Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 01-31 PCP R t. ' PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JANUARY 31, 1991 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - January 17, 1991 4. Chairperson's Explanation: The Planning ,Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Group Health, Inc. 91002 Request for site and building plan approval to make a 1,387 sq. ft. addition to the northwest corner of the Group Health Clinic at 6845 Lee Avenue North. 6. Twin View Development, Inc. 90028 Request for rezoning and site and building plan approval to rezone from I-2 to PUD/R1 and Open Space the 17.5 acre Soo Line west of France Avenue North and south of 51st Avenue North. This application was considered by the Commission at its December 6, 1990 regular meeting. 7. Twin View Development, Inc. 90029 Request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide the Soo Line property into 27 single-family lots and two open space outlots. This application was considered by the Commission at its December 6, 1990 regular meeting and was tabled at the applicant's consent. 8. Other Business 9. Discussion Items 10. Adjournment M M s R Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 91002 Applicant: Group Health, Inc. Location: 6845 Lee Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Location/Use The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 1,387 sq. ft. addition to the approximately 25, 000 sq. ft. Group Health clinic at 6845 Lee Avenue North. The property in question is zoned C1 and is bounded on the north by 69th Avenue North, on the east by Lee Avenue North, on the south by the NSP Maintenance facility, and on the west by Noble Avenue North. A clinic is a permitted use in the C1 zoning district. Access/Parking No changes are proposed in either access or parking for the proposed addition. A minor access off Noble Avenue North to a storage building will be modified slightly. The storage building is to be moved northward approximately 28 ' with modification to the driveway serving it. Two dumpsters with a wood fence enclosure are to be added in the approximate location of the present storage building. The site presently has 209 parking spaces. The parking requirement for the expanded building is 176 spaces. Therefore, existing parking is adequate to accommodate the proposed addition. Landscaping The site is presently well landscaped and no new landscaping is proposed. Total landscape points for the existing plantings on the site come to 964 points. The approximately 5 acre C1 site requires only 440 points. Therefore, existing landscaping is adequate. Grading/Drainage/Utilities No significant improvements are proposed in this category other than a minor amount of paving to provide access to the relocated storage building. We are unsure whether curb and gutter bounds the present paved area. If so, we would recommend that it be installed around the new paved area. Building The proposed addition is a one-storey addition to the northwest corner of the existing building, approximately 37 ' square. The exterior treatment is to be a stucco system to match the existing precast panel finish. A pre-finished metal bank to match the existing building will run along the tope of the exterior wall. Trash/Lighting As mentioned earlier, the applicant proposes two new dumpsters behind a wood enclosure north of the proposed addition. No lighting changes are proposed. 1-31-91 1 R, A4 . c • APPLICATION NO. 91002 CONTINUED Recommendation Altogether, the plans appear to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Paving and curbing plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A performance agreement and supporting financial - guarantee (in an amount approved by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to insure completion of approved site improvements. 4. The building addition is to be equipped with an automatic =. fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a remote monitoring system in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City ordinances. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all new • --paved areas. Submitted by, r Gary Shal cross Planner A roved by, ,...�t,G, -LJ ald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection • _ _ 1 31 91 2 ""!I �, .. ;� loss 1211011 linglooml== MR in= 1111111111110 2 mm MW in Mm ►, mm IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN mm OAF cE mm = mm RAN mm mm mm mm mm dc IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN a Igo MEN imam MEN to Slew, I M- UNNERWRIF!S - min �� 1.1.E•�. i �i ■�■■■■m '11111111111111l111�11. - Ismail Em in 1111■t��t/111: •• �� 1�■//��I ��1��1��1��■■ � � � <: �� ■--- ���� � --� =' ■ MA�■�■i iii'" �I� �� all am Mir ►�■-� ►•:•:■ �i � � i� ■� ■ 111■1"t��' � �� FRwq KIM ,Ghl IM MM mm 1M WIN IN mm � ••: � � 'i � mmm /■�/1;,�1111� �!� �� .��. SHE .�... .... 11111 t 69th AVENUE C--L rRcPSRTY uNc _ cupca air 1 - �\ PP-nPOSEV�W�DITION = �� I)67 4F• - D-7-OCpJr.VECY 'T'PE I['N COMYTF1l.TOH FiJLLY fil�E-SP}L�{KLERED Sxi,)-r 4a &u,Lplf{R LT7,CW I:)-f.-APPFox. F•f:E. 8471_W t5-2-=UrAMCY TYPE t-N CONg7RUGTl01� " NU-Y PIRa-7rR a4= -- j I - I _ 1 E70'MN4 FAFW4ry4 W L09 hrscc�! D Z LLJ W Z j W W J t • • Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90028 Applicant: Twin View Development, Inc. Location: France Avenue North and 51st Avenue North Request: Rezoning and Site and Building Plan This application for rezoning of the Soo Line property from I-2 (General Industry) to PUD/R1 (Single Family) and Open Space, was considered by the Planning Commission at its December 6, 1990 meeting. (The minutes of that meeting were transmitted to the Commission and approved at its January 17, 1991 meeting. ) The Planning Commission tabled the matter at that time and referred it to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met at the City Hall on January 9, 1991 to review the matter with staff, the applicant, and people from the surrounding neighborhood. There was a lengthy discussion, as is detailed in the minutes of that meeting (attached) , regarding the merits of the proposed rezoning and development plans. Concern was expressed regarding the size and number of lots and whether residential was a desirable use on this land. The applicant has responded by making the lots at least 75 , wide, reducing the number of lots from 29 to 27 (two of which the City may purchase to provide access to the open space area to the west, thus leaving 25 lots for development) . Some concern was also expressed regarding the negative impact of the Murphy Warehouse on this development and the need for better screening. Staff recommend that the landscape plan be revised to indicate at least three trees (either 5 ' high coniferous or 2" diameter shade or a mix) be provided along the south sides of the southerly lots, in addition to a 2 ' berm and a 6 ' high opaque fence. The applicant has not responded