Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 07-15 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 JULY 15, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Low-ell Ainas, 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .uly 1, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the July 1, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioners Manson, Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Lucht. The motion passed APPLICATION NO. 82029 (Northwestern National Bank) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to install an automatic teller machine in the parking lot in front of Hirschfield's at Westbrook Mall at 5717 Xerxes Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82029 attached) . The Secretary explained that the automatic teller machine would be installed on a temporary basis to test the market in the Brooklyn Center area for a branch of the Northwestern National Bank. Chairman Lucht asked whether the applicant had anything to add to the staff presentation. Mr. Wally "Klus , of Northwestern National Bank, stated that he had nothing further to add to the Secretary's report. Commissioner Manson asked Mr. Klus why it would be necessary to take the machine out, even if the market in the Brooklyn Center area is adequate to support a new branch facility. Mr. Klus answered that Northwest Banco was committing itself to this location for five years and that after that time a decision would be made as to whether to keep the machine at its proposed location or to remove it. He stated that the technology of banking was changing so rapidly that he could not be sure what bank will decide to do in five years. Commissioner Manson "Mated that. she had seen three cars stacking at a money machine in `°'another location. Mr. Klus stated that he could not guarantee there would never be cars stacking behind the money machine, but added that he expected the peak times for the automatic teller machine to be when the surrounding stores are not busy. He stated that the bank would be most interested in rectifying any problem that might arise since troubles in providing service will have a negative impact on the bank's business. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern about vandalism and mechanical difficulties with the machine. Mr. Klus stated that he was not 7-15-82 aware of any mechanical problems with the machine. He . stated that the bank is working to make the automatic teller machines as error- free as possible. He noted that the bank will be installing 3,500 automatic teller machines throughout 10 states and that it is im- portant the machines work properly. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82029 (Northwestern National Bank) Motion by Commissioner Ai.nas seconded y Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 82029, 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. 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 improvements. 4. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 5. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all concrete islands. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 82023 (Bergstrom Realty Company) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for amended site and building plan approval for Phase I of the Hi Crest Square Estates in the 1300 block on the south side of 69th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information for Application No. 82023 attached) . The -Secretary stated that he wished to strike the last sentence of the second paragraph of the report in that he felt the newly submitted plans are substantially different from those submitted to the Planning Commission on June 17, 1982. The Secretary also reminded the Planning Commission of the memo prepared by the Assistant City Engineer re- garding three ponds in Brooklyn Park and observations on the proposed pond at the Hi Crest Square Estates . He also noted that the Commis- sion had received the City Ordinance requirement for fencing around . swimming pools. He asked the Planning Commission to come to a determination of whether the proposed pond should be considered a swimming pool and, therefore, fenced. The Secretary also briefly mentioned that screening of the project from the single family homes to the east had been provided by landscaping, which was accepted by the Planning Commission at its June 17, 1982 meeting. He added that 8' high opaque screening from Humboldt Square had become the burden of the R3 property as a result of rezoning the land from C2 to R3. The Secretary also mentioned the previous approval of the variance- from the buffering requirement of the R3 development from the City's 7-15-82 -2- pump house property on 69th Avenue North. He stated that no' action need be taken again on that application. Chairman Lucht asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. James Merila, representing Bergstrom Realty, stated. that he . felt everything had been covered. The Commission-was then approached by Mr. John DeVries of DeVries Builders, who asked the Planning Commission to table the application for one meeting until he could resolve with Mr. Merila the dispute between them regarding the use of plans which had been prepared for the Earle Brown Farm Estates, a project which he is building. Mr. DeVries stated that he felt the Planning