Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 06-28 PCP PLANNING r-OMMISSION' AGENDA STUDY SESSION June 28, 1979 1 . Call to Order: 7:30 P.M. 2 Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: June 14, 1979 (Regular Session) 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. B.C.I.P. Rezoning from R3 to I-1 of 7.84 acres of a 20.28 acre 79023 site located westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. 6. B.C.I.P. 79030 Site and Building Plan Approval for the Shingle Creek Plaza Speculative Industrial Complex located west of and adjacent to Schmitt Music on Freeway Boulevard, 7. Jarold Modeer: 7902; Rezoning from R-1 (Single Family Residential ) to C-1 • (Service/Office) the properties from 5455 Brooklyn Boulevard to 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard. S. Comprehensive Plan Review: Consultant Presentation 9:00 P.M. Mr. Bill tJvber and "'r. John McNamara of B.R.Nl. will be present to discuss the proposed plan for water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and local streets. 9. Other Business: Citizen input on these and previous plan elements is invited. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79030 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Location: Freeway Boulevard, west of Schmitt Music Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks site and building plan approval for an approximate 140,000 square foot speculative industrial complex, west of Schmitt Music on Freeway Boulevard. The application was tabled at the June 14 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the Commission directed the applicant to submit revised plans providing for a 140 foot separation between two buildings which is proposed to be a paved loading dock and driveway area. The Commission also directed that the plans also be modified to provide a 50 ft. setback for the building facing Freeway Boulevard. The applicant has submitted a new plan incorporating these changes. The buildings are staggered such that the 140 feet can be maintained with a minimum reduction in the size of the building. For other aspects of the proposed plan, the Commission is referred to the previous information sheet (attached) . Approval of site and building plans is recommended subject to the following conditions: I . The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes .prior to the issuance of permi is. 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 guaranteee (in an amount to be determined by the City P-lanager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements . _ 4 . The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA: 3canaard No. 13 and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter. 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. All outside trash disposal equipment and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. B-612 concrete curb and gutter shall be .provided around all driving and parking areas. _ 7. The plan shall be modified to provide a 50 ft. building setback off Freeway Boulevard which is_ a major thoroughfare. 8. An underground irrigation system shall be provided in all sodded and planting areas to facilitate site n;aintenance. The irrigation system shall not be required in areas by Shingle Creek where natural ground cover will continue to exist. 6-28-79 -1- Application No. 79030 9. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the requirements of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 1.0. A standard utility maintenance agreement approved by the City Engineer shall be executed prior to the issuance of permits. 6-28-79 -2- .....� ,._r Planning Cdwmission Information Sheet Application No . 79030 Applicant:_ Brooklyn Center Tnrllirf-rial Park Location: Freeway Boulevard Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval to construct three speculative buildings totaling approximately 140,000 sq. ft. on.a 13 acre site and is located on Freeway Boulevard, westerly of Schmitt Music. it is bounded on the south by Freeway Boulevard, on the west. by vacant industrially zoned property, on the east by the Schmitt Music site and on the north by Shingle Creek. Building No. 1 would be 47,600 sq. ft. ; Building No. 2 would be 30,900 sq. ft. and Building No. 3 would be 60,200 sq. ft. The applicant has shown parking for- 262 cars which comprehends that approximately 15% of each building could be used for offices with the remaining portion to be used for manufacturing and storane. Additional space is available on the site which could be used for more parking if needed. There is a 50 ft. building setback off Freeway Boulevard which is designated as a major thoroughfare. There is a discrepancy on the plan at the southeast corner of Building No . 