berming along the property line would be done as soon as possible. File Memorandum page 13 • Action was then taken to table t:he application to permit the applicant the opportunity to develop more complete revised plans with regard to building design and landscaping. On October 19, 1972 the Planning Commission reconsidered the application and the Chairman recognized 14r. mclnerny, Mr. Maertens, and a Mr. pEes an architect who represented the applicant. Chairman Jensen also recognized several of the residents who lived on June Avenue North. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the proposed screening along the easterly property line of the project including protective fencing during the construction period. The minutes indicate the applicant stated that a protective fence could and would be installed "preferably after sod was placed and the bermed area was landscaped". After further discussion, the Director of Public Works suggested that a meeting with the applicant and with the neighbors along June Avenue be arranged in the hopes of developing a common awareness and agreement as to the landscaping and develorment alo:lg the common property line. Mr. Maertens stal=ed the applicant was willing to put in additional shrubbery but felt the need to con- sult with a professional landscape architect. He skated the intent • was to actually "install more lan.dscu-ping around the site than was indicated on the plan" . In further discussion it was determined that the applicant, a professional landscape architect, members of the City staff, and neighboring property owners meet on the site to discuss the land- scaping of the berms and screening along the property line. It was also determined that this meeting should occur prior to the upcoming November 2nd regular Planning Commission meeting so that the entire package of amended site and building plans could be submitted to the Council for review at its November 6th meeting. Action was taken to recommend approval of the amended site and building plans for application No. 70012 subject to all pre- violas conditions of approval as adopted by the City Council on December 13, 1971, excepting the landscape plans which were subject to further review. On November 2nd, the Commission was i_nformod that the orsite meeting had been held and the Director of Public Wos]cz nmmented upon the results of the meeting and explained the proposed tremL meet of the berms. Mr. VanEe&hout and Mr. Maertens were recog- nized as well as several of the June Avenue residents. A review then ensued of the proposed plan and it was noted that the specific types of plantings along the germ area were not _. �. .. • . , i File Memoramdum Page 14 indicated on the submitted plan. Mr. VanEeckhout responded "that • upon approval of the Commission the applicant intended to get together again with the landscaper and with the residents to deter- mine the specific types of plantings" . The minutes indicate that "several of the residents commented that their prime concern was that the intent of the developer be formally indicated on the ap- proved plans as an assurance of what would be done" . Following further discussion ensued which centered on the con- cern that specific species of trees and locations and quantities be indicated on a plan to be submitted for Council review. There was action taken to recommend approval of Application No. 70012 as amended subject to all previously approved conditions. On November 6, 1972 the City Council gave final consideration to Application No. 70012. The City Manager and the Director of Public Works reviewed the amendment plans particularly noting the concerns for the landscaping and utility provisions for the projects. The Mayor recognized Mr. Floyd Buiiler, 5337 June Avenue North who commented that following the meeting with the applicant since the amended plans were submitted "he and his neighbors were basically in agreement with the plans as preoented tj •:-he Council". Mr. • Buhler further noted "the long standing conceiii of the neighborhood with the berm and stated that the residen`.z were weary of contin- ually striving for something better anal realizing that the applicant had done little to develop what had been approved on the original plans" . In further discussion of the required protective fencing ensued, and the Mayor noted a number of complaints he had received relative to the development of the project and he also noted his concern "that the fence was required as a matter of condition of approval for the application and that a formal amendment to those approved plans was not made regarding the removal of such fence" . The Mayor also noted "that it was the intent of the Council to have continuous protective fencing along the easterly property line" . Mr. VanEeckhout was recognized and among other things, stated