Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 12-10 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 REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 10 , 1981 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman William Hawes at 7: 35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman William Hawes, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, Nancy Manson, George Lucht, Mary Simmons and Lowell Ainas . Mso present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Clary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 19 , 1981 Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the November 19 , 1981 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commis- sioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Manson, as she was not at that meeting. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 81067 (David Brandvold) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide land between 57th and 58th Avenues North in the Colfax Avenue corridor by creating a cul-de-sac. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Infor- mation Sheet for Application No. 81067 attached) . The Assistant City Engineer referred the Commission to a memo he had submitted to the Secretary and to the Director of Public Works regarding the proposed subdivision. He pointed out that Section 15-108 of the subdivision ordinance requires curb and gutter as one of the public improvements in a residential subdivision. He also noted that no storm sewer had been proposed for the project, since there is none within 400 ft. of the cul-de-sac. He stated that the developer would grade the site so that overland flow would direct drainage either toward 58th or along the pavement to 57th Avenue North. He pointed out that since the grade of the street would not be steep, curb and gutter would help the drainage to flow toward 57th. As far as terminating the curb and gutter, the Assistant City Engineer recommended that as a minimum, the developer be required to install curb and gutter within the subdivision itself. The Secretary added that curb and gutter is an ordinance requirement which has generally been waived in the past in the case of resi- dential subdivisions. He pointed out, however, that it has not always been waived. He cited the DeVries subdivision off Xerxes Avenue North, south of the freeway. The Secretary also pointed out that there may be a need for a utility easement between Lots 1 and 2 and between Lots 6 and 7, because of the location of power poles in the vicinity of property lines. 12-•10-81 -1- There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the requirement for curb and gutter. Commissioner Simmons asked whether a row of bituminous curb would be installed through the NSP easement. The Secretary answered that staff would recommend that curb and gutter be carried through the easement. The Assistant City Engineer stated that the City would try to assess NSP for the curb and gutter, but admitted that he was unsure whether benefit could be proven. Com- missioner Lucht asked what the minimum gradelis for street drainage. The Assistant City Engineer answered that the minimum grade is roughly one-half of one percent, or -a one-half foot rise in 100 feet. He stated that the Belinda Addition is proposed at approxi- mately a one percent grade, but that this could be flatter with the curb and gutter installed. In answer to a question from Commissioner Manson, the Assistant City Engineer explained that the greatest drainage problem would occur at the point where the curb and gutter ceases along Colfax Avenue North. Chairman Hawes asked a question regarding the assessment for the street improvements . The Assistant City Engi- neer answered that the improvements could either be installed by the City and assessed against abutting properties or could be in- stalled by the developer with the cost paid by the developer. He reiterated that the City would try to assess NSP for any improve- ments abutting its property, but added that it was unlikely that any benefit could be shown to Lots 2 , 3, 4 and 5 , which have access onto 58th Avenue North. Commissioner Simmons agreed that lots abutting 58th should not be assessed for the cul-de-sac. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes opened the public hearing and called on the applicant to speak. Mr. David Brandvold, the developer for the project, pointed out that there is no curb and gutter along Colfax Avenue North between 53rd Avenue North and the freeway. He stated that he felt the installation of curb and gutter should be foregone until the rest of the street is so improved. He stated that in- stallation of curb and gutter would raise the price of the houses he plans to build and make them more difficult to sell. He also noted that the City Council did not require curb and gutter on the cul-de-sac in the Jody Addition. Chairman Hawes commented that the City is considering a neighborhood street improvement program, which would include installing curb and gutter throughout the City within a few years. Mr. Bra.ndvold stated that he would oppose curb and gutter on his own strbet and stated that the rolled bituminous curbs on most streets in the City have held up well. Commissioner Lucht pointed out that if the street improvements were a City project, all the cost would be assessed against the abutting properties . He also pointed out that curb and gutter may be installed within the next few years anyway under the program mentioned by the Chairman. In answer to Commissioner Lucht, the Assistant City Engineer stated that the assessment rate for curb and gutter is approximately $10 .00 per lineal foot, which includes the cost of the curb and gutter and administrative overhead. Commissioner Simmons inquired as to the rate for rolled bituminous curbing. The Assistant City Engineer answered that there is no separate assessment for bitum- inous curbing, but that it is included with the cost of the street. The Secretary stated that the City Council would hold an assessment hearing to determine benefit if the street improvements were in- stalled 'by the City. He stated that it is a policy decision as to 10-in-Ql -2 whether to require curb and gutter, though he added it seems silly to put in the street without curb and gutter and then tear it up later on to add the curb and gutter as part of a potential .up- Corning: city-wide program. Mr. Brandvold stated that special assessment hearings would probably be held for any improvement projects in the future and that he would oppose curb and gutter on his own street at such a hearing. He also pointed out that if the project were con- structed by the City, he would still be liable for paying "assess- ments before selling the houses . Therefore, the cost of the im- provement would be included in the price of the houses , no matter who installed the street and the curbs. Commissioner Theis asked whether there were other streets in the area that had curb and gutter. The Assistant City Engineer 'Stated that Dupont Avenue has curb and gutter, since it is a Minnesota State Aid street, but that most of the streets in the area do not . have curb and gutter. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81067 (David Brandvold) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded y Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 80167 , subject to the follow- ing 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. 