Commission had been asked to make a legal judgment regarding the status of the proposed plans by seeking site and building plan approval. Mr. DeVries stated that he did not feel the plans submitted at the June 17, 1982 Planning Commission meeting were "prototypes" as the staff report indicates. He stated that he could recall no mention of the word "prototype" in the Planning Commis4sion minutes of that meeting. He stated that when these plans were not used in seeking City Council approval, the entire planning process should have been restarted, Mr. DeVries stated that he had no idea that Mr. Merila was using any of the plans that had been prepared for the _Earle Brown Farm 1 A Estates. He stated that he had not had time to review the-`"new plans which were submitted on Tuesday of this week to the City. Mr. DeVries pointed out that he and Mr. Al Beisner wished to meet with the applicant, Mr. Bergstrom, along with Mr. Merila before the next Planning Commission meeting and discuss the proper submittal of plans. Finally, Mr. DeVries reiterated that he felt a legal question had to be answered between the parties before the Planning Commission could act on the plans. The Secretary stated that the staff have to assume that the plans submitted for site and building plan approval are legitimate. He stated that he did not feel it was the Planning Commission's re- sponsibility to settle the dispute between the parties. Regarding the request to table the matter, the Secretary stated that the Planning Commission should consider the feelings of the applicant and whether the plans as submitted are in order. The Secretary also pointed out that the Planning Commission does not have to act on the plans for another 30 days. The Planning ommission was 'then approached b Mr. Bill Clelland 9 PP Y .. Attorney for James Merila. Mr. Clelland stated that the request to table the application was improper. He stated that the dispute between Mr. Merila and Mr. DeVries boils down to whether Mr. DeVries has the exclusive rights to use the plans which were prepared for the Earle Brown Farm Estates. Mr. Clelland stated that such building plans are not owned by the builder who uses them .and added that it is Mr. DeVries who wants the Planning Commission to settle a legal , question which should be answered in court. Mr. Clelland pointed out there is obviously competition between developers of similar types of townhouse projects. He stated that tabling the matter would favor one developer over the other unjustly. Mr. Clelland ` added that the matter has been thoroughly discussed 'with Mr. DeVries' attorneys. Mr. Merila then approached the Planning Commission and explained at some length the. background to the dispute which was being aired before 7-15-82 -3- the Planning Commission. Mr. Merila pointed out that when a con- ceptual site and building plan was brought to the Planning Commission... during the hearings on the rezoning application, a speculative lay- out was used because no builder had been lined up. He admitted that the building layout utilized the same footprint of the buildings developed on the Earle Brown Farm Estates. He stated that the plan had always been- referred to as a concept plan as opposed to a definite design. . Mr. Merila explained that the rezoning approval was . based on a preliminary plat and grading and utility plans. He noted that there were no building plans because the builder had not been selected at that time. • He stated that after receiving approval of the preliminary plat and the grading and utility plans, the applicant, Mr. Bergstrom, wanted--to start grading the site in prepar- ation of the development. However, Mr. Merila went on, staff required full site and building plans and final plat approval before issuing permits for grading and utilities. Mr. Merila explained that at, that point a builder still had not been selected. Mr. Merila went on to explain that H. E. Homes looked at the plans . prepared by Janis Blumentals 'for John DeVries. These plans were .to,.a be changed, he said. During the time immediately before the Planning Commission of June 17, 1982, Mr. Blumentals was out of town and, therefore, the building plans for the Earle Brown Farm Estates were submitted with a new name stamped on the plans. Mr. Merila admitted ° that this was a mistake and stated that H.E. Homes has attempted to redesigm the building plans since that time. He explained that the plans submitted at the July 1, 1982 meeting were pulled from the agenda because H. E. Homes was concerned that Mr. DeVries and Mr. Beisner had not been satisfied with the revisions. Mr. Merila stated that the new plans submitted since that time are substantially different, utilizing as they do, a larger foundation plan and a different arrange ment of" rooms throughout the units. Mr. Merila apologized for the inconvenience that this private dispute had caused to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Simmons noted that Mr. Merila did not want the plans before the Commission to be tabled. She stated that Mr. Merila was saving mahey by having a nonarchitect make changes to plans which- hard_,J?eep prepared previously by an architect, and then having them recertified by a structural engineer. She stated that if no one had been at-the July 1, 1982 meeting to object to the plans submitted at that time, she