Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 05-25 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 STUDY SESSION May 25, 1978 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . Roll Call : Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Pierce, Book, and Theis. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere, Building Official WiTI Dahn and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. Approve Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner May 11 , 1978 Theis to approve the minutes of the May 11 , 1978 meet- ing as submitted. Application No. 78029 Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item (Meadow Corporation) of consideration was Application No. 78029 submitted by Meadow Corporation. The Secretary stated the appli- cant sought site and building plan approval of the third development phase of "The Ponds" Planned Resi- dential Development. He stated the item had been re viewed by the Planning Commission at the May 11 , 1978 meeting and was tabled to allow the applicant time to prepare revised Master Plans. The Secretary reviewed "The Ponds" Development. He stated the original Master Plan had been approved by the City Council on October 18, 1976 under Application No. 76041 , and briefly reviewed the Master Plan. He continued that site and building plans had been approved for Phases 1 and 2 in early 1977. He stated that Phases 1 and 2 had been replatted into townhouse lots and common areas while the remainder of the site was platted into large outlots. The Secretary continued that the proposed third de- velopment phase consisted roughly of what was known as Phases "7" and ."8" on the Master Plan. He explained that the applicant made changes in the shape and boundaries of the originally approved Phases, and that part of "Phase 8" would not be developed under this proposal , but would be tied in with "Phase 6. " He stated that the site would be replatted, and that the land on the north side of Shingle Creek would be in- cluded in Phase 6 so as not to create a landlocked parcel . Commissioner Theis questioned whether the land on the north side of the Creek was required for density for Phase 6. The Secretary responded that Phase 6 would meet the density requirements without that piece of property. Commissioner Hawes Arrives: Commissioner Hawes arrived at 8:25 p.m. The Commission next reviewed the site and building plans for the project. The Secretary stated that the Commission had expressed concern with the parking at the last meeting. He explained that the parking design had been revised for the units along Unity Avenue which resulted in an improved layout whereby the ordinance required greenstrip could be fully provided with the exception of normal-dimensioned driveways. He ex- plained that the applicant proposed to eliminate the ponding to the rear of those units west of Unity Avenue and to move the buildings back on both sides of Unity Avenue. He commented that in addition, this would increase the open space and play area provided for those units. He stated that revisions to the plans would be necessary in order to meet all setback requirements. -1- 5-25-78 Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Kent Davidson, the architect, and Mr. Duane Dietrich, who represented the applicant. In response to a question from Commissioner Pierce, Mr. Davidson stated that the parking would be the same in concept as that indicated on the plan, but would be revised to meet all building setback requirements. He showed an overlay drawing of the parking plan which included the revisions In response to a question by Commissioner Theis, the Secretary stated that two parking stalls per unit were re- quired by ordinance and that the proposed plan met that 1 Chairman Engdahl c ommented that the revised standard. Cha g parking plan was an improvement over the original plan. Mr. Davidson showed conceptual renderings of the third de- velopment phase and of the elevations of the buildings. A discussion ensued relative to the proposed development. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis regarding the water flow, Mr. Dietrich stated that the ponds would be four to five feet deep in the center and taper to the banks. He explained that the water in the ponds would not be stagnant because it would flow towards the Creek, because the -sand at the bottom would act as a filter, and because aeriators could be installed in each of the ponds. The Secretary stated that the design of the ponding had been reviewed when the applicant had submitted the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project. Mr. Davidson reviewed floor plans of the units. He.stated that the two bedroom units would be 900 square feet in area and the three bedroom, 1 ,050 square feet in area. He stated that, while most of the units would be two-story, the five handicapped units were one-story. He explained that the units were viewed as having two sides: the side oriented towards the street was viewed. as the "service" side and that storage area was provided on that side;- and , that the side oriented towards the open space was deemed to be the "living" side. Chairman Engdahl inquired how many garages would be provided. Mr. Davidson responded that 32 garages were planned for the east side of the project. The Commissioner reviewed the floor plans and a discussion ensued. Mr. Davidson pointed out that a large closet would be provided in each unit with roughed-in plumbing fixtures for future installation of laundry equipment. Commissioner Pierce asked whether there would also be a central laundry area provided. Mr. Davidson responded that there would