that "as a result of recent meetings with the staff and the people in the neighborhood, it was the applicant's intent to complete the berming, including the landscaping, and to replace a fence along the westerly side of the berm following the curbline on the site. • An extensive discussion ensued relative to Councilman Britts comment that Planning Commission discussion had noted the submitted y . . • ', • , . • . . File Memorandum Page 15 • revised plans were not complete in that the landscaping plan and schedule were lacking. In further discussion the City Manager "commented that the basic issue was a difference of opinion between the staff and the applicant regarding the degree of detail planning required for re- view and approval. He noted that some developers were reluctant to make the effort and realize the expense of preparing and submitting detailed plans, particularly with regard to landscaping. He noted that in this instance, the Director of Public Works had extensive notes regarding the deficiencies in the landscaping which had been verbally resolved between the nearby residents, the applicant, and the staff. " There was then a motion by Councilman Leary seconded by Council- man Heck to approve Application No. 7C012 subject to all previous conditions of approval as adopted on December 13, 1971; and, the condition that complete landscaping plans be submitted to the City Engineer who will include such plans and the details of the pro- posed berming in a communication to be appenjed to the amended plans. Councilman Britts stated that he would like to see the com- plete detailed plans prior to approval and suggested that approval • be deferred so that such data could be submitted. Councilman FIeck noted the importance of permitting the zna�.:?i .ant to proceed with the project so that nearby residents could be assured that the site improvements as approved were being provided; aid, that the intent of the action was that the staff would work with the applicant on the site to assure that the written notes were actually translated into the intended development. The Mayor called for a vote: Voting in favor were Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Heck. Voting against! Councilman Britts. The motion passed. Applications No. 73030 (preliminary plat approval for Phase One of the "Shores Townhouses") and Application No. 73031 (site and building plans for Phase Two of the Shores Townhouses) are currently before the Planning Commission. Both applications were given pze- liminary review at the September 6, 1973 planning Commission meeting. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Aprpl cat%, on App: loo. 67054 Generally bounded by: 60th Avenue(extended) ; Street Location of Property the west lot lines of the ,properties on the west side of June Avenue; 58th Avenue (Co.Rd.No. 10) ; and the west 's#y limits. Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Twin Lake North Addn. Legal Description of Property (Parcels 500, 645, and 1910, Aud. Sub. 216; Outlots 1, 2, 3,4, and 5, Dahlen Addition) Owner: Name Darrel Farr et al. Address Telephone Applicant: Darrel Farr Address Telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval X PlanApproyal Description of Request Approval of site and building plans of a Townhouse/Apartment development. Reason for Request Fee $ -- \ Receipt No. Applicant October 16,, 1967 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration Novoabor 2, 1967 This application dropped by the applicant ,prior to its submission to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the day of j1Jir.1AA 19 7 • the request represented by this petition was appro a `' disapproved blect to the (circle one) following conditions. /} 1 i r � _ __ 'I . . . . -•f;, ., _ PWIL Luxe Marc " 0 be Zoned i I I • CITY OF AA`OOKLYN CENTER zoning-"RlicaLtiQ0 ,. App. No. 67040_,_ Street Location of Property generally bounded by 65,th, Camden, 64th (extended) , and Bryant Avenues North Lot 6, Mendenhall"s Outlots (also known Legal Description of Property as Parcels 40Q0_, A,500 j.& 5000) Sonnenberg, Hoffarth, and Owner: Name Anderson Address Telephone Applicant: Robert A. Keller Address 400 Westwood Drive Telephone FR.7-1479 Type of Request: _ X Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Rezoning from--R-1 (Single samily Residence) to R-5 (Multiple Residence) Reason for Request To construct apartment buildings. Fee 25.00 Receipt No. 22991 Applicant July 20, 1967 Date Dates of PLC. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration August lo, 1967 August 14, 1967 September 5, 1967 September ].a, 1967 September 18, 1967 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the , / Q day of v S% , 191Z, the request represented by this petition was approve disapproved sub ' to the following condition . circle one) c n �. . .. .. .._.. ..