1 , which does not meet setback requirements .. The plan will have to be modified to accurately reflect the required building setback. Another concern we have with the site plan is an approximate 120 ft. area between Building No. 1 and Building :°llo. 2 which is comprehended as a loading dock area. It is questionable, depending on the location of the loading docks whether two semi-trucks could be docked facing each other and still provide a driving lane. Generally, about 135 to 140 feet is provided in such areas . An existinoV25 ft. sanitary sewer easement runs in a southeasterly direction at about the center of the site from west to east for approximately .635 feet and t,,",en heads in a southerly direction towards Freeway Boulevard. Buildings cannot be located over this type of easement, but can be built -up to it. The .exterior of the buildings would be a vertical scored painted concrete block with cedar siding on the office side and ends of the buildings . The same vertical scored painted concrete block with an offsetting painted break off block would be used on the loading dock side of the buildings . He proposes berming along Freeway Boulevard to screen parking lot areas as well as berming around the parking lot area that would face Shingle Creek. Hackberry, -= locust a-nd spruce trees would be used in the landscape treat►-nent as well as sumac; , mock orange and Japanese barberries . Approval of this application should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1 . The 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 guaranteee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. _ A_1d_7A s , . Xorthtest Advisury Group 1-:eeting June 7, 1979 I'To members of theP?orthwest Advisory Group were :?resent, therefore Richard Theis the laison member from the Planning Commission cP]_led the meeting to order at 7:L15 The following is a coml)lete list of all people thttwere at the !^P-ting before it Pdjourned.: Richard Theis 30n6 Thurber Rd. Greg McCPa^r 3007 Thurber Rd. Al Bei „^r Farle Brown Sven Schold 68L York hlrce Igo. Ed Dilley 621:5 Y0"k P1.<ace To. B,^rbrrP Dilley 6845 York PincP TO. Louis ` erzich 14825 71st Ave. 1,70. Jerry Zvol�ki 30113 6•,t.h Ave. �To. t,isr. PeOIC 3101 67th 1,ve 1T SadieS., ith '3101 67th Ave. 1To. Al Beisner ;,resented the Enrle Brof.n Mpster Plan to the group. He then exn1r lned the rezuni ri-; request, Pn.d the t the townhousPs e,'uuld be Plon` the old Xerxes. He also exolnined hie desire for the I1 zoning rather than the Cl zoning �,ras that there is more of a rrrr*,et for the light industrial on the north side of the free,,ay. There was a conaenrus of oniniun that the corner of Xerxes rnd Shingle Creek P P.rki,sy would not be r good place for residentifil. There t•,as a request thct an Ptre:nent be provided so the residents can walk to the bus service on Xerxes Avenue. Al Beisn-r responded to a question that he mould not t,,Pnt to trble, the rezoning until the to!,nhoures were built. The people of the nei�°rhorhood exerersed P concern as to hoWthe- tewmhoufiPs would be finrnced. (Privately or HUD) --,. There was also a question rbout dxpin'rge Pnd traff ic. The consensus of the grcua eras that they were in favor of the rezonine' to III but U*P.n±mod �C ?? asaurmnces that t}'� woulC' not be federr1ii s'1bGidi.2C'�• The necple fro:n t;.F tot,^!:case develo;>:aPnt regaa:;ted trey to notified of A additional creetinQs or the rezonine.. Respectfully submitted, Richr,rd Theis i per:. `" +� � Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79023 Applicant: Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Location: Easterly 72 acres of 20 acre R3 parcel at Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Rezoning The applicant seeks rezoning from R3 to I-1 of a 72 acre portion of Outlot E, Twin Cities Interchange Addition. The land is question lies adjacent to Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, north of Interstate 94. The remaining 122 acres of the 20 acre site would remain R3 for development of up to 100 townhouse units. The application was tabled at the May 10, 1979 meeting and referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Commissioner Theis attended the meeting of the Neighborhood Group o n June 7 at City Nall and has submitted minutes for the proceedings (attached) . The consensus of opinion among those who attended was that the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway would not be suitable for residential development. There was also general concern. expressed that the townhouses constructed not be subsidized with federal money. The staff is at a loss to see the merits of an I-1 rezoning for the neighborhood, the City, or even the applicant. While a residential use at the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway may seem less optimal , an industrial use presents even fewer advantages. The applicant argues without tangible support that the development of the 72 acres in question for industrial use will somehow guarantee a quality owner-occupied townhouse development on the rest of Outlet E. Logic would suggest that an industrial development, bringing truck traffic and possibly other annoyances, would make the sale of townhouses more difficult, and increase the likelihood of a less desirable residential development. Another consideration is whether the land in question will support the use for which it would be zoned. Of the 72 acres proposed for rezoning to I-1 , over 42 acres would be devoted to a landscaped buffer area with underground sprinkling