positively to this recommendation to this point. One neighbor was also concerned because the new 51st Avenue North would intersect with France Avenue North directly across from their driveway. Staff suggested a landscape treatment to block headlights. Those who attended the neighborhood meeting seemed split between some who felt that the proposal had merit if it were modified to contain fewer, larger lots, and others who simply opposed any single-family development at all out of fear it would become rental housing. Of the three Neighborhood Advisory Group members, two favored the residential development if it were modified to at least meet R1 zone lot width requirements. The member who served as chairman, Charles Gellerman, withheld his comments at the meeting, but has submitted a letter expressing opposition to the proposal in light of "virtually unanimous opposition" by the neighborhood to the intensity of and price range of the proposed development. Staff have prepared a resolution recommending approval of the rezoning and site and building plans given certain considerations 1-31-91 -1- • • I • • APPLICATION NO. 90028 CONTINUED and conditions. We recommend at this point that the 40' wide open space buffer along the south sides of the southerly lots to be omitted and that the R1 zone extend south to the Murphy Warehouse property. This rezoning action will make the warehouse buildings nonconforming as to buffer and setback from the R1 zone. While this certainly will place a burden on the Murphy Warehouse, we feel that it is the industrial use that should bear the burden of proving its right to continue and not the residential development assuming that burden. Also attached for the Planning Commission's consideration is a draft amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, establishing area 118 on the Land Use Revisions Map (Figure #15, Table #14) as a redevelopment area for PUD's and/or Light Industrial. Area #18 does not presently include the Soo Line property the Murphy property or the NSP substation property. The amendment would add these properties to area #18, which would then include all I-2 zoned land in the City. There is a public hearing scheduled for the January 31, 1991 meeting. However, the notice was published only 8 days in advance of the hearing instead of 10 days required by ordinance. We have republished the notice and a continued public hearing on the amendment will need to be held on February 14, 1991. • The Commission may act on the rezoning on January 31 1991 with a Y g Y stipulation that the action is contingent on approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Unless the applicant waives his right, the rezoning application must be placed on the City Council's February 11, 1991 agenda. The Council then has up to 48 days from the date of the Commission's recommendation to take action on the application. We, therefore, recommend some action on the rezoning at this meeting. If the Commission is inclined to recommend denial of the application, that recommendation will be forwarded to the Council with as many reasons as are enunciated. However, a formal resolution will be brought back to the Commission for action at its February 14, 1991 meeting. Submitted by, Gc�w Gary Qllcross Planner pproved by, /1000 ,......,.�o Ronald W. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1-31-91 2 intro duced the following Member adoption 91-1 ed its NO• OF resolution and mov COMMISSION RESOLUTION ED DISpO TWIN N VIEW PLANNING RECOI4END D By REGARDI90028 SUBMITTE RESOLUT TI N NO' d by Twin View t0 NPPLICA INC. submitte I,dustrY) to DEVELOPMENT 9002$ 1 and from I-2 (Genera Application No. Resident Avenue den WHEREAS propose rezoning one Faiand west °i ht of Way' and of Developm Unitl Devel°of 1 15 ac 51st Avenue North r g duly called planned Space) s a and pub7i ting (public aPsouth of the existing Commissa staf f ire a°n9 plans were North an the plan, ente and 1 when bui WHEREASrDecember 6, and and si ing one e rezoning met to ublic hear ardi g th Adv'sorY Group and testimony re a t Neighb°rh°oat the Ci revisions to received; an 1991 uthwes with some WHEREAS' then° January 91ication matter the PUD apP on of 'der the royal °f la and d coris'deraa ldraft pOr,s ended apP laps and P or, resume report, and the development P he Planning CO Ce ved development plans, rie W o,R Jan uar aman�dme t,f 'riued public hear ing/ d site the matter plan cont rezoning an the Comprehen e t. Ony during a '°T► consider t StimonY receive n 5208 o e further t the Commiss ht of all ed in ti on Of a WHEREAS, nest in lign s contain the Proves 35-355 , and plan req Rezone g light of Section city' s and b li es f o Eva ordnanc di a �e contained property in the Guide Zoning t or e to Z n v center the City ed Unit Develop comments relate Brooklyn that planned of the the cil in Iighensive plan' BE IT RESOmend t Ythv 1 pme t Inc be Comp THEREFORE, to recom View De NoWrorY COmmissi°tted by Twi 51deratiOns' f anvil` planning te nvNO' 90 2 ,thebf°llowing con he additiona�n single top the Cit' APpl o ed in light 1 allow fore ghborhood bydof f sebiltY t city apPr 1• The rezoning he i So Wtl1w benef it the d wi 1 add s devoted 1 on homes ally• This popasa Sub tial areas generd of a de which h 'stE a neighborhood uses' which is coThe less permanent ill provide family neighb°rhp0a• The rez°n ad7a ent single 2' with the r MINUTES OF THE SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP JANUARY 91 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group met to consider rezoning Application No. 90028 and was called to order by the Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren at 7:35 p.m. Those present included Charles Gellerman, Yvonne Quady and Bill Hawes. INTRODUCTION The Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren reviewed a memo submitted to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group regarding the rezoning application. He reviewed the location of the proposed single-family residential project on the Soo Line property west of France Avenue North and north of the Murphy Warehouse property. He noted that the proposed zoning is for R1 and Open Space and that it would be a single-family development with 29 single-family lots and two outlots for open space. He reviewed a plat drawing of the property and noted that there would be some setback variances granted as part of the PUD approval if the application was approved. He also pointed out a proposed 40' wide private open space zone along the south side of the single- family lots on the south side of proposed 51st. He explained that this 40' wide private open space area would serve as a buffer between the single-family homes and the Murphy Warehouse. He also explained that the land would be owned by the single-family homes. He noted that there has been some concern regarding the size of the homes proposed in the development, but that they are