__.. . .. ,., ., .. , - .v_....: .. _ .., . . .. .. ' � ,. _. .. ..... . .. ,. �. { DOLAN ENGINEERING INC. E FIVr!NE°ERS 8 LAND SURVEYORS '3 3 FT 4VE_N1�1E l f-,'Vr ,vf1 IF , MIAINEc() T!1 Certlfrcctio of s I„; rVey �rR.�. �. . __....�.. 67 0 - tiro fps ii'ar.► D I, � �--.��_��r�.RY���' �•�.�`��C '�?'.�d�ScC 36�,, T//9Q!1°Z1�C � 636• os��r7�os.) 0 6 36. a7' v Q � V � SO• - p°' Ih N) Ip o �, L o 7- I � N f I 89�sJ•/sT� I`V i I 4 !i i 1 t i i r,e- E 1 E I p 0 i r CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application App. No. 67055 Street Location of Property Bounded by 65th, Camden, 64.th- (extended) and Bryant Avenues North Legal Description of Property Lot 6, Mendenhall' s Outlots Owner: Name ' Address Telephone Applicant: Robert Keller Address Telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval X Other Description of Request Approval of site and building blahs of an apartment pro-erect. r Reason for Request Fee $ -0- Receipt No. Applicant i Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the day of 19 the request represented by this petition was approved disapproved subject to the following conditions. (circle one) • r. i i Y { .._. • � � ,. • 1 • j CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application. App. No 67013 Street Location of Property Lying N.W. of the intersects n of 65th and Humboldt Avenues No. , extending approx. 980 feet north of the centerline of 65th Avenue and 350 feet west of Humboldt: Avenue Legal Description of Property Owner: Name James and John Sheehan Address Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Telephone Applicant: James A. Lushine, Agent Address Telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance X Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Approval of the preliminary plat of "Brooklyn Plaza Addition" . M Reason for Request . Fee $ 27.00 Receipt No. 22239 P Applicant March 27, 1967 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration i April 6, 1967 April 24, 1967 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the_ day of i!&=1 , 19,• , the request represented by this petition was p ove disapproved subje t to the following conditions. circle one) �� f / r y ..�... . i • _ 1 17 41 CITY OF BROOKLYN C r= f I t Zoning A2pl"ic A]pg, Io. 7025 t . Street Location of Property Generall ;bo n Q Cama .,1 vei extended) on the east; 65th Ave. on the south; the easy property ;Lines of the Rroperties on the east side of Bryant Ave orb t� he west,,End 67th Ave. (extended) on the north. w " Legal Description of Property Parcels 500, 440,1 ;and, 15©0,.. Mendenhall's 4465�'"II®rth 'OaklWlots Owner: Name Wiensch Const. Co. Addze� S Milwaukee Wisconsin Applicant: 'James Wiensch Adcjess .. ;. Telepho a � r Type of Request: = . Rezoning pecial UseiPermit ' Variance X � ubdivisi:oApproval — X Othersite"and bldg plans •,iPescription of ,Request Approval bf the pre plit'tof Wiensch q Addition" . Approval of 'site and building plans of a townhouse devel- - ._ opmen t. Reason for Request i Fee $ 28.00 + Receipt No. 23� ' Applicant May 1, 1967 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration May 18 1967 y � May 29, 1967 Sfptember 18, 1967 d 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the day of 19 , the request represented by this petition was pp�Ircle disapproved sub'ect to the following conditions. one) f . . -- - � . .__��._ .. � ... .. ..._ 'k"3 .. � .:. . ... .. ,.. .._. r - .. .. ,_.. .,.. 'y • . _ _ � ,. .. +.:.� _. �� .. .. '. .. ..�� i�.. ... • e _� C`... I r • � , �. . �., ,' _. � :. • i II i • CI'T`Y OF BkOOkLYN CENTER Zoninq, Application App. N6. 67016 Street Location of Property southeast auadrant 91 the in_tersecto n of Camden and 65th Avenues North Legal Description of Property Parcel 210, Plat 89036;, Owner: Name Russell Gilbertson Address Telephone Applicant: Jerry Harrington Address .r Telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval X Other plan approval Description of Request Approval of the site and building plans for an apartment development. Reason for Request Fee $ ' Receipt No. - App icant .March 12, 1967 Date Dates of P,C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration April 6, 1967 r April 24, 1967 may 1, 1967 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the day of 19„?, the request represented by this petition was approved disapproved subject to the following conditions. (circle one) � >// / pr- i • I 1 Cie n { l3er Yi ol .!cam nne—,6 .d. the r 1:_ iX::<': CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning ARPlication app, No` 67052 Street Location of Property South of 69th Avenue,�east,_ of:Zenith Ave_ That part of Parcel 1015, Plat 89034 Legal Description of Property lying south of 69th Avenue North. Owner: Name Peter Elsen Address 7031- Glenwood A�jjP- Telephone — Applicant: Village Builers Address 603 �+', ran(g Ayp-niiA s Telephone 588,-46 Type of Request: X Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residence) to R-3 (Multiple Family Residence) . Reason for Request _ i Fee $ 25.00 Receipt No. 23311 Applic Da e Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration November 2, 1967 November 33, 1967 January 4, 1968 - Reis. 68-1 December 31, 1967 January 8, 1968 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the day of 4,,i/ / 19�, the request represented by this petition was approve disapproved subject to the following conditions. circle one) - .. A ; , .. ,, .. a Village RuMdars (by Richard J�r o-a Description of Rcqueott Razcnlng from the present R-1 Single Family Residence classification to R"3 MuMpic Family Residence-Tawn- house;. propertyl� The property involved lies approxi- mately 1/2 block east of Zenith nvanus no! 1/2 block north of 68th Menowr to the south of 69th Avenue. (that part of Parcel 1015, Plat MOM, 1ving south o:F 69-th Avennue) Owner of Prapwrty� Peter Eisen RACKGROUNW, • 1) This P=OpMg adjacent to the former Earle and formerly was occupied by a farmhouse, as a firn evarolso approximately one POINTS To MMIDARM 1) That portion of thc-i industrial Park (Earle Bnown Yurm) Wmakiatzly to tho west of this property was =W to !W R-3 Tawnhouse HassiZicarion in August of 1965, -ha rezoning of the acst M the Industrial Park. The propcoad 2oning of the property contained within this WassWcation has also benn designated py the Commission anO CannAl as n future Townhouse property; this designation is in accorl with the concept contninnd in the Comprehensive Mn, that Tounhonse uses be ccntinrons in this area frar.1 to interstate QW 2) Tho proporny nenolsts of npprvUwatQy 4 .4 ac:-z-,of of whic.1.1 abort 4,= sVnern feck (about .1 acre) will be required Q he Wedicotoo at its e."-'tension of OW SbAngle crack Parkway A= the industn _al Park threQf1i 77 .!DV= hake WSM toward MOUVOT POOL. The property rvmulning WYA support Units (to be vezioked by survey) . CITY OF BROOKMtN CENTER Zoning Application App. No. 67011 Street Location of Property Bounded by�69th Ave. on the North; Osseo Road on the East; F.A.I. 94 on the South; Lee Ave. and Lee Ave. extended on the West. Legal Description of Property Owner: Name Mr. & Mrs. George E. Hanson Address Telephone Applicant: Lecon Properties Address 725 Fremont, Ave. No. Telephone 374,4881 Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance X Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Approval of the preliminary'plat of "Northtown Plaza Second Addition" . Reason for Request Fee $ 30.00 Receipt No. 222 Applicant March 29, 3,967 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration March 30, 1967 April 3, 1967 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the 30 day of lV gee , 19-14-Z, the request represented by this petition was approved > disapproved subject to the following conditions-z--:—`circle one) /7i' _ f ... .. .. .�..._ � � .� . . '�,� ._ .. .. ...... ...., _ . ., .. ... .. .. .. ny��q: 77 yxyodm?�IOA WET (by H. S weswin� W Rnpuesti Apprnval of One preliminary plat of "NorKtown Plaza 2nd Addition" Generpliv Wunded by the following: hTh TUC on the nortV Osseo Road on tte cpstj F A , j , No. 94 on the Soot& wn6 toe L% o and Lee Ave, erlardW no the west. (Legal dcscription on file) owner of vrcpvru� George V Wnsan BACXWOUND: 1) You W01 rQCall that Mr . Wessin ik Application No, 66037, revuent2d ccrtalv �'ut-urf� �--(-xylrgercial usno for o yoronan of the proparvy cantzinet in this • PIWL Tv& 2= lsvion approval of this 7eyo�K, �PC ; he Council, on March Ith of this year, U" . AQ t�V ,Sn on W rennnin" onty , Kcer 0 plat of the amo nco e "Wo dennegnp. counto 7hu connci-,! QW , lnn-�Y401 , Vokare its intenL to rezone Lot 1 of Lionk 1 nk this plat to HI, in accordance witb Yoe! pwm dyawnnq 3f ohs pin ti.me BE VOQ71VAFQ in: 0DOPSC Tl t Toe nVollainary nnuiq, 1 ij n"t of both Avann - Nort h Un proper V j f an 4 1 1 an ou 2n yAdno on 1ween this proposed • 5KI-nL at T �o awooting builoing (karmerly Ka. : .nA � "cc oa Bower F NorVeS , and zhe 6nmensions, s-K QL -ov v5n 7or-omotinw lot nrA Hequah, to provide ; nz 1�n?Qj an that OAV -.-: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning, Application App. No. 67062 Street Location of Property Bounded by County Road 10, Highway_##10(L and Shingle Creek Legal Description of Property (on file) Dayton Development Co. Owner: Name Minnesota Amusement Co. Address Telephone Applicant: Dayton D eve lopment Company. Address Longyear Building Telephone 339-3611 Type of Request: x Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Rezoning from I-2 (Industrial Park) to B-2 (Regional Business) . Reason for Request Fee $ 25.00 R fu eceipt No. 23772 "plicant November 13, 1967 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration December 7, 1967 December 11, 1967 i i PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the of P` , 19, the request represented by this petition was pprove disapproved subject to the following conditions. �.rcle one) /� / �j I'1 ,.; �, _.. �c.t , S,. � _ .