Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 12-06 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA DECEMBER 6, 1990 REGULAR SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and Mark Holmes. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 18, 1990 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the October 18, 1990 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairperson Malecki and Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bertil Johnson arrived at 7: 35 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 90026 (Edina Realty/Blumentals Architecture, Inc. ) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for rezoning approval to rezone from R5 to C1 the land at 7100 Brooklyn Boulevard and the vacant parcel to the east. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 90026, attached) . The Secretary added that Edina Realty could have off-site accessory parking on the vacant site to the east or on the church site to the north. The Secretary also reviewed the draft resolution regarding the rezoning, noting the guidelines for rezoning and the recommended conditions of the rezoning. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Janis Blumentals stated that the negotiations with the church to acquire land for parking or parking rights were not going well. He recommended that the rezoning go through and that the bank not be allowed to go into the building until more parking is provided. He asked the Commission to remove the condition regarding the provision of additional parking and to allow the rezoning with the understanding that the bank cannot move in until more parking is provided. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 90026) 12-6-90 1 Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. No one spoke. Chairperson Malecki then called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing on Application No. 90026. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes noted that the two exceptions in the draft resolution relate to the bank occupancy. He asked whether those conditions were needed. The Secretary stated that the resolution could be modified. He explained the background of the proposal and that it was the proposed bank occupancy,-which had instigated the rezoning in the first place. He stated that staff simply want to make sure that the parking issue is resolved before the bank occupies the building. He explained that property could be added to the site or an off-site parking arrangement could be approved as well, but that these have to be accomplished before the bank can go into the building. Mr. Blumentals stated that he was fully aware that the bank could not occupy the building until the parking issue was resolved. The Planner pointed out that the City Council could approve the rezoning in concept and simply withhold the second reading of the ordinance amendment describing the rezoning until the parking issue was resolved and that there should, therefore, be no delay. Mr. Blumentals also pointed out that the bank would have to have a sign on the property for it to operate and that this could be withheld by the City until the parking issue was resolved. The Planner stated that he had no objection to modifying the rezoning approval and noted that the applicant was certainly on record as understanding that the bank occupancy was related to resolving the parking issue. Commissioner Sander asked what would happen if the bank did occupy the building before parking was provided. The Secretary stated that the matter would have to be prosecuted as a zoning violation. In response to another question from Commissioner Sander the Secretary stated with respect to a Special Use Permit for off-site accessory parking, that Edina Realty must not only lease additional parking, but must actually legally encumber the parking area. They would then have the exclusive right to use the parking. Chairperson Malecki asked the Commission for their comments. Commissioner Ainas recommended that the rezoning be approved subject to the applicant complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson Malecki asked what would be required if the applicant were to add property to the site. The Secretary stated that the property would have to be replatted and that the rezoning would have to extend to the additional land acquired. He stated that, if the applicant cannot acquire additional land, he will have to meet 12-6-90 2 the parking requirement in some other way such as with a Special Use Permit for off-site accessory parking. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the Commission should rezone the church property as well. The Secretary stated that the church property should only be rezoned if it is to be sold to the applicant and combined with their property. With respect to the condition recommended in the proposed resolution, the Secretary pointed out that rezoning is legally done by the City Council and that the City Council could drop the condition regarding parking as long as everyone understands that the bank cannot occupy the building without additional parking being provided. RESOLUTION 90-3 Member Lowell Ainas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 90026 SUBMITTED BY EDINA REALTY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Ella Sander, and the motion passed unanimously. 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 Rl zoned property at a property,-dine. 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, 000. 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. OTHER BUSINESS a) 1991 Meeting Schedule The Secretary then reviewed with the Commission a draft meeting schedule for 1991. He pointed that there would be two meetings a month except for December of next year and that a second meeting could always be added if needed for that month. He also pointed out that meetings might be canceled if there was no business to deal with. Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adopt the meeting schedule as drafted by staff. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. b) Reappointments The Secretary informed Commissioners Bernards, Ainas and Mann that they were up for reappointment and asked whether they wished to be reappointed. Commissioner Bernards stated that he was thinking the matter over. Commissioner Mann stated that she definitely wanted to be reappointed. c) Housing Study of Southeast Neighborhood 12-6-90 10 Commissioner Bernards informed the Commission that the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group had met with the Housing Commission on September 25 and at a later meeting and that they identified housing concerns in the Southeast Neighborhood. He stated that a plan was developed and forwarded to the Housing Commission and that they will forward the plan to the City Council. He stated that there were homes in the neighborhood that needed maintenance, some to be removed and others with code violations. He stated that the group recommended using the rental licensing ordinance to keep properties up in the neighborhood. He stated that the objective of the plan was to develop a sense of community pride and upkeep of property. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion was unanimously seconded and approved. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:56 p.m Chairperson 12-6-90 11 1 1