Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 06-17 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 JUNE 17, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER_ The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7: 37 p.m. `q ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commis- sioner Manson had called to say that she was ill and would be unable to attend and, therefore, was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 27, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom "to-- approve the minutes of the May 27, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 82024 and 82025 (DeVries Builders, Inc.) Following the Chairman 's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two items of business, a request for site and building plan and prelimi- nary plat approval for 16 townhouse units at the Earle Brown Farm Estates on land described as Outlot B, Earle Brown Farm Estates First Addition. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 82024 and 82025 attached) . Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything further to add. Mr. John DeVries stated that he had no additional comments. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82024 (DeVries.. Builders, Inc. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconde3 by Commissioner San Strom to - recommend approval of Application No. 82024, subject to the following conditions: . .1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits . 2. Grading, drainage and utility 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 to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of the approved site. improvements for the 3rd Addition prior to the issuance of building permits. 6-17-82 -1- . 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. All common parking and driving areas shall be surrounded by B612 curb and gutter as shown on the approved drainage and grading plans. 6. Plan approval acknowledges a master plan for all phases of the Earle Brown Farm Estates townhouse project. How- ever, each additional phase is subject to preliminary. plat approval and site and building plan approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 7. The developers shall take adequate measures to control dust and debris during construction. A viable turf shall be established and maintained. in those areas subject to future development. 8. Phase 3 of the Earle Brown Farm Estates shall be included in the single Homeowners ' Association for the entire development. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht against:Commissioners Simmonst passed Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing regarding Application No. 82025, preliminary plat for Earle Brown Farm Estates Third Addition. He asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by C_ommissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82025 (DeVries Builders, Inc.) M to .on y Commissioner Ma ec i seconaed by Commissioner San strom to recommend approval of Application No. 82025, 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. Homeowners' Association documents for all phases of the development are subject to approval by the City Attorney - prior to final plat approval of each phase. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 6-17-82 -2- APPLICATION NOS. 82023 and 82026 (Bergstrom Realty Company) The Secretary introduced the next item o business, a request for site plan approval for a 60 unit townhouse project in the 1300 block of 69th Avenue North and building plan approval for Phase 1 including 18 of those townhouse units. He also introduced Application No. 82026, a request for a variance from Section 35-410, Subdivision 3 to allow a 3' wide buffer strip adjacent to the City's pump house at 1207 - 69th Avenue North, rather than the ordinance required 151 . The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff reports concerning these applications (See Planning Commission Information Sheets for Appli- cation Nos. 82023 and 82026 attached) . The Secretary noted that typically commercial uses are required to provide screening from abut- ting residential properties, but that in this case, because of the rezoning, the burden of the screening would be on the townhouse de- velopment. The Secretary also noted that the applicant was attempting to negotiate an agreement for a sanitary sewer with an adjoining property owner. He stated that if the negotiations are successful, Blocks 8 and 9 would be shifted southerly, but still be located with proper buffers and building setbacks. Following the Secretary' s review of the staff report, the Assistant City Engineer reviewed an accompanying memo regarding grading and utility matters for the project (see memo attached) . During review" and explanation of Item No. 5 in his memo, the Assistant City Engineer discussed with the applicant and the Planning Commission at some length, the proposed pond on the west side of the site and the proposed depth of the pond. Mr. Grube asked Mr. Merila whether there would be five feet of water in the pond generally, or only during heavy rains. Mr. Merila answered that the water level would remain, generally, at five feet because of the drainage leading into the pond and because the base of the pond would be within the clay shelf which extends to the Mississippi River and that the water would not seep into the ground as a result. Mr. Grube stated that it would be important that the water have an appreciable depth to keep the pond from be- coming marshy. He stated that the five to one slope leading to the pond and into the pond itself was a sufficiently flat grade that it should not pose a serious safety_hazard; however, he deferred the determination of *a safety hazard to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt the pond could be a safety problem with kids coming over to it from the single neighbor- hood to the east. Mr. Merila responded that there are ponds in other townhouse developments, namely, the Island Ponds and Moorwood Town- houses. ' He stated that to put a fence around the pond for safety reasons would detract from the aesthetic benefits offered by the pond. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the purpose of the pond was for aesthetics or for drainage. Mr. Merila answered that it served both purposes. He explained that the storm sewer leading from the pond at elevation 840 would allow water to seep up out of the pond once drainage from the area reached. a certain level. Commissioner Simmons stated that it appeared to her- that safety was a secondary concern. - There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the possibility of the pond becoming a mosquito problem. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not consider it likely that mosquitos would be a big problem if water is running continually except in the dry months. Mr. Merila stated that the water level would be augmented by the City water supply, if necessary, during the dry months. 6-17-82 -3- .Commissioner Malecki asked whether there was any special concern re- garding the proposed pond. The Assistant City Engineer answered that there is a pond at the DeVries townhouse .project (the Earle • Brown Farm Estates) which is strictly used for drainage control and, at present, is dry. He stated that he wanted to know, and suggested that the Commission know, whether the proposed pond is going to be a pond or just a device for drainage control. Chairman Lucht asked whether the five to one slope was not gradual enough to avoid safety problems. Mr. Grube answered that he con- sidered it to be such. He stated that the slope could be maintained and that it is not so steep a slope that anyone would tumble down it into deep water. Commissioner Simmons asked whether there wouldn't be a problem in the early .winter and late spring when there is thin ice over five feet of water and young children may try to walk out on it. The Assistant City Engineer acknowledged that this could be a problem, but added that it was hard to- judge just how great the potential for harm would be in this case relative to other ponds in the City. The Assistant City Engineer completed his review of the memo regarding grading and utility aspects of the proposed site plan. He stated that . all sanitary sewer plans and specifications must be approved by the Pollution Control Agency, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the water main must be approved by the Minnesota Department of Health. ' PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht opened the meeting for a.public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the variance application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82026 (Bergstrom Realty Company) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded y Commissioner Simmons to recommend approval of Application No. 82026 on the following grounds: 1. The institutional nature of the abbuting Rl use. 2. There is considerable precedent for allowing a reduced buffer adjacent to institutional uses. I. There would be no detrimental effect on other residential property in the area. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Sandstrom and Versteeg. The motion passed. Commissioner Malecki stated that she would like to know whether other ponds in the City are similar to the pond proposed at the Hi Crest Square Estates Townhouse development. She stated that this comparison should show whether or not the proposed pond will "work as proposed. Following a discussion by the Planning Commission, it was decided by concensus that such a review should be made prior 6-17-82 -4- to review by the City Council. Commissioner Sammons asked whether the neighbor's to the east had been consulfi4kregarding the choice of landscaping to serve as a screening device rather than a fence. Mr. Merila stated that the neighbors to the east were extensively consulted during the re- zoning process and saw concept plans for the development. The Secretary also stated that he believed the screening issue was discussed during the rezoning hearings. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82023 (Bergstrom Realty Company) Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 82023, subject to the following conditions : 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits; and specifically, ` should conform to the revisions and requirements set forth in the Assistant City Engineer's memo dated 6-14-82. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site im- provements for the entire development. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject -to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. All areas regraded, but not developed according to plan shall be seeded to maintain adequate ground cover for dust control. 8. Thee Assistant City Engineer shall report to the City Council on how the proposed plan compares with other ponds on private developments in the City and on whether the proposed pond will fulfill its function as both a drainage control device -and an- aesthetic asset to the townhouse development, with an acceptable safety risk. 9. Plan approval acknowledges the proposed landscape treatment along the east side of the development as acceptable screening in lieu of the ordinance re- .quired 4 ' high opaque fence. 6-17-8*2 -5 Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom , and Versteeg. Voting against: Commissioner Simmons. The motion passed. Commissioner Simmons stated that her vote to oppose the motion was based on her concern about the pond both for safety reasons and aesthetic reasons. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. SETBACK DEDUCTION The Secretary then introduced the first discussion item for the evening, a proposed deletion from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance of the provision which allows only the area exclusive of setback areas abutting public streets to be used in calculating land for density. The Secretary referred the Commission's attention to .a table attached to the agenda which lists various multi-family zoned properties in the City and shows the impact of the setback deduction in terms of the units allowed on given parcels of property. He then turned the discussion over to the Planning Assistant. The Planning Assistant explained that the table shows that the setback deduction reduced density on an average multi-family zoned parcel by 20 to 25 percent. He also explained that the setback deduction has different impacts on different parcels depending on whether they are located on a corner and how much overall area is involved. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether buildings would be allowed to be built closer to the right-of-way as a result of eliminating the setback deduction. The Planning Assistant explained that staff was only recommending that the deduction for density purposes be eliminated, not that the setbacks themselves be reduced or eliminated. He explained that the number of units allowed on a given parcel was determined by excluding the land area within the setbacks off a public right-of-way. He illustrated this in the case of the Columbus Village Apartment complex. The Secretary explained that the setback deduction makes certain small corner properties almost unbuildable because they are reduced to a total density of only' two or three dwelling units which is essentially impractical for an R4 or R5 type use. He also pointed out that there have been very few apartments built since the setback deduction provision has been in effect. Therefore, he explained, most of the apartment developments in the City are nonconforming as to density and would only become conforming again as a result of eliminating the setback deduction. b. SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING The Secretary then briefly informed the Commission regarding a con- cept for elderly housing on the land situated east of Highway 100 and south of I-94 in the northwest corner of the Southeast Neigh- borhood. He explained that the housing project would have about 127 total units based on the density allowed by the current ordinance (allowing for density credits for tuck-under garages) . Of these, he went on, there would be about 30 townhouses and the remainder of the units would be apartment units, half of which would be rental and half of which would be condominiums. The .Secretaxy.._stated that the staff has been reviewing the possibility of allowing greater density for a senior citizens development because 6-17-82 -6- of the lower traffic associated with a senior development as com- pared with a normal townhouse or apartment development. He pointed out that the average daily trips for a senior development are only about half the average daily trips fora normal townhouse or apart- ment development. ' He stated that one of the primary concerns of zoning is the amount of traffic generated by development of a given parcel of land. He stated that the City could either rezone part of the land to R5 or to somehow allow for greater density in cases where the development is for senior citizens. He stated that the problem in the latter case would be trying to restrict the development to occupancy only by seniors. He stated that it would be difficult to prevent younger couples from moving into a condominium unit in a building that was supposed to be reserved for seniors. - Commissioner Sandstrom suggested that perhaps covenants could be placed on the property to require occupancy only by seniors. The Secretary answered that financial institutions tend to shy away from providing mortgages for projects which have such restrictions. The Secretary and Commissioner Sandstrom briefly discussed the question of density and the problems which may or may not be associated with apartment developments. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the restricted density has obviously made some properties useless. The Secretary stated that the property could be used, but that the density could not be as great as would be the case if the setback deduction were not in effect. Commissioner Sandstrom explained that the cash flow from the smaller number of units now permitted makes it uneconomic to develop most multi- family properties. Referring to Brookdale Ten, Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the problem with that development was not really the density, but the layout of the buildings and the size of the units which led to more transient tenants and a lower standard of maintenance. Chairman Lucht pointed out that he could develop his R3 property at a greater density if he chose. to put a senior citizens development on the property. The Secretary stated that it may be legitimate to allow greater density for seniors based on the reduced traffic impact. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt the project should be locked into senior occupancy only. Otherwise, she pointed out, the density credit would allow just another multi-family development at a- greater density. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the planned residential development provision in the Zoning -Ordinance applies only to parcels of land. 15 acres or greater. He stated that the new Com- prehensive Plan recommended lowering this threshold to 5 acres. • The Planning Assistant also stated that, as a practical matter, it seemed that it would be difficult to restrict lowrise to senior citizen occupancy. He stated that either because seniors like to be higher up. or because they feel crowded out of the lowrise market, they tend to move into taller buildings. Commissioner Simmons stated that seniors probably like to have an elevator' to get to their units and that these are not ecomomical until the building is over three stories. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that con- versely, families with children would tend to avoid tall buildings that separate living areas from play areas. Commissioner Sandstrom 6-17-82 -7- added that land is a scarce commodity and that its use must be in tensified to keep up with trends that are beyond the City's con- trol. Commissioner Simmons stated that there must be adequate control on the development to ensure that it will be occupied by seniors. ADJOURNMENT Following .a brief review of upcoming business items by the Secretary, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9 :38 p.m. Chairman 6-17-82 -8-