basically consistent with the size of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Warren stated that one of the most important questions for the Commission to advise on is whether the current. land use designation of I-2 (Industrial) is appropriate or whether a residential designation would be better. Mr. Warren noted that other concerns regarding the layout of the property, the buffer and the size of the homes were secondary considerations which could also be considered. Mr. Warren explained that the notices of the meeting were sent without a time designated for the meeting and that some residents were concerned as to the validity of the meeting. He stated that it was an unintentional mistake and that apparently people found out about the time of the meeting in light of the attendance shown. Mr. Warren added that there had been dumping of fill on the property without a permit the previous week and that it was also apparently without the authorization of the applicant or the owner of the property. He stated that the City had ordered that the fill be removed from the site and that that removal was in progress. ADVISORY GROUP DISCUSSION Mr. Charles Gellerman, who served as Chairman of the meeting, then stated that he had lived in the area since the 1960's and he read 1-9-91 1 two letters that had been sent to him from people in the neighborhood. One letter was from Daryl Sharpe, of 5042 France Avenue North, which complained that the proposed development had lots that were too small and that quality housing was needed in the neighborhood. The letter stated that there was concern regarding resale value of the homes to be built that would be adjacent to the warehouse. There was also concern that the homes would become subsidized and occupied by low-income residents. The letter concluded with concern regarding the fill that was dumped, asking why it was dumped without an approval and wondering if this is how the developer and/or the City proceeds without public approval. Mr. Gellerman also read a letter from Daniel Middlestedt, of 5100 East Twin Lake Boulevard. The letter complained about the notice that was received, stated that the lots were too narrow, and recommended that evergreen trees be planted along the south side of the development to screen it from the warehouse property and also recommended that the City obtain lots for recreational access. Mr. Rick Hartmann then stated that he did not know about the dirt that was placed on the property, that he was out of town when it took place. He explained that he had told one of his subcontractors about the project and that the subcontractor assumed that it would be alright to place fill on the property, but that no explicit authorization had been given. He stated that the fill was being removed. He concluded by stating that the project was not being started without the City's approval. Mr. Warren added that the City did not intend to cite the contractor for a violation as long as the City. was getting cooperation in removing the dirt from the site. Member Bill Hawes asked whether the new property owners would own the buffer strip between the residential zone and the industrial use at the Murphy Warehouse. Mr. Warren responded in the affirmative and noted that there would be a berm and a fence within that buffer strip. He stated that if the 02 zoning is approved for that area, a covenant restricting the use of that area to open space use would have to be filed with the titles to the property. He added that the City could instead rezone the entire area to R1 down to the Murphy property. He explained that the industrial use would then become nonconforming similar to the Howe Fertilizer operation. He stated that the burden would then be on the industrial use to establish a buffer at some time in the future if the building had to be rebuilt. Mr. Warren again stated that the land use question is the most basic question and that the buffer, lot size and other issues are other questions to be answered if the rezoning in concept is agreed to. Mr. Warren then gave the advisory group members the minimum lot sizes, widths and setbacks for the R1 zoning district. Mr. Hawes asked what the minimum side setback would be in the development. Mr. Warren answered that it would be 10 feet (though a 5' setback could be allowed in certain special circumstances) and 3 ' for a garage. He noted that no side yard setback variances were sought. He explained that the variance 1-9-91 2 would be on the front yard setback in the northerly lots in order to preserve as many trees as possible. He added that the squares on the transparency show the setbacks on each of the lots, not the building pads, and that the numbers within those setback areas indicate the floor elevations, not the square foot areas of the houses. Mr. Hawes asked whether an industrial development would do away with the trees that presently exist on .the property. Mr. Warren explained the existing right-of-way dedication for 51st Avenue North and that it was possible for an industrial use to dedicate another 30 feet of right-of-way and petition for a street to be put in. He pointed out that homes fronting on Oak Street would then back up to 51st Avenue North. Member Charles Gellermann stated that when the apartments were proposed for this property, consideration was given to putting in a street in this location, but that the land was too low. Mr. Hawes concluded that an industrial use could have a road. Mr. Warren responded in the affirmative, noting that right-of-way could be dedicated and a petition could be submitted for roadway improvements. He stated that, if the proposed rezoning were approved, the City would vacate - the existing right-of-way for 51st Avenue North and that a utility easement would be retained in that area. He explained that in all likelihood, the land area within the existing 51st Avenue North right-of-way would go back to the houses along Oak Street as an addition to their property. Mr. Gellerman stated that if the right-of-way land were added to the development, it could add to the value of the lots and improve the overall development. Mr. Warren responded that the land would normally revert to the property to the north since that is the plat from which the land was dedicated. He added that the City Assessor has indicated that adding to lot depth does not add much value to a property. Mr. Gellerman stated that in Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove and some other communities they are going to 80 ' wide lots because narrower lots are not appealing. Mr. Rick Hartmann, the applicant, stated that wider lots also involve more land for people to take care of. He stated that there are houses selling on these size lots for $85, 000 to 100,000 and up. He explained that he would build some custom houses first to use as models and that other houses would be built as they were sold to buyers. Mr. Gellerman