�., .. .�._.. . `, .... .__ , , - ,. . , � . � 4 • V T .. �. .. �.- �'� • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Aoplication. - App. N6. 67005 Street Location of Property MiNNESOT� HI(GHWAY#100 &FRANCE AVE. NORTH„ ., Legal Description of Property t1jRACT All WITH GOVERNMENT LOT #3 (parcel 2910, Section 10 Owner:WIT#ame T.� il®..r,TT.1.FC Address , " „ : ---.-.-�1QR�i�� Telephone NORMAN CHAZIN 3315 DECATUR LANE Applicant: §RUCE HASSET RFRCI Address ,7 3,5 "X 7AX-A. $i6VIR, Telephone Type of Request: X Rezoning X Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request THIS TS AN APPT.Tf ATTnM Tn VPZQMP TNQ A TA!'RrTT DDnDCnm7a� � w sv ■ ■a:Dees saa OF INDIVIDUAL ZONING TO A THIRD ZONING OF B2. A SPECIAL USE PERMIT 15- LSO r BEING APPLIED FOR , WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSTRUCTING A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE STATION TO BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE SHELL OIL COMPANY. Reason for Request THE PRESENT ZONING AND CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRE, CTTY COUNCIL ACTION IN THE FORMS OF: REZONING THE PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL AND THEN GRANTING OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIfMQ BY SERV STATIONS THE CITY. Fee $ 50,o0 _W Receipt No. 21860 Applicant 0 :�l 8 �q6 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration March 2, 1967 March 6, 1967 - tabling action only May 2, 1968 April 24s 1967 May 1, 1967 - tabling action only May 15, 1967 - tabling action only May 29, 1967 June 12., 1967 May 13, 1968 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 9�On the �_ day of tlll 19Z/, t e request represented by this petition was rov is approve s ject to the 2� following conditions. cir /� 1, .. .. .. _ { � Y,r ... VOW �Vgzn py) j of RngneM Rezoning from the present R! and RD to a2l special use peWssion for a ?eyvice station an the property so zoned, propersy�' 'j*,r_ corner of the inter- section of France Avenue nnd `7" Aighway *100. (Tract "I" of 01082 and parcel 2910 of section 15, T, 118, R.21) owner of Propoxty-t - Parcel 2910 isolda Gilles - Tract "A'' waa zoned RB on May 12, 1159 opon a application by Hamedule Builders. The • application asked W B3 zoning for a combination construction office and warRhasse -- t'�ne ap-pro-�ra- 1 '%.as a varjonce to allow in the of the office brilding. t"ho". propose-.31. develop- 6k 2) in January o2 1963, Rabart Baldwin of Baldwin Realty, acting so aqvnt for standard oil, rr7..,1xnixlg of thss& two properties to B3, and a special use permit to construct nnd operate a nerW5'.c,'-f orl -the' prorarQ . The roquest was denied on February 14, 1966. POINTS To BE COKSIDEYEV. '1) The property in question is prapnsed for multipD., Wily Welllug use ja ths Coqprobsnsive Plan, and has team so fo.f: MGning by the Planning commission. 2 The intsysection op 1: ..."Cl Avenue and Highway 4190 has in thn ppst been a serious annidpnt problem, The War- station Wao of to rltiqnoe this problem,, th —0 3.1 )r*r__,-, cwt. .`iAi 2 1 c ist11ie. 'cl pro • yolcrvlion OF A-n�- S' p4svolAnn F"na A Vol "-B ( Regional Gossneins , wo�cnaA U10 perwissial-I 1no' conn! P10 , approval . MY Warlice ntar , "'- Property, Sou, Owesy caryar CC the anLersectior. ot France Avenue and Ughway No. 100 Warce! 2910 Manion 10 ; and Tract A. R, L .5 iA097 '.'' Owner of P -aperty p •rcon chazin yzalca G.Ales Df bisminenj has VnEn antered into by the Wich will cauzo We City tc wnas� Lon rcquaslud rezoning "'� o I COIArae�:cia""'. -'-Otail WnO- jlSan MpeLia! use yarmlosion �ur a sTinice scation , a', i app)nve site and hillv;nq ?W3 for the WITTWEI-A trait rozolutLon will be prnp&lod foc this ma' er ind nubmicted at tne meeting, • CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application App. No. 67018 Street Location of Property forte mer_`"Ear a Brown Farm" Legal Description of Property see attached .notice of publication Owner: Name Brooklyn. Center Indust.ParkAddress Telephone James Lushine for Brooklyn Applicant: Center Industrial Park Inc, Address telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Approval of ,the preliminary plat of „"Brooklyn Plaza _First Addition".-- Reason for Request Fee $ 44.00 Receipt No. 22362 Appl c t Apr it 14, 1967 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration May 4, 1967 May 15 1967 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the , day of x'19 19(/0A the request represented by this petition was approve ' disapproved subject to the following conditions. (circle one) �� n _ _ _ _ � _. _ T _ . � � .. �. . . . � � :.