Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 06-13 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 13, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer James Grube and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht stated that Commissioner Lowell Ainas was excused from the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 23, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the minutes of the May 23, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Commissioner Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Bernards, as they were not at that meeting. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85015 (S & G Associates) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to subdivide into two lots the tract of land on which the Earle Brown Farm Apartments is located at 170169th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85015 attached) . The Secretary also explained that the development of the proposed Lot 2 would be subject to site and building plan approval in the future. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No.85015) Chairman Lucht then opened a public hearing and asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Clyde Ahlquist of Franke, Riach and Franke, the attorney for S & G Associates, asked how 69th Avenue North is classified as a public street. The Planner stated that 69th was a collector street with a minimum width of 70' . Mr. Ahlquist asked why a 100' right-of-way was being sought. He asked if the classification of the street was being upgraded. The City Engineer explained that 69th Avenue North would be widened for a bike path and that a sidewalk and an urban boulevard would be provided with future improvements of the roadway. Mr. Ahlquist stated that he felt the reservation of additional right-of-way amounted to a reclassification of the street and asked whether this had to be done by ordinance. Regarding the required 5' greenstrip along the east edge of Lot 1, Mr. Ahlquist asked why this was being required if it was not a City ordinance provision. The Secretary explained that the 5' greenstrip along an interior property line is a long-standing policy though it is not an ordinance requirement. He explained that the objective of the policy is to have 5' of green area on either side of a property line resulting in a 10' wide green area overall. Mr. Ahlquist stated that the owners of the property would be willing to provide a 10' green area along the west side of the new Lot 2 development. 6-13-85 -1- t There followed discussion of the idea of establishing 10' of green area along the west property line of Lot 2. Mr. Ahlquist explained that he wished to keep the land within Lot 2 in order to preserve the maximum allowable density for that parcel. The Secretary suggested that a deed restriction requiring a 10' green area along the west property line of Lot 2 be filed with the plat of the property. Chairman Lucht asked Mr. Ahlquist if he understood the need for the 50' right-of- way. Mr. Ahlquist stated that he understood the future plans for the roadway, but did not understand the authority to require additional dedication of right-of-way at this time. Chairman Lucht asked whether he would accept the idea of a deed restriction requiring a 10' green area along the west property line of Lot 2. Mr. Ahlquist answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Manson pointed out that a recent subdivision along 69th Avenue North had required additional right-of-way and a 50' setback for a single-family dwelling. Mr. Ahlquist stated that he did not understand the authority to require that much right-of-way for a collector street. The City Engineer responded that the point could be debated endlessly. He stated that the City had shown good faith in vacating Irving Avenue North right-of-way to the east of the plat for the applicant's benefit. He stated he expected the applicant to recognize the City's good faith request to acquire right-of-way for beneficial improvements to 69th Avenue North in the future. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 85015 (S & G Associates) otion by Commissioner Tnson seconded by Commiss er Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 85015, subject to the following 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 plat shall be modified in the following manner, prior to final plat approval,. a. Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated along 69th Avenue North to provide for a 50' wide street. b. Drainage and utility easements shall be indicated as 5' along interior property lines and 10' along 69th Avenue North. c. The applicant shall file a deed restriction with the plat requiring a 10' wide green area along the west side of Lot 2. 4. Final plat approval is subject to adoption of an ordinance by the City Council vacating the Irving Avenue North half-street.east of the subdivision. 5. The applicant shall enter into a standard utility hookup agreement prior to final plat approval. 6. The plat shall receive final approval and filed at the County prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed Lot 2. 6-13-85 -2- - Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 85016 (Village Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow a temporary 1' setback off Highway 252 right-of-way and to allow a density variance of two units at the Evergreen Park Apartments, 7200 to 7224 Camden Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 85016 attached). The Secretary also noted that the agenda contained copies of letters of intent to acquire the property to the east after the Highway Department declares what is excess right-of-way. The Secretary also pointed out that a letter from MN/DOT had been submitted which skirts the issue of available right-of-way. He stated that this letter is contrary to Condition No. 3 recommended in the staff report. He stated that he felt the condition is necessary and that the applicant should work out with MN/DOT some definite arrangement for acquisition of adequate right-of-way. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Ken Solie of Village Properties stated that the problem was getting the State to agree to give up 50' of excess right-of-way. He pointed out that the ordinance allows for a 40' setback if mitigating circumstances such as a marginal access street or noise wall or berm were provided within the right-of-way area. The Secretary explained the ordinance referred to by Mr. Solie, footnote 10 from Section 35-400. He added, however, that he did not think MN/DOT would be constructing a frontage road or a noise wall. Mr. Jerry Cowan, also with Village Properties, stated that MN/DOT was planning to construct a 6' berm within the right-of-way. He went on to discuss various problems of getting the state to commit to a future scenario. Mr. Solie asked that any variance action be flexible enough to help in their negotiation with the State. The Secretary stated that there was no assurance that a noise wall or berm would be built. Chairman Lucht asked whether it might be appropriate to amend Condition No. 3 to allow a 40' setback if a berm were provided. The Secretary stated that the basis for the variance is that the required setback will ultimately be met. Mr. Solie again stated that he was looking for flexibility in dealing with the State. The Planner pointed out that if the State is unwillingly to commit to returning 50' of excess right-of-way, they may be unwilling to commit to turning back 40' as well. In this case, he stated, there would be no basis for a temporary variance. Mr. Solie suggested that perhaps the State could be persuaded to build a noise wall in this area. There followed a discussion regarding the problems of negotiating with the State and meeting the requirements of the City for a variance. The applicant stated that they were left with very little negotiating room between the requirements of the two governmental units. Mr. Cowan asked whether a permanent variance could be granted. The Secretary stated that that would be a separate question and would have to be evaluated on the basis of the Standards for Variances contained in-the Zoning Ordinance. There followed further discussion regarding recommended Condition No. 3 and the difficulty of dealing with the State. Mr. Solie stated that if a 40' setback with a noise wall would be allowed, this might add flexibility to the negotiation with the State. There was discussion regarding allowing this under Condition No. 3. 6-13-85 -3- PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 85016) iZFairman Lucht t en opened thmeeting for a public hearing. He noted that there was no one besides the applicant to speak on the application and called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING tion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Manson asked whether people living in the building at present would have to leave and new tenants would come in. Mr. Cowan answered in the affirmative and added that those tenants would get relocation benefits as well. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO.85016 (Village Properties) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of Application No. 85016, subject to the following conditions: 1. The variance is justifiable on the basis of a physical hardship created by the highway taking and the public interest in preserving real property, and is not justifiable on the basis of the owner's financial interests alone. 2. The applicant shall secure from the relevant parties the repurchase rights to any excess right-of-way to the east of the Evergreen Park Apartments property, prior to the issuance of permits for relocation of the 7212 building. 3. The applicant shall submit, prior to the issuance of permits for building relocation, a letter from MN/DOT acknowledging that there is adequate excess right-of-way and/or potential mitigating improvements in the future to provide for required ordinance setbacks. 4. The applicant shall submit for review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council a site and building plan application for the property with new building and parking locations and any other site modifications comprehended, prior to the issuance of permits for relocation and reconstruction. 5. In the event that the 7212 building is "substantially destroyed" by the attempted relocation, the density variance shall be voided and any new construction shall conform to the density limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Following construction of the new Highway 252, the applicant shall acquire the excess right-of-way immediately to the east of the apartment complex and maintain the area in a manner consistent with the proposed site plan and the Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. 7. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City, in a manner approved by the City Attorney, assuring that they will acquire excess right-of-way from the MN/DOT and shall combine this property to the Evergreen Apartment complex through platting or registered land survey. Said agreement shall be filed with the title to the property prior to issuance of permits for relocation or remodeling. _ 6-13-85 -4- Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Sandstrom and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:45 p.m. and resumed at 9:05 P.m. DISCUSSION ITEM Tax Increment Plan for the Earle Brown Farm Following the recess, the Secretary briefly introduced a discussion of a tax increment financing plan and redevelopment plan for the Earle Brown Farm. He noted that the plan had only been given to the Commission that evening and encouraged the Commission to review it over the next two weeks. He pointed out that the Tax Increment District proposed in the plan was much smaller than originally contemplated about three months ago. He stated that the Commission's primary responsibility is to comment on the land use aspects of the proposed plan and any other comments it wished to make. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether the City was going to buy the Earle Brown Farm. Mr. Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant in the City Manager's office, stated that it depends on the present owner of the property Mr. Deil Gustafson. He stated that the City .had made an offer for the property that Mr. Gustafson thinks is inadequate. Mr. Hoffman reviewed with the Commission the new district boundaries: the freeway on the north, Shingle Creek Parkway on the west, John Martin Drive on the south and Earle Brown Drive on the east. He stated that the development concept was to build 269 apartment units on the Earle Brown Farm site in the southerly portion of the property and on an adjacent property to the south. He stated that there would also be a parcel containing the Farm buildings and that a third parcel on the west and north of the site would be for either more residential development or possibly office development. Chairman Lucht asked what parcels were being acquired. Mr. Hoffman showed on Figure 2 of the report the primary parcel on which the Farm buildings were located and a parcel to the south on which an older office building is located. He stated that the Earle Brown Task Force recommends acquisition of the Farm. Mr. Hoffman stated that the cost of restoring and reusing the Farm buildings would be approximately $75.00 to$100.00 per square foot of building area. Mr. Hoffman then reviewed Table 1 of the plan with estimated project costs and also reviewed the revenues outlined in the plan, notably about $400,000.00 in federal community development block grant funds. Mr. Hoffman noted that the gross impact on the school district would be approximately$420,000.00 per year, but that this would be offset considerably by an increase in State aids. Commissioner Nelson asked why general obligation bond financing is not practical. Mr. Hoffman answered that it was mainly from a timing perspective, that the time it would take to hold a referendum would cause the loss of federal funds available for acquisition of the property. He stated that the property would be bought without an explicit plan and that the community would be paying capitalized interest on money that was not being put to work immediately. He explained that the tax increment generated by the district would not have this negative cost to it. Commissioner Nelson noticed that the size of the district had been reduced and asked why this had been done. Mr. Hoffman stated that it was principally to satisfy the concerns of the school district. Commissioner Nelson noted that ancillary uses in the former 6-13-85 -5- district had been removed. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged that Northbrook Shopping Center had been removed, but might later be established as a separate district. He stated that the low interest loans for building rehabilitation had been primarily designed for that shopping center. Chairman Lucht explained that the district had been shrunk as much as possible while still providing enough revenue to retire the expected debt with tax increment funds. Commissioner Bernards asked where the impetus for the tax increment plan was coming from. Mr. Hoffman stated that it grows but of a 1981 survey which showed that a majority of residents in the community were willing to pay tax dollars to restore the Farm. Commissioner Sandstrom asked about the possibility of private sector redevelopment of the Farm. Mr. Hoffman stated that it was simply not economically feasible for the private sector to undertake such a redevelopment. Commissioner Nelson stated that he had problems with buying the Farm property and restoring the buildings and putting the burden of this expense on the small area of the City within the tax increment district. Mr. Hoffman stated that the financing burden would be borne by the entire school district. Chairman Lucht added that the rest of the City would also finance the restoration to some extent. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards, Mr. Hoffman stated that the alternatives before the City were basically to do nothing, to pay for the acquisition and restoration by a general obligation bond issue, or to pay for the acquisition and restoration with a tax increment financing district. Commissioner Bernards asked whether it would not be in the spirit of the 1981 survey to put the question of restoring the farm to a referendum vote. Mr. Hoffman answered that the five members of the City Council have been elected to make those kinds of decisions. Commissioner Nelson asked what federal money would be lost if a tax increment district were declared. Mr. Hoffman answered that approximately $400,000.00 of community development block grant funds would be lost if they could not be appropriated for the project prior to July 1, 1985. Commissioner Bernards likened the use of federal funds to buying a dress on sale. He said if you don't buy the dress at all, you don't lose anything. The Secretary stated that it would be up to the Commission to comment on the land use aspects of the redevelopment plan and tax increment plan and any other aspects that it wished to at its next meeting. Commissioner Bernards stated that he could not understand why Deil Gustafson would balk at the City's offer for the property. Mr. Hoffman responded that the value of the land actually would be greater if the buildings were removed and the land were clear for commercial development. Commissioner Bernards asked whether 10 years is the likely duration of the tax increment district. Mr. Hoffman responded in the affirmative. The Secretary stated that the Earle Brown Task Force would be looking at proposals for reuse of the Farm buildings in the future. Mr. Hoffman added that the main element to the redevelopment of the Farm area is the construction of 269 dwelling units. ADJOURNMENT Following a brief discussion of upcoming business, there was a motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Nelson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:45 p.m. t _ 6-13-85 -6- � azrman