expressed concern regarding the size of the homes. Mr. Hartmann stated that he himself lived in a 960 sq. ft. house and that he had four bedrooms because he has four levels in the house. He stated that he lives on a 75' wide lot and that it's a lot of land to maintain. He stated that greater depth to the lot would allow the homes to be moved back from 51st Avenue North, but that the homes were being kept forward in order to save the trees. DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD An unidentified resident stated that the warehouse walls behind the project would devalue the homes built in that area. Mr. Hartmann stated that at least the warehouse would not be a surprise to 1-9-91 3 people who move in. He stated that people would be able to see ahead of time what their neighbor would be and would not lose value because of the warehouse coming in later. Mr. Duke Dalrymple, of 5142 France Avenue North, stated that he thought the houses would be rented out and that the issue is over land use. He asked why the City should allow narrower lots. Mr. Warren responded that the overall land area in the development is quite ample and that a good portion of the property is dedicated for open space and that this somewhat offsets the narrower lots. Mr.. Dalrymple stated that the applicant was not giving away anything he could actually use. Mr. Warren acknowledged this to some extent, but noted that the City is pursuing acquisition of land around Twin Lake and that, in other locations, would have to pay for land. He pointed out that Mr. Hartmann is proposing to buy the land and give part of it to the City. He explained that the City would have to buy the land if it dealt directly with the Soo Line. Mr. Dalrymple stated that the land couldn't be used by Mr. Hartmann anyway. Mr. Warren pointed out that -the City could not use it either without buying it normally. Regarding lot widths, Mr. Warren explained that some lot variances have been granted in other locations of the City in certain-circumstances. Mr. Dalrymple asked why a standard lot size - was not-being applied for. Mr. Warren responded that the applicant has a right to ask for smaller lots as part of the Planned Unit Development application. Mr. Dalrymple stated that the City was giving away lot size for nothing. He stated that he felt the land should remain industrial. Mr. Gellerman inquired as to the plans for planting trees. He suggested that a row of tall trees might help to screen the warehouse and thereby help sell houses in the development. Mr. John Johnson, the project engineer from Merila and Associates, then showed the members present a cross section of the buffer treatment to be constructed. He noted that it would include a 6' to 8 ' high fence and a mixture of trees. He stated that a solid wall of trees is an option. He stated that the applicant was trying to meet concerns regarding a buffer from the industrial use on the residential property and also trying to preserve trees along the north side of the property and to dedicate land for open space. He stated that when all of these things are added together, there are some compromises that can be made and others that cannot. Mr. Warren explained that the open space buffer along the south side of the residential lots would alleviate the industrial use from having to provide the buffer on its property. Mr. Warren explained the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for landscape buffers where industrial uses abut residential uses. He pointed out that the existing Murphy Warehouse presently does, and has in the past, abutted I-2 zoned land and was not required to have a buffer. Mr. Ken Nelson, of 5126 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that the area north of the tracks which the applicant proposes to dedicate 1-9-91 4 for open space, used to be used for dumping by the Joslyn operation south of the Soo Line tracks. Mr. Warren noted that soil tests were being done on the property and added that he was not aware of any contamination of the soil north of the tracks. Mr. Nelson again reiterated that the area north of the tracks was used for dumping by Joslyn and that he reported this to the PCA (Pollution Control Agency) . He related some of the history of the use of the area by Joslyn and that it used to be burned in the spring when he was a young child. He noted that he had lived in the area for approximately 50 years. Mr. John Johnson, representing the applicant, stated that soil tests done from soil borings of the area found no evidence of volatile organics. He stated that test wells had been installed by the PCA and that there was no contamination in two out of three of those wells. He noted that one of the wells south of the tracks did show ground water contamination. He stated that the ground water moves southeasterly and that the contamination appears to be confined to the area south of the tracks. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Warren then discussed some of the past history of the property. Mr. Warren explained that the City, in the early 1970's, was interested in acquiring some land adjacent to Twin Lake for open space, but that the condemnation awards were too high and that the City decided not to buy the land. Mr. John Johnson showed a map of the area and noted the flood plain boundary. He stated that the Soo Line property is a 17.5 acre parcel and that the applicant intends to develop approximately 9 acres while dedicating approximately 8 acres for open space. He stated that of the 8 acres for open space, 6 acres are in the flood plain and that five of those acres are wetland. Mr. Johnson stated that there is a use for the flood plain area, that an industrial use could use the area for some outdoor storage. Mr. Daniel Middlestedt, of 5120 East Twin Lake Boulevard, cited sections of Minnesota Statues 462.257, Subdivision 7 and 462. 