3. The subdivider/developer shall enter into a Sub- division Agreement with the City and submit a financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) insuring the completion of all ordinance required improvements, including install- ation of curb and gutter. 4. An easement for street purposes shall be obtained from Northern States Power Company for installation of street through the power easement prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: Commissioner Theis. Commissioner Theis explained that he voted against the approval as proposed because he is concerned about requiring curb and gutter on a cul-de-sac, but not continuing it on the rest of Colfax Avenue North. He stated that the curb and gutter should be continued all the way down to 57th. APPLICATION NO. 81069 (C & G Transcontinental Developers) The Secretary introduced the next item o usiness , a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the land at the northeast corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard, the 12-10-81 -3- location of the Brooklyn Crossing office development. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 81069 attached) . Noting that the site has only one major access onto Northway Drive, Commissioner Simmons asked whether it was likely there would be traffic congestion on the lot at around 5 :00 p.m. when people are leaving the office. The Secretary answered that no traffic analysis had been done for on-site traffic when the site and building plans were reviewed. He stated that there had been considerable analysis of the traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 and that the State and the County would not want to grant any access onto those thoroughfares. Chairman Hawes asked whether the two lots north of the property abutting Brooklyn Boulevard could be acquired and attached to the site to provide access onto 59th Avenue North. The Secretary answered that that would be possible, but that it would be necessary to rezone the property C1A if it were to be included in the Brooklyn Crossing office development. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Hawes then opened the meeting for a public hearing and called on the applicant to speak. A representative of C & G Trans- continental Developers stated that he had no further comment to make in addition to the staff report. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81069 (C & G Transcontinental Developers) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 81069 , subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2 . The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances . 3. The final plat shall be filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits for building B or C. 4: Easement documents concerning access to Lot 1 and Lot 3 shall be approved by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes , Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas . Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. . OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary briefly reviewed with the Planning Commission the 1982 proposed meeting schedule and explained that, for the most part, meetings would be on the Thursday following a Monday City Council meeting. He asked for a motion to adopt the meeting 12-10-81 -4- schedule, subject to possible changes as the need arises . MOTION ADOPTING 1.982 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to adopt the proposed 1982 meeting schedule, subject to change as Commission business dictates . Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Hawes . The motion passed. Chairman Hawes explained that he did not wish to participate in the vote, since he would not be on the upcoming 1982 Planning Commission. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 :01 p.m. and resumed at 9 :31 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM - Flood Plain Management Ordinance The Secretary next reviewed with the Planning Commission, the' pro- posed Flood Plain Management Ordinance contained in Appendix B of the 1980 Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Ordinance would be adopted and contained within the back of the Zoning Ordinance under a section covering overlay ordinances. This section, he explained, would include the Flood Plain Ordinance and the Critical Area Ordinance. The Secretary next explained the basic districts established by the Flood Plain Ordinance: the Flood Way District and the Flood Fringe District. He explained that the Flood Way is that area needed to convey the waters produced by the regional 100 year flood. The Flood Fringe, he went on, is the area covered by the 100 year flood. In addition, he stated, the Flood Plain maps show 500 year flood- level designations. These elevations, however, are not relevant to the Flood Plain Ordinance. He next reviewed the permitted and conditional uses (special uses in the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordi- nance language) proposed by the Flood Plain Ordinance. Commissioner Simmons asked for some wording clarifications in the procedure section of the proposed ordinance. The Secretary noted the errors in the text and stated they would be altered before final adoption. Commissioner Ainas briefly mentioned that his engineering firm had been contracted by a northern Minnesota city, which did not have to adopt a Flood Plain Ordinance, because the information was not available. The Secretary stated that the Brooklyn Center Flood Plain Ordinance would provide only for Flood Way and Flood Fringe districts in Brooklyn Center. He ex- plained that a third Flood Plain District, the General Flood Plain covers areas which are undesignated as to whether they fall within the Flood Way or the Flood Fringe. He stated that the Brooklyn Center Flood Plain maps have enough information to designate all areas of the Flood 'Plain as Flood Way or Flood Fringe and that the lengthy procedure for determining the status of "unnumbered A Zones" would be unnecessary in the Brooklyn Center Ordinance. The Secretary then went on to review with the Planning Commission the Flood Plain maps provided by the U. S. G. S. and also reviewed the subdivision section of the Flood Plain Ordinance, the procedure section, and the penalties and amendments sections. Commissioner Theis observed the penalty for not adopting a Flood Plain Ordinance is apparently that someone would not be able to obtain Flood Insurance. He noted, however, that no one seems to be in any position where they desperately need Flood Insurance. 12-10-81 -5- Commissioner Simmons stated that insurance companies would have the Flood Plain information that the City has and that the City would do property owners a favor by letting them know their land is in the Flood Plain. The Secretary stated that the staff have tried to restrict, where possible, the Flood Way designations to undevelop- able areas. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of the proposed Flood Plain Ordinance, subject to certain revisions to clarify language and to make it more con- sistent with the existing Zoning Ordinance terminology. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Manson, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:18 p.m. Chairman ` R 122-10-81 -6-