suspected that Mr. Merila would have 'gone forward with those plans for approval rather than withdrawing them. Mr. Merila stated that he had asked tbie architect (Janis Blumentals) for permission to show the plans from the Earle Brown Farm Estates to H. E. Homes. He st4�;pd that Mr. Blumentals gave that permission. Commissioner Simmons noted that Mr. Merila was working in the same capacity for Mr. Bergstrom as he had Mr. DeVries earlier. Chairman ' Lucht stated that he failed to .see the relevance of these questions to the Planning Commission's functions Commissioner Simmons stated that she was not satisfied with Mr. Merila's explanation as to why the plans have been brought to the Planning Commission and revised twice. She stated that it seemed to be part of the Planning Commis sion's function to approve plans that are legitimate for application r for building permits. The Secretary explained that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to make recommendations to the City Council. He explained that- . 7-15-82 ' I -4- the Planning Commission had 60 days before it must act on an appli- cation. He stated that the Planning Commission must decide whether they are ready to recommend a set of plans based on whether those plans are in order. He recommended that the Planning Commission not delve into who did what. However, he went on, if the Planning Commission is not ready to make a recommendation at this time, it can still table the application for up to 30 more days. If the Planning Commission is ready to act on the application, they .can do so at this meeting, he stated. Commissioner Simmons .asked whether the entire discussion had been impertinent. The Secretary explained briefly why the plans have been redesigned and stated that the Planning Commission should look at the plans irrespective of how or why they have been redesigned and should simply decide on. whether they can be recommended to the City Council at .this time. The Secretary explained that the applicant asked to resubmit the plans once the dispute -.arose following the June 17, 1982 meeting. At the July 1, 1982 meeting, the applicant asked to have the plans tabled again in order to do further redesigning. He concluded by saying that the differences between private parties should be aired before a court and not settled by the Planning Commission. In response to a quest en from Commissioner Simmons regarding the requirement for the plans to be signed by a registered architect, Mr. Merila stated that the plans will be submitted by Rydell Home Designers and Cordell Engineering, a structural engineering firm. Commissioner Simmons asked whether Cordell Engineering would be qualified to sign the plans as structural engineers. Mr. Merila responded in the affirmative. The Secretary explained that the Zoning Ordinance required that site and building plans be submitted by a registered Minnesota architect. He explained that the policy in the past has been that site plans may be submitted by either an architect or a registered engineer. He stated that before building permits have been issued, building plans must be signed by either a registered architect or structural engineer. He explained that the question of eektification was discussed with people at the State Building Codes Division and that they have ruled that townhouses in groups of more than two units must -be designed by a registered architect or structural engineer. Mr. DeVries stated that there was a confusion in the way the ordinance was written, that the ordinance does not mention structural engineers. The Secretary stated that the ordinance requires plans to be submitted by a registered architect and agreed that it does not mention structural engineers. He stated that the policy in the past has been to accept drawings which have been submitted by either an architect or a structural engineer in the case of building plans or a registered- land surveyor or civil engineer in case of site plans. Mr. DeVries stated that he felt there are other questi s besides whether the plans are qualified for approval which the Planning Com- mission must be aware of. He stated that he had no contact with Mr. Bergstrom, who he assumes is still the developer for the project. Mr. DeVries also stated that he did not think Janis Blumentals would say that he had given permission to use the Earle .Brown Farm Estates plan. He stated that although the applicant has a concern regarding the time delay -because of a tabling, there are, at the same time, savings to be gained from not having plans prepared by an architect. Mr. Clelland stated that his .client asked for decision regarding the 7-15-82 -5- plans and added that Mr. DeVries could raise his issues in court. Commissioner Ainas stated that he considered the basic question to be whether the plans are in order regardless of who prepared what. Chairman Lucht asked for a clarification of Conditions No. 11 and 8 in the Information Sheet. The Secretary answered that the Assistant City Engineer has recommended maintaining the water level in the holding pond at the Hi Crest Square Estates at 840 feet. The ssistant City Engin Aeer stated that the memo he had prepared looked at three ponds in Brooklyn Park. He stated that ponds with vertical drainage were not aesthetically pleasing. He recommended maintaining a minimum: water level