397 as requiring notice of any zoning action to be sent at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Mr. Warren stated that the City follows the City ordinance which requires a 7 day notice. Mr. Middlestedt stated that he felt a statute overruled a city ordinance. Mr. Warren noted that Brooklyn Center is a charter city. Mr. Middlestedt noted that the developer wants more homes than would normally be permitted by ordinance. He asked whether the developer has purchased the property or not. - Mr. Rick Hartmann answered in the affirmative, stating that he has a contract on the property. He added that he has a commercial use in mind for the property if a residential use is denied. Mr. Middlestedt stated that his position was , for some modification of the project. He encouraged the construction of larger homes, more in the range of $100, 000 to $120,000 price range rather than the $85,000 proposed by the applicant. He stated that Lhe area of right-of-way being 1-9-91 5 vacated should be added to the buffer adjacent to the industrial use rather than to the lot depth of homes along Oak Street. He also encouraged the placement of test wells to determine if there was any ground water contamination north of the tracks. Mr. Jerry Bisek, of 5101 East Twin Lake Boulevard, concluded that the other use possible for the property would not be residential. Mr. Shallcross, the Planner for the City, explained that the property is zoned industrial and that an industrial use would be a permitted use of the property. He stated that the City would not be able to negotiate the specifics of the project as long as it met basic ordinance requirements. Mr. Howard Meyer, of 5036 France Avenue North, complained that the residential street proposed by Mr. Hartmann would open up onto his driveway. He stated that he did not want to be threatened by the developer and that he would just as soon see an industrial use of the property rather than residential. Mr. Duke Dalrymple, of 5142 France Avenue North, stated that he felt the developer was being arrogant like the developer of the Bill Kelly House. Mr. Hartmann stated that he was not trying to be arrogant, but that the property would have to be developed. He noted that the taxes on the property are $30, 000 a . year and that he could not afford to carry this property for any length of time. Mr. Gellermann asked those present how many favored the present I-2 zoning, how many would favor an R1 zoning and how many would favor R1 with modifications. An unidentified gentleman present asked about the possibility of open space. Mr. Warren explained that the City could not zone the property open space without compensating the property for the taking of the developable value of the land. Another gentleman asked whether another Murphy warehouse could be put up. Mr. Warren responded in the affirmative. He stated that the development plan would have to meet setbacks, buffers, etc. , but that an industrial use of the property was permitted under its current zoning. An unidentified woman asked about the possibility of a park. Mr. Warren explained briefly that the City is interested in developing land around Twin Lake for park purposes and noted that the developer in this case would be dedicating a substantial portion of the land to the City for open space. Mr. Ken Nelson, of 5126 East Twin Lake Boulevard, stated that kids from the proposed development would go to the park up East Twin Lake Boulevard. He asked whether it would be necessary to widen East Twin Lake Boulevard to accommodate this additional traffic. Mr. Warren answered that there was no plan for widening the right- of-way at this time. He stated that he would have to consult with the Director of Public Works to determine if there was any plan for widening in the future. The Planner noted that there were plans for trails in the area. An unidentified woman concluded that the developer would do what he ~rants to do with the property and asked whether this was correct. 1-9-91 6 Mr. Warren stated that zoning separates certain uses and that single-family development was not allowed under the current zoning. He explained that the developer proposes to rezone the property to a PUD/R1 designation. He further explained that rezoning does not normally control specific lot sizes and house sizes, but that those aspects were on the table with the PUD proposal before the City. He explained a little bit of the PUD process and noted that it was new to the City staff as well as to the neighbors. He concluded by explaining that the developer cannot build a single-family development now, but does have property rights to build an industrial use if the rezoning fails. Mrs. Yvonne Quady, of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, explained to those present that she had been involved years before in negotiating compromises regarding the Beach Apartments in her neighborhood. She stated that the neighbors banded together in that case and got a fairly good development because they were willing to compromise. Mr. John Johnson stated that the plan proposed by the developer is consistent with the park plan being looked at by the City Public Works Department. He also explained, that, although the right-of-way through the proposed residential - area would be bigger, the street itself would not be bigger than those in the area. An unidentified woman asked what would happen to the wildlife in the area. Mr. Johnson stated that he felt that it would probably shift its habitat if it cannot live with the neighbors that move into the area. He referred people's attention to the park plan for this area and the desire to install walking trails. There followed a brief discussion of the trail proposal in this area. Mr. Johnson stated that the trails are provided in their development plan. Mr. Roger Reger, of 5024 France Avenue North, stated that he felt there wouldn't be much opposition if there were fewer and bigger lots. A woman present asked what the developer's schedule was for building on the property. Mr. Johnson stated that it was their desire to build models in the spring so that they would be open for the Parade of Homes in the fall. He stated that he felt an industrial use of the property does not make sense for the neighborhood. There followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility of tilting the roadway in some fashion to avoid lining it up directly with the Meyers' driveway on France Avenue North. Mrs. Ammon, of 5042 Ewing Avenue North, stated that she felt those present should work with the developer to try to -get a good development. She noted that the City got Brookdale Ten some years before and that the City should work to get a better development this time. Mr. Duke Dalrymple argued for fewer and bigger lots. Mr. Warren stated that he did not believe the City could require lots larger than the basic City requirement in the R1 zone, namely, a 75' wide lot. In response to a question from Mrs. Meyer, Mr. Warren gave the buffer and setback requirements for an industrial 1-9-91 7 use on the Soo Line property. Mr. Dalrymple asked whether an office use would be permitted. Mr. Warren indicated that it would not be permitted in the I-2 zone. Mr. Gellerman asked whether it would be possible to rezone the property to commercial. Mr. Warren responded that he doubted that such a rezoning would be requested. He stated that he did not see the area as a viable commercial zoning district because of its location. He added that he did not think multiple family is acceptable and, if it were zoned for townhouses, there would be even more units than is being sought by the developer now. He concluded that the City would be left with the existing I-2 zoning if the R1 zoning were rejected. Mr. Dalrymple stated that the neighborhood does not need more small homes. Another unidentified woman expressed concern regarding traffic from the residential development. Mr. Shallcross explained that one