Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 12-13 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 STUDY SESSION DECEMBER 13, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The anning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary stated that he had received notice earlier in the day that Commissioner Erickson would .be unable to attend the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 29, 1979 Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the November 29, 1979 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 79070 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, subdivision approval to create a new R.L.S. presently described as Tract B, R.L.S. 1405. The secretary explained that the land is bounded by Shingle Creek Parkway on the east and north, the MTC property and the Shingle Creek greenstrip on the west, and by Freeway Boulevard on the south. The entire tract of land is roughly 40 acres, the largest single parcel of privately owned and undeveloped land in Brooklyn Center. The Secretary pointed out that the applicant wishes to divide the property into four tracts (A,B,C,and D) according to, the following sizes: Tract A, 5.2 acres; Tract B, 11 .06 acres; Tract C, 17.09 acres; Tract D, 6.57 acres. The Secretary explained that Tract A will serve as the site for the approved Speculative Industrial Building No. 9 east of the MTC property. Tract B and Tract C, he stated, are tentatively to be used for a number of industrial buildings totalling up to 430,000 square feet in floor area. The Secretary noted that most of the parking for these tracts will be located on Tract B. He stated that Tract D is tentatively designated on the accompanying conceptual site plan for the area as the site for a motel with a restaurant. The Secretary emphasized that the site plan is conceptual only and is not considered a master plan for which the applicant is seeking approval . He explained that the platting proposal is primarily for the purpose of establishing legal parcels for sale. The Secretary noted that the proposed R.L.S. indicates a 5 foot wide NSP Company easement adjacent to all public right-of-way. A 20 foot wide drainage ditch ease- ment is proposed to divide this subdivision through Tracts C and .B in a north- easterly fashion from the Shingle Creek walkway easement to Shingle Creek Park- way. The Secretary also pointed out a 10 foot wide storm sewer easement in the southwestern tip of Tract D adjacent to the Freeway Boulevard bridge over Shingle Creek. 12-13-79 -1 The Secretary stated that the configuration of the proposed tracts almost certainly require that a joint parking agreement and a joint access agreement between Tracts B and C will have to be concluded if development of Tract C is to be facilitated. The applicant has indicated, the Secretary said, that he plans to file joint access and joint parking agreements with the R.L.S. covering Tracts B, C and D. The Secretary added that a joint access agreement between Tracts A and B has already been filed according to the applicant. Following the Secretary's review of the proposed conditions of approval , Commis- sioner Manson asked for an explanation of Condition No. 3 requiring joint access, joint parking and joint maintenance agreements between Tracts A, B, C, and D as a deed restriction. The Secretary explained that the main reason for the plat is to sell the land to two groups of buyers. One group of buyers will buy Tracts A and B, he explained; and another group of buyers will purchase Tracts C and D. The Secretary pointed out the location of a proposed private roadway with access off Shingle Creek Parkway opposite 67th Avenue North. He explained that the private road would be accompanied with drainage and maintenance easements for snow storage. The easements, he pointed out, would accomplish the same thing as public right-of-way, but in this case, the buildings could be constructed at the easement line without any further setback since the private roadway itself would be an interior property line requiring smaller setbacks. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that traffic signals would probably be placed at 67th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, but that the final decision will depend on whether the traffic movements at that intersection meet the traffic warrants established by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. He added that. a consultant has been retained by the City to study the need for signals in the Industrial Park area and at the corner of Humboldt Avenue and Freeway Boulevard. Chairman Pierce asked why the parking for the industrial buildings in the middle of the site is concentrated on Tract B. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that each buyer is purchasing so much land based on the amount of building floor space which can likely be put on a `given amount of land. All of the parcels have roughly the same ratio of buildings to land, he said. Tract B simply happens to show more parking on its site. Chairman Pierce asked whether all of the parking designated on Tract B would be installed when Tract B is developed, or whether some would be deferred. The Secretary answered that that would depend on the applicant. The Secretary commended the idea of having the parking located roughly in the center of the site with industrial buildings shielding it fro!^ Shingle Creek Parkway and the Shingle Creek walkway. Regarding Condition No. 7 which controls traffic movements at the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and the private roadway entering the site opposite 67th Avenue North, the Secretary explained that median cuts would be located along Shingle Creek Parkway at 67th Avenue at the Spec. .9 site and on the westerly edge of the MTC site. The Secretary added that the MTC had originally offered to provide joint access through their site to the Spec. 9 site and other industrial sites to the south, but that it is now reluctant to provide access across its site because of fuel tanks stored underneath the driveway which may be susceptible to damage from heavy semi-trailer loads. 12-13-79 -2- Commissioner Lucht asked whether a left turn lane would be installed at Shingle Creek Parkway and 67th Avenue North to facilitate traffic into the new industrial site. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that that would be studied, that it would involve a 12 foot driving lane and. 15 to 20 feet of extra right- of-way at the most. Commissioner Theis asked why there was a need for a joint access agreement between Tracts B and D. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that this would basically allow for the free flow of traffic and reduce the need for ad-- di.tional entrances onto City Streets. In answer to a question from Commissioner Lucht, the Secretary explained that Tracts A and B have a common access agreement because they share a common loading area. Commissioner Hawes asked which ,median cuts would serve the proposed site. The Secretary answered that there would be a median cut at 67th Avenue North and at the Spec. 9 location, but that there would only be a curb cut at the common access drive between Tracts A and B. Commissioner Hawes asked whether this pattern of median cuts would make truck traffic difficult: to the industrial buildings on Tract B. The Secretary answered that the applicant plans -to revise the conceptual plan for the area to provide a 60 foot driving lane between the two industrial buildings indicated on Tract B. Commissioner Lucht asked whether the conceptual plan was realistic based on ordinance requirements. The Secretary responded that the conceptual plan is accurate from the standpoint of building setbacks and parking provided. Chairman Pierce asked about the location of the walkway easement through the Industrial Park. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that it would likely follow the same route as the drainage easement which, as yet, has not been determined, but which would definitely cross Tracts B and C of the proposed plat. Commissioner Hawes asked whether there would be a median cut between Tracts C and D to provide easy access to the motel on Tract D, if it were built. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that a median cut between Tracts C and D would be too close to the intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hawes, the Superintendent of Engineer- ing explained that the drainage easement could be placed totally underground with a storm sewer or partially underground with the remainder to be carried by a drainage ditch. He added that a drainage ditch can be an amenity to an industrial site if it is properly maintained, but added that it would take up more land. Commissioner Hawes asked for a cost comparison between storm. sewer and bridging over a drainage ditch. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that two bridges would be needed at $8,000.00 to $10,000.00 per bridge as compared to storm sewer. costs of $150.00 to $160.00 per lineal foot. He stated that there were too many other variables to consider to give a final judgment at this time. The Commission briefly discussed the soil conditions on the site. The Superin- tendent of Engineering stated that the site has a real problem with peat, but that the construction of the Interstate has provided a great deal of fill to be used in stablizing the site. 12-13-79 -3- In answer to another question from Commissioner Hawes concerning drainage, the ., Superintendent of Engineering explained that the storm sewer system in the Shingle Creek area is used to hold water when the Creek is high. When the water level in Shingle Creek is low, the ditch would carry drainage to the Creek. When the Creek level is high, the ditch could be used to drain water towards the storm sewer system. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING The Secretary stated that notices had been sent and that a public hearing had been scheduled. Chairman Pierce noted that no one else was present to speak on the application and called for a motion to close the public hearing. Motion by Comis- sioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Pierce called on the applicant to speak on the proposed R.L.S. Mr. Al'. Beisner, of B.C.I .P., explained that the "tongue" on Tract B is proposed because of a land allocation formula which requires each buyer to purchase a given amount of land in association with the ability to construct a certain amount of building floor space. Chairman Pierce asked whether there was enough land on Tract C for the buildings proposed for that parcel . Mr. Beisner answered that as long as the cross easements exist allowing joint parking and joint access, there would be enough land on Tract C for those buildings. The Secretary added that the previous master plan for this area had a similar amount of building space. The Secretary stated that he wanted the applicant to be aware of the fact that a private roadway would be-a permanent committment on the part of the applicant to maintain that roadway. Mr. Beisner answered that he was aware of that requirement: The Superintendent of Engineering added that the 15 foot easements on each side of the private roadway would provide much the same benefit as public right-of-way. Chairman Pierce asked whether the Superintendent of Engineering objected to the proposal for a private street. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that he had no objection, that he viewed the private drive as serving a complex, and that, as such, it is a feasible idea. Mr. Beisner expressed some concern about Condition No. 7 and asked that some flexibility be added to the wording. The Commission then discussed with the Secretary and the Superintendent of Engineering possible language which would allow an alternate solution. Mr. Beisner then discussed with the Commission the reasons for proposing the plat at this time even though development of the property was not iminent. He ex- plained that the price of developing the entire Industrial Park was too great for the party which originally wanted to buy the Park. Some means, therefore, had to be developed to sell the undeveloped to two groups of buyers. The proposed R.L.S., he said, grows out of a land allocation formula developed to split up the Park in an equitable manner. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79070 (B.C.1 .P.) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve Application No. 79070, preliminary subdivision approval to create a new R.L.S. with four tracts on Tract B, R.L.S. 1405, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 12-13-79 -4- ti 3. The final plat approval is subject to joint access, joint parking, and joint maintenance agreements between Tracts A, B, C, and D being filed with the R.L.S. as a deed restriction upon all of the above tracts. 4. Final plat approval is subject to utility and drainage easement and a sidewalk easement through the site being filed with the R.L.S. . 5. Final plat approval is subject to dedication of a portion of Tracts B, C, and D for roadway purposes in conjunction with the construction of turn lanes necessary for potential traffic signal installations at the intersection of Freeway Boulevard and Shingle Creek Parkway and of 67th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, the amount of said dedication to be determined by the City Engineer prior to final plat approval . 6,. Final plat approval is subject to drainage and utility easements of 15 feet in width, minimum, along both sides of private roads on the site, said areas to be unpaved boulevards properly landscaped. 7. The applicant acknowledges through final plat approval that access to a proposed private road as a westerly continuation of 67th Avenue North shall be restricted to points greater than 200 feet from the westerly right-of-way line of Shingle Creek Parkway; also that access to a proposed private road between 67th Avenue North and Freeway Boulevard and westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway shall be restricted to points greater than 100 feet from the right-of-way line of Shingle Creek Parkway, or other acceptable alternative determined at the time of site and building plan approval . 8. The applicant acknowledges through final plat approval that site approval is contingent upon the review of the fire marshal with regard to emergency access to all areas of the site. 9. The applicant acknowledges through final plat approval that should the owner(s) of Tracts A, B, C, and D wish access to Shingle Creek Parkway at the west line of Tract A, it will be the responsibility of said property owner(s) to negotiate a joint access agreement with the ,owner of the abutting property (Tract A, R.L.S. 1405) to the west of Tract A. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM (1980 Comprehensive Plan) The Secretary stated that the Comprehensive Plan could be recommended in its present form with an accompanying memorandum outlining changes to the existing document recommended by the Planning Commission. The Secretary added, however, that he considered the present memo accompanying the Plan document to be in- adequate in its coverage of the changes proposed by staff and the Planning Commission. In answer to Commissioner Lucht, the Secretary stated that he expected the Planning Commission could recommend the Plan at its first meeting iii 1980. He stated that one revision which staff has suggested, but which has not incorporated in the memo of corrections is that the light industrial zoning uses would be the industrial uses permitted on any industrial property. Outside storage, which is presently allowed in the I-2 zone, would become a special use within the industrial zone. 12-13-79 -5 The Secretary then reviewed the revised land use map of the City with proposed changes in use. Concerning the property immediately east of Humboldt Square Shopping Center, Chairman Pierce asked whether an R2 zoning might be appropriate. The Secretary answered that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the Northeast Neighborhood to be predominately single family in nature and that any new areas designated for residential should not be multiple family residential. Commissioner Hawes asked whether Northport Medical Clinic would be rezoned to a commercial designation. The Secretary responded that it would be inappropriate to allow the existing RI zoning classification to stand while rezoning single family homes to the north to a commercial use. Chairman Pierce noted that the land use map does not address the parcel on which the old City Hall was located, nor the parcel owned by Bob Johnson at the north end of the City on Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary explained that the old City Hall site is going to be sold as a site for an office use and that the uses on the property owned by Mr. Johnson include both retail and office uses. The Commission briefly discussed certain locations along the Boulevard in which the Plan recommendations could not be implemented without a variance or more latitude on permitted uses :within the designated areas of the Boulevard. ' In answer to a question from Commissioner Malecki the Secretary stated that the revised Comprehensive Plan will include a statement on airports. He noted that recent legislation passed by the Minnesota Legislature has changed the status f of homes within the airport impact zones from nonconforming to conforming status. Commissioner Lucht commented that apparently many people do not understand the process of redevelopment outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Assistant stated that to his knowledge those who are most alarmed by the Brooklyn Boulevard Study are not those living along the Boulevard itself, but one block 3 away to the east or west. Commissioner Lucht asked whether June Avenue would continue to intersect with 69th Avenue North if the triangle of land to the west of June Avenue were re- developed. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that it would be best to eliminate that intersection if access could still be provided to the homes in that area. The Planning Commission briefly discussed various locations along the Boulevard redevelopment would have to take place for the plan to be implemented. By consensus the Planning Commission decided to set January 10, 1980 as its first meeting of the new year, depending on the schedule adopted by the City Council . Chairman Pierce noted that this would be his last full meeting with the Planning Commission and expresssed his satisfaction with the experience of serving on a Planning Commission. - ADJOURNMENT " �,iotion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Chairman' 12-13-79 -6-