system. (This is based on a 100 foot buffer between I-1 and R-3 uses and a 50 foot setback off of major throughfares - Xerxes and Shingle Creek Parkway.) Assuming that at least half the remaining area would be taken up by parking and dock space along with driving lanes, the area of gross industrial floor space remaining is only about 65,000 square feet. One 65,000 square foot speculative industrial building on a 72 acre parcel does not seem to be an efficient use of land. Only as a prelude to further rezonings of land to the west does this proposal seem to serve the applicant's interest. Finally, the proposal seems premature at this time. There is more undeveloped I-1 land than R-3 land in the City at present and the demand for townhouses is growing. The development option afforded by the existing zoning does not seem to have been pursued vigorously. It is suggested that the applicant pursue the idea of developing a quality mid-density residential complex on the western 122 acre portion of the site first, and then possibly a consideration of re- zoning to a Cl use on the eastern 72 acres might be appropriate if accompanied by a specific development proposal that would offer maximum protection for the neighborhood. Such a rezoning could be considered acceptable as providing further buffering to the mid-density residential development. 6-28-79 -1 - Application Pao. 79023 It is recommended that the requested I-1 zoning be denied because the proposal is not consistent with the Ordinance Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines for the following reasons: 1 . The rezoning proposal does not demonstrate a clear public need or benefit. The applicant has not shown that the I-1 rezoning proposal would assure that the remainder of the 20 acre site would be developed as zoned. 2. The I-1 zoning is not considered compatible with the R3 use to the west. 3. The parcel in question does not seem to allow the efficient use of the land under I-1 zoning restrictions. 4. The rezoning would result in the expansion of a zoning district not warranted by the Comprehensive Plan. Additional undeveloped I-1 property is located in the immediate vicinity. There is no preceived need for additional I-1 zoned land in this area . 5. The proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner of the parcel . i PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No. 79025 Applicant: Jarold.Modeen Location: 5455 to 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard' Request: Rezoning The applicant, owner of the property at 5545 Brooklyn Boulevard, is joined by the property owners of 5455, 5459, 5501, 5509 and 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard in a proposal to rezone six single family residential lots from R-1 to C-1 (service/ office) . The application was tabled at the May 10, 1979 Planning Commission meeting and referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Neighborhood Advisory Group met on May 29 at the Brooklyn Center Library. A number of local residents were present and by a vote of 12 to 10 advised against the rezoning proposal. Advisory Commission members and the interested property owners constituted nine of the voters favoring the rezoning. Surrounding neighbors were not in favor of the proposal. The Commission is referred to the previous informa- tion sheet (attached) for background on the proposal. As was indicated at the May 10 and May 24 meetings, staff consider the proposal premature at this time. While the planning consultants have recommended service/ office (C-1) use in this area in the updated Comprehensive Plan, they have also acknowledged that present ordinance requirements regarding lot width in the C-1 zone are insufficient to prevent intermittent house conversions. In order to enhance the likelihood of larger and more attractive developments, it is recommended that the proposal be denied or deferred until: 1. The City's updated Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Zoning Ordinance are adequate. 2. A specific development plan for the area has been proposed. Condition No. 2 is a reaffirmation of the policy established by the City Council decision relating to the rezoning of the Brooklyn Center Library property under application No. 76053. In that case, the Council deferred the rezoning of the old slaughterhouse property until a specific development proposal was made. It is also recommended that any rezoning of land between Northport Medical Clinic and the Library to C-1 include the Clinic in order to eliminate its nonconforming status. Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the rezoning request be denied .indicating that consideration is being given for a service/office use of this area in the updated Comprehensive Plan but a rezoning at this time would be premature for the following reasons: 1. Present ordinance requirements are not adequate to prevent intermittent house conversions and insure a larger, quality development. 2. There is no accompanying development proposal to indicate conceptually how the area would be developed. The request is, therefore, purely speculative at this time.