of the staff's concerns in looking at this property over the years has been the possibility for truck traffic going further up France than it already does and intruding into the residential neighborhood. Mrs. Meyer pointed out that such traffic would be during the day and would not be as objectionable as residential traffic toward her property at night. Mr. Ken Nelson expressed concern about the possibility of some traffic moving up East Twin Lake Boulevard to get to Brooklyn Boulevard and then to Highway 100 if the entrance ramp at 50th Avenue North were closed. Mr. Warren stated that that seemed to be a circuitous route. He stated that it was far more likely that residents that live along East Twin Lake Boulevard will use 51st Avenue North to get to France Avenue North. Mrs. Meyer agreed and stated that. there would be more lights shining at her house. Mr. John Johnson, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has told him that he is willing to increase the lot size to 75' for interior lots and 90 ' for corner lots, but that he still wants the setback and buffer compromises as indicated on the plan. He stated that he doubted that the applicant would be able to get title to the vacated right-of-way since it would go back to the property owners abutting Oak Street. He told those present that lot width was not perceived by the applicant to be an issue, but that some modification could be made to the plans to accommodate that concern. He also stated that the road could be shifted so that it didn't line up directly with the Meyers' driveway, but that it would either reduce lot depth or the width of the buffer, depending on which way it was moved. Mr. Warren suggested the possibility of adding screening on the Meyer property to reduce the problem of the headlights. An unidentified man asked whether the applicant would be able to do what he wants if the property is rezoned. Mr. Warren explained that the only thing that could be developed on the property under the PUD designation would be the approved development plans. An unidentified woman asked, if the property remained industrial, 1-9-91 8 would the City still go after land for a park and seek public input? Mr. Warren stated that there would be informational meetings, though not public hearings in the formal sense as with the rezoning. He stated that park development is something that the Park and Recreation Commission looked into. He added that no final plan has been decided on at present. Mr. Ken Peterson, of 3850 Oak Street, stated that the lots along Oak Street are 80 ' wide or more. He stated the development should either have larger lots or that the property should be left industrial. Mr. Shallcross pointed out that, if the property were left industrial, there is at least a possibility that a street would be put in behind the homes along Oak Street and that all of the trees which presently buffer the Murphy warehouse would be removed. A woman present asked that another meeting be set up to look at a revised plan. She stated that she did not want truck traffic in the area. She added that she would prefer larger residential homes to industrial development. Another gentleman present asked whether a revised plan was available to look at. Mr. John Johnson stated that nothing has been worked up yet, but that another plan would be developed with wider lots. He stated that the applicant needs to know if the residential zoning is acceptable. Otherwise, there isn't much sense in pursuing this option. Mr. Bill Hawes, a member of the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, stated that he would definitely prefer residential use rather than industrial. An unidentified man noted that Mr. Hartmann was in business to make money and discussed the possibility that, if the residential use were denied, perhaps no industrial use would be profitable. Mr. Warren stated that, if the R1 zoning were denied, an industrial use would probably come about eventually. He stated that if an R1 zoning were later approved, the City could be sued by Mr. Hartmann for not approving his rezoning. There followed a brief discussion regarding notices and the need for another meeting. Mr. Warren explained the background of the proposal and the process that is normally pursued in reviewing a rezoning. An unidentified gentleman suggested that perhaps a limit should be placed on the number of houses rather than on the exact lot size. Mr. Warren stated that he believed it would be better to require a minimum lot size and added that he did not feel that the City could dictate a larger lot size than the standard minimum of 75' in width. Mr. Dalrymple stated that he felt the problem was the number of homes and that a traffic analysis should be done to determine what the impact would be on France Avenue North. Mr. Warren stated that a traffic analysis certainly would not show an adverse impact on France Avenue North. He stated that the impact would not be much different than the impact of Oak Street or other streets which feed 1-9-91 9 into France Avenue North today. He stated that the streets are designed to carry far more traffic than they actually do. Mrs. Meyer stated that she wanted residential development, but not with cars coming toward her house. She stated that if the development were set up according to the plan, she would prefer keeping the I-2 zoning. Mr. Gellerman stated that there would be another meeting and asked what the preference of the advisory group was. Mr. Hawes stated that he preferred residential development. Mrs. Quady stated that she preferred residential development with a minimum lot size in line with the City standards for the R1 zone. Mr. Gellerman stated that he had not made up his mind yet and would be contacting people in the neighborhood over the next couple of weeks. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business of the advisory up, the meeting adjourned at 11: 00 p.m. Chairman 1-9-91 10 . T January 16, 1991 TO: The Brooklyn Center Council Brooklyn Center Planning Commission FROM: Charlie Gellerman, Chairman, SW Neighborhood Advisory Group SUBJECT: APPLICATION NO. 90028 TO REZONE SOO LINE PROPERTY FROM I-2 TO R-1. Having listened to the comments of interested neighbors at the January 9th meeting at City Hall about the above subject as well as having consulted with these neighbors and others personally and by phone , I recommend against the rezoning from I-2 to R-1. There is virtually unanimous opposition to the plan proposed by the developer, specifically, the size and number of the lots, and the price range of the houses . Many feel that the intensity of the housing proposed will tend to make it appear as tract housing, isolating this area from the general community. Since the basic ordinance requirements previously establsihed by the City of Brooklyn Center govern the development of the property in question, the neighborhood' s objections to the development proposal can only be expressed by rejecting the application for rezoning the property. Charlie Ge lerma i Chairman, SW Neighborhood Advisory Group January 14, 1991 City of Brooklyn Center ATTN: Planning and Inspection Department 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: Rezoning 51st and France Avenues North Dear Planning and Inspection Department (Ron Warren, Director) : We are against re-zoning of the property at 51st and France Avenues North. We request that the property be left zoned as is: industrial. We do not want this property rezoned, and especially not to any residential codes. We think the City has done a good job of managing the property in this area to-date and would like the good management practices to continue. There are no conditions which would cause us to want the property rezoned to residential. Thank you. Sincerely, fi c S zl&v Wayde S. and Diane Lerbs 5107 E. Twin Lake Blvd. Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 536-9925 �� `�� �/ . , J ``�� � �'-�" � . �G/ ' �L� G�o�-c��� 1��� u�� ���, � �_ �� � ���� � � � a�� `�� ����� ��� �l _s�;� p n l G�� �-� 2 .� � � hex G�G�cvc- - zs—� L�� . ,� a�e.� ,� z ` I :. � � i �� ���� //'. o�� Gyc��,�, �� -� `--r�- �-���c`,4 `� ��..i��7�' sue-�/�z as - ;"'�^•- j _ti Y,r'-, _ _ �.�"• el f�� v,d.^ a' a jTMF'T." �rte.�r /�� � - '"•a� S P: •.; �., r• lief t y >"� �.� �'�'� �,v.7Y`� 7� •'E}''N� Sl�`t.'e;?,J• � +T-j��f'r _._��.. -.. 2•;- r S� " -�s :•Yt_„�.+�e�.�. `�o �1lOQKlYN ��R, MEMORANDUM TO: Gerald G. Splinter, City Manager / ! FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Director of Planning and Inspectioir?a j DATE: January 22, 1991 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Planning Commission is considering a request by Rick Hartmann to rezone from I-2 (General Industry) to PUD/R1 and Open Space approximately 17.5 acres of land that are owned by the Soo Line north of the Soo Line tracks and west of France Avenue North. Mr. Hartmann proposes to build up to 27 single-family homes on the easterly portion of the property north of the Murphy Warehouse property. The westerly 8 acres or so he proposes to dedicate to the City for public open space. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is required if the Planned Unit Development rezoning is to be approved. Section 35-355, Subdivision 4c of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that: "A PUD may be located only in an area designated for redevelopment in the City's Comprehensive Plan. " The Comprehensive Plan presently recommends no change in the I-2 zoned Soo Line property. though the area is identified as a planning issue for the City on page 74 of • the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan amendment would include the Soo Line property in area #18 (basically the entire I-2 zoning district) on the Land Use Revisions Map (Figure 15) and would designate on Table 14 all of area #18 as an area for redevelopment as a PUD and/or light industrial development. The Plan presently recommends "light industrial" development in area #18. A public hearing by the Planning Commission to consider this Comprehensive Plan amendment is scheduled for Thursday, January 31, 1991 at approximately 7:30 p.m. Section 35-202, Subdivision 1 of the City Ordinances establishes the procedure for Comprehensive Plan amendments and requires that a copy of the proposed amendment be transmitted to the City Council prior to the publication of the notice of the hearing. The notice of public hearing will be published in the Brooklyn Center Post on January 24, 1991. Pursuant to the above ordinance provision, I have enclosed a copy of the notice of hearing which includes a statement of the intent for the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Both Table 14 and Figure 15 of the Comprehensive Plan will have to be modified to reflect the changes. Please forward these items to the City Council for their consideration. Any questions that you have, or the City Council might have concerning this matter, may be directed to me. RAW:mll 39\ M D _ - --SI �: a \ 6C 6 a- i J y ^_ —.3 .:�: _' -�--;--.--r.-.9 (`fit /'.� � y `x=\ '.,�:-..,r / � • •.n.. .,.s. -��� j"�,1 ��:i � - -$-� x='Y' 0 S 9� Lj M,7-7�- Y r � �-y,��' .-._ C F �r mot-' �•. 1 J J '�'/ l r { '`C�. iL+���..r'_d`y�. S 'tr-''rt`T-L Jwzx L, r •— . :ITT `•\ ,•(, uccl _ y J f _ -T, .S - �8 REFERME NMM Land Use TA. ,!R!- ;( Plan «\ Revisions Y - o m oee nI» a.ae nea r V1115� 0� o,Q Comprehensive Plan �cac�v TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions Location Number Recommended Land Use la. Mid-Density Residential or Public Land lb. Mid-Density Residential 2. Single-Family Residential 3. Commercial Retail 4. Commercial Retail 5. Mid-Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid-Density Residential 7a. Single-Family Residential 7b. Public Open Space 8. Multiple-Family Residential 9. Commercial/Retail 10. Commercial/Retail 11. Mixed Use Development (Including High-Density, High-Rise Residential, Service/Office and General Commerce) 12. Mid-Density Residential/High Density Residential 13. Mid-Density Residential 14. Single- or Two-Family Residential 15. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space • 17. Mid-Density Residential 18. Redevelopipent as PUD and/or Light Industrial 19. Commercial 20. Low-Density Residential 21. Service/Office 22. Low-Density Residential 23. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 24. Service/Office 25. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 26. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 27. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 28. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 29. Commercial Retail 30 Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 31. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 32. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 33. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 34. Mid-Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 37. Mid-Density Residential 38. Single-Family Residential 39. Service/Office 40. Commercial Retail 41. Service/Office • 42. Mid--Density Residential 98 h. CITY 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY F ©® 1 N BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE: 569-3300 CENTER FAX: 561-0717 EMERGENCY - POLICE - FIRE 911 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given of a public hearing to be held on the 31st day of January, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider a proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment relating to the following described property: That area bounded by the following: Beginning at the intersection of 50th Avenue North and France Avenue North, thence northerly along France Avenue North a distance of approximately 620 feet to the south line of the existing 51st Avenue North right-of-way; thence westerly along said right- of-way to