so that the pond does not become a maintenance . problem. Commissioner Simmons noted that Condition No. 8 referred to "an acceptable safety risk." She asked whether it would be appropriate to do a larger study on ponds as part of this application or for it to be done independently of this application. The Secretary stated that the staff needed direction from the Planning Commission as to what it wanted in terms of information in order to make a decision. He stated that it was up to the Commission to decide. He stated that he. did not consider the proposed pond to be a swimming pool and suggested that perhaps signs posted "No Swimming" would perhaps eliminate any need for fencing around the pond. He also stated that the recommendation to keep the water level high actually adds to the safety risk, but to not maintain the water level would detract from the aesthetic appearance of the pond. In answer to another question from Commissioner Simmons, the Secretary recommended that the Planning Commission decide whether the proposed pond is acceptable for this particular development and study other ponds later. ' Commissioner Simmons pointed out that Brooklyn Center is experiencing increased pressure on its drainage system and that ponding is being used more and more to control drainage patterns. She stated that the need for aesthetic appeal and for economy and providing for drainage is always assumed in the Planning Commission' s deliberations, but that safety seems. to.,be less of a concern. The Secretary asked the Planning Commission to decide how they wanted to deal with the question of ponds. The Assistant City Engineer explained that in this particular case, the ground water level is 842 feet and the pond outlet is 840 feet. He concluded, therefore, that at most times the water level will be at 840 feet, except in dry periods. During these times, he explained, there would be a need for additional water, to be pumped into the pond to maintain a level of 840 feet. Mr. Merila stated that one of the problems he was trying to deal with in designing the drainage system was the drainage problems of the single-family homes to the east. He stated that an open pond would function better and would be more aesthetic for the development. He added that the applicant has no problem providing a water -supplement to the pond. Chairman Lucht stated that the "No- Swimming" signs could be used. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt such signs were inadequate. Commissioner Simmons again stated that there may be a need to address the general question of ponds in Brooklyn Center and wondered whether it was appropriate to study the question at this time. The Secretary answered that that could always be done in the future and that approval of the present application need not hinge on such a study. commissioner. " -6- 7-15-82 Simmons stated that the conclusion of a future study might have to be applied retroactively to the pond in question and this might be more difficult at that time. .Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the pond at the Hi Crest Square Estates would be unique because of the water table feeding into it. Commissioner Manson stated that. she did not know of anything that would eliminate all risk . in .. association with this pond. She stated that the parents must be left with some responsibility and recommended that the. plans be approved as is, without any barriers. around the pond. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 82023 i (Bergstrom Realty Company) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Manson 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. E E 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 j permits to assure completion of approved site im- provements for the entire development. 4 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be s appropriately screened from view. S. 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. The 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 required 4 ' high opaque fence. 7-15-82 -7- 10 . The building plans shall be certified by a registered Minnesota Architect prior to the issuance of building permits if so required by the State Building Codes Division. 11. The site plans shall be amended to incorporate a system to supplement natural ground water inflow into the proposed pond thus, maintaining a constant water level elevation of 840 feet (U.S.G.S. Datum) . 12. The final plat shall be amended to reflect the changes in the site and building plan submitted on July 12, 1982. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ai.nas and Sandstrom. Voting against: Commissioners Simmons and Versteeg. The motion passed. -Commissioners Versteeg and Simmons both expressed concern that the private dispute should be settled first before action is taken on the proposed plans. OTHER BUSINESS The Secretary reviewed upcoming business items and asked.who would be unable to attend the July 29 , 1982 Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Lucht and Commissioners Manson, Simmons and Sandstrom all said that they would be out of town. The Secretary stated that the meeting would, therefore, have to be cancelled and that the next Planning Commission meeting would be on August 12, 1982. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9 :27 p.m. Chairman 7--1582 -8-