Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 01-12 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 JANUARY 12, 1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1983 Planning Commission was calked to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL 1983 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki , Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas and Carl Sandstrom. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant 'Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 8, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the December 8, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as. submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Ainas and Sandstrom. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURN 1983 PLANNING COMPASSION Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the 1983 Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The 1983 Planning Commission adjourned at 7:32 p.m., ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary then administered the oath of office to Commissioners Malecki , Manson, Sandstrom and Nelson. Commissioners Malecki , Manson and Sandstrom were reappointed for additional terms and Commissioner Nelson was appointed for the first time for a two year term. CALL TO ORDER 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION The 1984 Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by acting Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Acting Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. ELECTION OF 1984 PLANKING COMMISSIONt CHAIRMAN Acting Chairman Lucht then opened the floor for nominations to elect a 1984 Planning Commission Chairman. Commissioner Sandstrom nominated and Commissioner Manson seconded Commissioner Lucht to be 1984 Planning Commission Chairman. Acting Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any additional nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the nominations for 1984 Planning Commission Chairman. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to close nomina- tions. The motion passed unanimously. . `' ACTION ELECTING GEORGE LUCHT 1984 PLANNING COMMISSIONI CHAIUTAN A, vote was then taken on Planning Coission Chairman. Voting for George Lucht: Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson, •Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none.. The notion passed unanimously. ELECT 1984 PLANNING COWISSION CHAIRMAN PRO TER Commissioner Ainas nominated and Commissioner Sandstrom seconded Commissioner. Manson' as 1984 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. Chairman Lucht asked whether there were any ether nominations. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close nominations. CLOSE NOMINATIONS Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close nomina- tions for 1984 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION ELECTING NANCY HANSON PLANNING COMMISSION PRO TEM A vote was taken on 1984 Planning Commission Chairman Pro tem. Voting in favor of Nancy Manson: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson.' Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. APPLICATION NOS. 84001 AND 84002 (Reynolds Homes, Inc. ) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two items of business, a request for site and building plan approval for a 28 unit. townhouse project on the old Madsen Floral property and the excess back yards of four neighboring lots at 56th and Aldrich Avenues North and a request for.pre- „ liminary plat approval to subdivide the land into 28 townhouse lots, one common area and four residential lots. The Secretary then reviewed the contents of the staff report for the two applications (see Planning Commission Information Sheets for Application Nos. 84001 and 84002 attached). The Secretary also explained that there had been a number of minor changes in the plan since the time the report was written. He explained that the townhouse development would be 3.35.acres which works out to a total of 26.8 units at 8 units per acre. He noted, therefore,_ that a density credit for one unit was being sought. He recalled for the Commission the discussion regarding this matter during the previous year in which it was decided that a density credit to allow the completion of the seventh quad home would be allowed, but that a density credit to allow an additional quad home would not be allowed. He also noted that the new plan provided for more fencing and less landscaping. He recommended that the landscape plan called for a mixture of 6° diameter trees, not all of one specie. He reviewed the size of the units. He noted that the gross square footage of each unit was 1,956 sq. ft. with 440 sq. ft. for garage space, leaving 1,516 sq. ft. for living space. Of this, 1,076 sq. ft. would be finished and 440 sq. ft. would be unfinished. He also noted that the common area would be 2.45 acres and that the power line at the northwest corner of the plat would no longer be in the townhouse development. He concluded by reviewing the condition of approval , but recommended tabling of both the site and building plan and preliminary plat applications. , Commissioner Simmons stated she wanted to rake a comparison between the agreement, signed by the property owners and the surrounding neighbors and the development plans submitted for approval . She noted that the neighbors do not have a copy of the agreement. She noted the provision for owner-occupancy of the townhouse units and explained to those present that the Zoning Ordinance cannot force the sale of the townhouses. Chairman Lucht noted that the agreement phases out after 75% of the units are sold and that, therefore, conceivably, the project could be 25% rental. Commissioner Simmons painted out that the 'agreement called for 1,350 sq. ft. of finished floor space in- the individual townhouse units. She contrasted this with the 1,076 sq. ft. of finished floor space shorn in the plans. She also pointed out that; the agreement called for cedar or brick siding.. She noted that the platy called for lap siding over at least 50% of the exterior of the units. She also complained of the fact that the notice of the Planning Commission meeting was 1-12-84 -2- received late by most neighbors and had the appearance of junk mail . She con- cluded by saying that the rezoning was allowed on the basis of the agreement between the property owners and the surrounding neighbors and that the agreement' is not being followed. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. -Wayne Tower of Suburban Engineering representing Reynolds Homes, Inc. , explained that the 15 ft. buffer area at the northwest corner of the townhouse development could be pro- vided by realigning the two townhouse units along the west side of the site. He showed such new alignment to the Planning Commissioners. Regarding the question of fencing, Mr. Tower stated that the applicant would do whatever the neighbors wish, whether it be a fence or landscaping. He also stated that the 6" diameter trees could be changed from Ash to some other specie. He stated that a power line easement can be shown on the final plat. He then presented to the Planning Commis- sion, a written acknowledgement by some of the surrounding neighbors that the development plans for the project meet the agreement between the neighbors and the property owners. As to the notification of surrounding neighbors of the Planning Commission. meeting, Mr. Tower stated that the notice was in the mail seven days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. He concluded by saying that he felt the plan meets the agreement with the neighbors and he asked that the Planning Commission not table the applications. Chairman Lucht stated that the agreement did not actually concern the Planning Commission. Mr. Tower acknowledged this, but reviewed the provisions of the agreement anyway and argued that the development plans are in accord with the agreement. Commissioner Simmons stated that she would excuse herself from further considera- tion of the application in light of her connection with the neighborhood group. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that-there seems to be a difference between the agreement and the proposed plans. He stated that masonite was not comparable in quality to cedar or brick. Chairman Lucht commented that he would just as soon have masonite for siding. Commissioner Sandstrom also stated that he was concerned. regarding the lighting plans. He noted that there seems to be a large area in the center of the project with no lighting. The Secretary explained that the agreement between the owners and the neighbors was to induce the City Council to rezone land from R1 to R3. He stated that a rezoning action on the part of the City would not address the concerns of surround- ing residents, namely that the project be owner-occupied. He explained that platting of the property for townhouse units sets up the possibility for an owner-occupied development. He cautioned, however, that the plat does not guarantee that the project will be owner-occupied. He also stated that the other aspects of the agreement concerning the individual units did not stem from ordinance requirements. The Secretary noted that the proposed plan has not changed a great deal from the concept that was shown in 1979. He encouraged the Commission- to be aware of the agreement, but added that the agreement did not constitute a zoning criteria for denying the proposed development plan. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84002) thairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing regarding the pre- liminary plat and asked whether anyone present wished to comment on the appli- cation. Mr. McCarthy, of 5537 Camden Avenue North, stated that he was confused regarding the agreement. He stated that he did not want a rental complex existing behind him, but that he did not care very much about the square footage of the ...units or the exterior treatment. Mr. Wayne Tower, representing the applicant, assured Mr. McCarthy and others present that the developer would abide by the agreement. 1-12-84 -3- Mary Simmons , of 5530 Camden Avenue North, stated that the agreement simply allows the neighbors the opportunity to take the developer to court if he does not abide by the agreement. Mr. Tower stated that Mr. Reynolds, the builder of the project, does not wish to go to court. Ms. Simmons stated that of the five, names that she saw on the letter that was submitted to the Planning Commission, only one was in the WIvue Park Neighborhood Association. She explained that she had taken copies of the agreement to abutting property owners. Mr. Ed Trombley, of -56th Avenue North, explained that he was one of,the property owners and a party to the agreement. He stated that he had taken the letter of acknowledgement around to people who were neighbors to the land in question. He pointed out that the Bellvue Park Neighborhood Association is not the same as the neighbors with whom the agreement is made. Mr. Ed Beck, of 5507 Camden Avenue North asked whether there was any significance to zoning the property R3 instead of R1. He expressed the belief that his own property would be zoned R3. Chairman Lucht explained that his property would remain R1, single-faWly .. Mr. Marvin Nemec, of 5538 Camden Avenue North, asked what the proposal would do to neighboring property values. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not know what would happen. The Secretary stated that, based on information he has received from the City Assessor, no impact on property values would take place. He also asked whether the greenhouse could have had a negative 'effect 'on property values inasmuchas it was a cownercial use. Mr. Nemec stated that the proposed develop ment represents a -tot of density in a small area. He stated that he was opposed to the project and that he preferred the land remain zoned R1. Mr. Beck also stated that he was against it because of the high density. He stated his concern over the traffic congestion. He stated that the project would; change his whole life,. He explained that all of his money has been invested in his house and he was concerned that the project would diminish his property value. Ms. Simmons stated that the Planning Commission was hearing the same arguinents as five years ago. She stated that the developer has not lived up to the agreement and that was why the same arguments were being made. She asked the Planning Commission to table loth applications to allow the neighbors time to meet and look at the plans. She concluded by saying that she felt the agreement was not being kept. Mr. Ed Trombley state that there have been many meetings at which the proposed development had been discussed. He commented that he felt a few people are harassing those who wish to do something with their property. He also stated that the agreement t~an be turned around and used against the neighborhood as well as by the neig:hlgrhood. He stated that many other people saw the notice of the meeting, but chose not to come. He stated that this shows there is little opposition to the prqwsed development. Ms. Simmons explained that she had told many older residents in the area not to bother to come to this Planning Commission meeting because the matter would be tabled until later anyway, Mrs. Ann Jarvimaki , -of 5625 Aldrich Avenue North, stated that she was in favor of the project. She stated that the school district needs more kids and a greater tax base which will be supplied by the developer. Mr. Mayne Tower stated that the applicant had no objection to meeting with the neighbors before the application goes to the City Council. He suggested that problems with the site plan could be worked out if the Planning Commission sent the applications on to the City Council . The Secretary disagreed with Mr. Tower. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance allows much more time to consider the site and building plan application and recommended against rushing• to any kind of 1-12-.84 -4 decision. He stated that taking time in the, short run can save time in the lone run. Chafrman Lucht agreed and stated that it was the Planning Commission's job to wort: amt most of these problems. He asked whethera there were other comments on the plat.. Mr "Beck asked, whether, the project would be completed all at one time. Mr. Tower answered that the ground work, streets and utilities would be accomplished im- mediately and that the units would .be built as they were sold.. Ms. Simmons asked whether a m el° would be built and other units sold from that. Mr. Tower stated that the builder would probably use models that have already been built in Brooklyn Park. Ms. Simms expressed a concern that the units might be rented if they were not sold. She stated that this would violate the agreement. Chairman Lucht stated that the, agreement grew out of the City Council 's deliberation over the rezoning of the land itself. He stated that the Planning Commission should look at things such as the insufficient buffer in applying the Zoning Ordinance to the proposal. Mr. Wayne Tow stated that he would like to get the reaction of the neighbors to the proposed landscape plan. Mr. Beck stated that he had shrubs in his back yard. He discussed with Mr. Tower what would be seen of the units from the back of his house. Mr. McCarthy stated that he would prefer shrubbery if it was dense enough to block out cut-through pedestrian traffic. Mr. Tower encouraged the neighbors to state tfr preferences because the builder would like to know how much he is likely to spend on landscaping and fencing. Mrs. Beck stated that it was hard to know what they wanted without knowing what the units would look like. There folloved_a brief discussion regarding a possible meeting of people in the neighborhoW to get together to look at the plans and the desire on the part of some present to notified of such a meeting. Chairman Lucht asked the Planning Commission for its reaction. Commissioner Malecki stated that she felt the applicant should have met with the neighbors to review the plans prior to this-meeting. She asked that the applicant work out the question of fencing with the -neighborhood before the next meeting. She also asked that the applicant add lighting along the central garage. She recommended that the Planning Commission table the application Commissioner Manson also recommended tabling of the application. She stated that she wanted to see the final plans after they have been reworked to suit the concerns of the neighbors and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sandstrom also recommended tabling. He stated that he felt there would be a better feeling on the part of the neighborhood if there was a chance to meet between the property owners and the neighbors. Comissioner Nelson stated that he also favored tabling the application. Chairman Lucht stated that he favored seeing the-plans with the final decisions on screen.fng. He al-so stated that the Planning Commission is not . going to rule on the agreement. He stated that the Commission would rule on the site plan and the plan based on City Ordinances. He added, however, that the Com- mission obviously wants the agreement with the neighborhood to be observed. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84002) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki i -to continue the public hearing on Application No. 84002. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Ed Trombley asked how the property owners and the neighbors can resolve their differences. Chairman Lucht answered that there is now a mediation service which is intended to allow parties to a dispute to get together and try to work out their differences before going to court. Mr. Tower asked how soon the applications would be back before the Planning' Commission. The Secretary answered that it would be reconsidered after the meetings have been held with the neighbors. Ms. Simmons stated that she wished to have two meetings, one for the neighbors to look at the plans and another to meet with the developer. 1-12-84 -5- IA ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NOS. 84001 AND 84002 (Reynolds Homes, Inc.) Motion y Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Conml ssi oner Ai nas to table 'Appl i-- cation Nos. 84001 and 84002 to give the neighborhood and the developer time to work out concerns over the site and building plans. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Manson, Ainas and Nelson. Voting-against: -none. _ The motion passed., RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:36 p.m. and resumed at 9:58 p.m. APPLICATION -NO. 84003 (Welcome Community Nome) Following the recess, the Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a bedroom addition above the existing attached garage at 6451 Brooklyn Boulevard and to remodel the existing garage into office space. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see_ Planning Commission Information Sheet for Appli. cation No. 84003 attached), Commissioner Manson asked whether the Department of Public Welfare licenses a certain number of clients for this particular home. The Secretary responded that he believed that was the case. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Ms. Mary Peterson, a worker at the Welcome Community Home, stated that she would answer any questions the Commission had. The Secretary stated that a drawing had been submitted as re- quested and that it appeared to be adequate. The Planning Assistant stated that the primary issue for the Planning Commission to resolve was the number of parking spaces needed for this facility and how they would be provided on the property. The Secretary asked Ms. Peterson-whether the garage was presently used for parking. Ms. Peterson answered in the negative. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84003) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Mr. .Roger Lundquist, of 3910-65th Avenue North, complained regarding the management of the-home. He stated that he doubted the assertion in the staff report that one to four staff are present at the facility at all times. He stated that his parking lot has been used by visitors to the home and that there has been damage to his property by the residents of the home. He explained that a fence had been damaged and that the girls from the home sometimes wait inside the hallway of his four-plex for a school bus and that they have smoked cigarettes and damaged the carpet. He also complained regarding noise. He stated that on occasion, girls have been laughing in the yard until after midnight and also stated that for a period of time during the previous spring, someone played a stereo at extremely high volume late in the evening. He stated that, at one time, had had asked to talk to the manager and was told that no manager was present. He stated that he was concerned that he might lose tenants because of the noise problems. He explained that he was not against the expansion, but that he wanted some recourse if the home is not managed properly. Commissioner Simmons asked whether it was not time at this Planning Commission meeting to deal with these problems. The Secretary stated that this was certainly the time to gather information, but that there were only certain things that the Planning Commission-could do regarding this operation. He stated that noise violations or other vandalism should be directed first of all to the Police. Mr. Lundquist stated that he had called the Police. He stated that, after thq Police arrive, the problem dies down; but that, after they are gone, the problem may flare up again. He stated that he wanted to know what recourse he would have to require better management if these problems arise in the future. The Secretary explained that the operation was a special use permit in the R5 zpnin_- I in on _F,_ district and that it is subject to all codes, ordinances and regulations. Mr. Lundquist stated that he questioned the management's control of the facility, when noise is loud at odd hours. The Secretary, stated that Mr. Lundquist does have recourse to call the Police when there is such disturbance. He suggested that the applicant should respond to the concern regarding lack of management. He suggested to the Planning Commission that it perhaps ask for a set of house rules to evaluate whether management is doing; what it can to control behavior. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not think it was fair for the Planning Commission to ask a neighbor to keep coping with the problem. She asked by whom the facility is licensed. The Secretary responded that the facility is licensed by the Minnesota Department of Public Welfare. Commissioner Simmons wondered whether the neighbors should talk to the licensing authorities at the State. Mr. Jim Just, the owner of the Welcome Home, stated that there was more than one side to the issue. He maintained that management was not lax and that the problems were occasional and not continuous. He stated that any similar facility is bound to have occasional problems, but that the complaints that have been made suggest that the problems are continuous. He again maintained that the problems are not continuous, but of an occasional nature. He stated that he would be willing to meet with Mr. Lundquist and resolve any problems Mr. Lundquist stated that he asked Mr. Just for compensation for damages six to seven years ago when the fence was damaged. He stated that Mr. Just asked whether he had seen the girls do the damage. He admitted he had not seen-the girls actually commit the damage, but that circumstantial evidence made it fairly obvious as to who had caused the damage to the fence. The Secretary asked Mr. Just how many supervisors were required during the evening hours. Mr.. Just responded that there are between one and three staff on duty from 3:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. and occasionally, four staff present. Commissioner Simmons asked how many were present after 11:00 pr.m. Mr. Just answered that one staff person was present. Commissioner Simmons asked whether this staff person was sleeping at the facility. Mr. Just answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Simmons asked how many staff were present at what times. Mr. Just answered that it depended on the activities of a particular day. He 'stated that during the day there is generally one staff person present and one staff person present at night. He stated that from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., there are usually two to three and occasionally four staff people present. There followed a brief discussion between Mr. Lundquist and Mr. Just regarding the noise problem that had taken place the previous spring. Mr. Just stated that the Department of Public Welfare has power over the facility. He offered to give Mr. Lundquist the phone number to call if he had problems with the home. Chairman Lucht also stated that Mr. Lundquist could call the City and complain. The Secretary commented that he has not received any complaints regarding this facility in the last five•years. He offered to contact Mr. Lundquist in six months to see if there had been any problems during that time if Mr. Lundquist so desired. Mr. Lundquist stated that a problem does exist with the facility, but that he is willing to wait and see and did not wish to be an obstructionist and see the permit denied. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 84003 AND CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING (Mel come Community Home, Inc.) otion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to tab a Application No. 84003 and continue the public hearing to further review the question of parking and other issues pertaining to the facility. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki , Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 1-12-84 -7- OTHER BUSINESS Cha rman Lucht briefty explained the Neighborhood Advisory Group process to Commissioner Nelson and explained that he would be assigned to the Central Neighborhood. Also, by consensus, the Planning Commission accepted the proposed meeting schedule for 1984. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10;54 p.m. qA C an 1-12-84 -8-