Twin Lake; thence southerly along the eastern shore of Twin Lake to the north line of Lakebreeze Addition; thence easterly along the north line of Lakebreeze Addition to Azelia Avenue North; thence south along Azelia Avenue North to Lakebreeze Avenue; thence easterly along Lakebreeze Avenue to France Avenue North; thence north along France Avenue North to the Soo Line tracks; thence easterly along the Soo Line tracks to Highway 100; thence northeasterly along Highway 100 to 50th Avenue North; thence westerly along 50th Avenue North to the point of the beginning. The following described land shall also be included: Beginning at the intersection of France Avenue North and North Lilac Drive; thence south along France Avenue North to the south line of Registered Land Survey No. 952 ; thence easterly along the south line of R.L.S. No. 952 to the south line of R. L.S. No. 981; thence easterly along the south line of R.L.S. 981 to the south line of R.L.S. No. 1023 ; thence easterly along the south line of R.L.S. 1023 to the east City boundary; thence north along the east City Boundary to the Soo Line tracks; thence southeasterly along the Soo Line tracks to the east City boundary in line with Xerxes Avenue North; thence north along the east City boundary to 49th Avenue North; thence west along 49th Avenue North to the northeast corner of Lot 2, Block 1, Howe, Inc. Addition; thence south 150 ' to the south line of said lot; thence westerly to the east line of Lot 6, Block 4, Brooklyn Manor Addition; thence south 103.71 ,sa�u��wwc�an Notice of Hearing Page 2 feet to the south line of said lot and block; thence easterly along the south edge of Block 4, Brooklyn Manor Addition to Highway 100; thence southwesterly along Highway 100 to the intersection with France Avenue North; thence southeasterly to the point of the beginning. This property is more commonly known as the land currently zoned I-2 within the Southwest Neighborhood of the City of Brooklyn Center. Statement of contents of the proposed amendment: The proposed amendment is to designate the areas within City which are zoned I-2 (General Industry) as areas for redevelopment with the possibility of both Planned Unit Developments and/or Light Industrial development. Date: January 16, 1991 Ronald A. Warren Planning Commission Secretary (Published in the Brooklyn Center Post January 24, 1991) I I • N � ` ...ta�..• •...a_.S,��r � ~-� I._".. h` Cam• •'r.-� 'Sp LAKE hx WI i= ..�. roassrs� .1 i . /RYAN LAKE Fe. IJ ti i j----�r-- --- CITY OF BROOKXLYN CENTER N IV PLAN CO MP RE�E � E AREA # 18 : REDEVELOPMENT/ PLANNED UNI' FIGURE 15 DEVELOPMENT AND/OR LICIT INDUSTRIAL LAND USE PLAN REVISIONS I 1111m 1 V 'Wilma 55555. _ �E� milli ♦, ■ RIN M AP 11111111 INS _=��IIIIIIIIII' MINE Aar,. ONWA slam d osre M i :;; .� ��. �1�1®111 � ;�� •� _ i / \ (..: P1 v r 4011--, A i � J • _I� r 1 1 O N i ❑ I ' I ' i .Q ji f LJ - I 2 v_ = n a i 0 —1 Z I E • I I I! D0 pm fiti �! T•T� 4sm ,Z ❑r-, ❑; F—J x ° i i s IUD � �M z ' E TWIN Vat YfADGWS __ - — — _ .. ......,�..,°.. 1,; _ ----` _ f . raMERILA SITE PLAN &ASSOCIATES =". W w"I 6.00.,v.Cf.,i(° '- S_�_—1/ !!_ ING°+EEkooG SuAvEyiNG`Aw✓o+w. , Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90029 Applicant: Twin View Development, Inc. Location: 51st Avenue North and France Avenue North Request: Preliminary Plat This preliminary plat application is a companion to Application No. 90028 which requests rezoning and site and building plan approval for a single family development on the Soo Line property, west of France Avenue North and north of the Murphy Warehouse and the Soo Line tracks. The application was tabled with the applicant's consent at the Commission's December 6, 1990 meeting. Since then, the rezoning application has been considered by the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group which recommended by two votes to one that residential zoning be approved for the property if the plan is modified to provide for at least the minimum R1 lot width on the single family lots. The plat and site plan have been so modified. The minimum interior lot width is now 75 ' and corner lots 901 . The subdivision now provides for 27 single family lots and two open space outlots. Furthermore, City staff are prepared to recommend acquisition of two of the single family lots on the west end of the proposed 51st Avenue North to provide access to the open space outlots to be dedicated to the City. Thus, the number of lots actually developed in this subdivision would not exceed 25 if the proposal were approved and the City acquired two lots. • As to the open space dedication, staff have questions as to whether it is necessary or desirable to have two separate lots and whether they should be designated as outlots. Under City ordinance, outlots are by definition unbuildable. It may be that the City will desire in the future to place a structure or building in the open space area and it would be burdensome to replat the property again simply to change the designation of the outlots to lots. Nevertheless, this is a detail which can be decided between preliminary and final plat approval. Other than the change in lot width which has reduced the number of lots by two, the plat has not been substantially changed since the Commission considered it at their December 6, 1990 meeting. We would recommend at least two more changes at this time. One would be to add block designations which have been omitted on this latest draft. The other change is to add an easement through open space area for the rail access to the Murphy Warehouse property. Apparently a poorly defined easement exists now, but nothing has been shown on the plat. Given the above modifications, the plat appears to be in order and approval is recommended, subject to at least the following conditions: • 1-31-91 1 i APPLICATION NO. 90029 CONTINUED 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. 3. The owner of the property shall execute a subdivision agreement with the City outlining required improvements in the subdivision, payment of assessments and utility changes, and time limits for completion of required improvements, prior to final plat approval. 4. The preliminary plat shall be modified prior to final plat approval to indicate blocks and to indicate an appropriate easement for rail access to the Murphy Warehouse property. Submitted by, Gary Sh llcross Planner J 00� proved by, Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and Inspection 1-31-91 2 h_L .s Z �•; �. _,i�, _, io c ,up,•loOlJ NORTH j�' -�` c 4 , ,,� 1'x.0; •I a; .{:ox (�, � p b I UI t-4 s. I ti H' F Z e ;.. to�./ � •ii'eiuc!` � (ml1 . i _1 i :.AURTfI � I i .--•I {{{f { C . (C�iru f'.-e i r{_! it!1,1111 Is SifIin asg f�{'!II• �t�1�� "Ct S°.?: 1�1 (�ii"(i (t I� �iir(1� i- a-_ sit- n- rz C ie'� 11,91 �sI€ TWIN VIEW MEADOWS ..........�... _. =_ _ MMERILA PRELIMINARY PLAT I l� t -�,_ &ASSOCIATES ".14(W4 SMR w.G Runr,:,90.76 SOU • 1 • I •