be. Commissioner Pierce also questioned whether each unit would have a separate connection to public utilities. Mr. Dietrich stated that the develop ment was being planned to accommodate possible future sale of the units, and that, therefore, the lots would be individually platted, separate utility connections would be provided, and plumbing rough-ins would be provided for private laundry facilities. Commissioner Hawes questioned whether there was a fire wall between the units . Mr. Dietrich stated that the one and one-half hour separation fire wall in the units was the same as that which had been provided in the double unit buildings already built in --Phase 1 and 2. Commissioner Theis asked about the patios indicated on the plan. Mr. Dietrich stated that small concrete decks would be provided, but that there would be no individual fencing for each unit although it would be possible to upgrade each area in the future. 5-25-78 -2- In response to a question on platting from Commissioner Pierce, Mr. Dietrich explained that the plans would be revised to indicate the proposed change in boundary lines before a preliminary plat would be submitted. He continued that, after the preliminary plat was approved, construction would start and a field survey would be done at the time the foundations were poured in order to verify all locations -for the final plat. He discussed "The Ponds" Development in general , and stated that in essence, all the units in the develop- ment would be townhouses, but that there would be a difference in the number of attached units per building. He also stated that the -landscaping indicated on the plan was consistent with•'the approved Master Plan and with .ordinance standards. Chairman Engdahl stated that he was satisfied with the revised plan and that his concern with the parking had been resolved. A brief discussion ensued relative to the question of sodding versus seeding for the open areas of the site. Mr. Dietrich stated that the developer would prefer seeding the open area because it was cheaper than sod- ding, and was easier to install , and in the long run, provided a -hardier grass cover than sod. The City . Engineer commented that the subdivision bond would re- quire provision for vegetative cover. He stated that, if the seeding doesn't survive, the bond would not be released, until the area was properly improved. In a brief discussion regarding the lighting of the site, Mr. Dietrich stated that the lighting provided was based on the original approved Master Plan, and that the lighting on the private roadway would be the same type as on the public street. He continued that the four play areas were not proposed to be lighted since it was not. deemed necessary that they be used at night. Recommend Approval of Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Application No. 78029 Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78029 (Meadow Corporation) submitted by Meadow Corporation subject to the follow- ing 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 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 approved site improvements. 4. The sites of the proposed development shall be subject to replatting prior to occupancy of any units therein. 5. Development of this portion of the Planned Residential Development shall also be subject to applicable conditions of the original development approval by the City Council on October 18, 1976 under Application No. 76041 . .3- 5-25-78 6. Viable turf, such as sod or seed shall be provided for all open areas in accordance with approval by the, City. 7. Revised plans showing parking and building ` setbacks meeting all ordinance require- . ments, shall be provided prior to City Council review. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission recessed at 9.30 p.m. and resumed Recess at 9:35 p.m. The next item of business was consideration of draft Draft Ordinance Amendment ordinance amendments to Chapter 35 relative to carports to Chapter 35 Relative to and canopies (see attached) . The Secretary explained Carports and Canopies that the draft ordinance amendment contained three sections: Section 1 was an amendment to Section 35-310 (1 ) (b) (3) and 35-311 (1 ) (b) (3) to include the square footage of a carport(s) with square footage of accessory buildings for a maximum square footage of accessory structures allowed; Section 2 would amend Section 35-400 (8) to permit carports as an encroachment in the front yards on one and two family dwellings, and establish the standards for carports i.n front yards; Section 3 would amend Section 35-900 to include definitions of canopy and carport. He stated that a canopy is defined as "an accessory roof-like structure, either attached to or detached from a permitted building, open on all sides, other than where attached; which is located over and designed to provide temporary cover for entrances, exits., walkways, and approved off-street vehicle service areas (such as gasoline stations, drive-in establishments, and loading berths)". Carport is defined as "an .accessory roof-like structure, either attached to or detached from a permitted building, enclosed on not more than two sides except as otherwise provided by this ordinance; which is designed to provide cover for approved off-street vehicle parking or vehicle storage space." A discussion ensued .relative to the definition for carport. Chairman Engdahl stated that he preferred to define carport as being "enclosed on two sides or less." The Secretary pointed out that such a definition would imply that a carport must be enclosed whereas the recommended language does not imply that it must be enclosed. Commissioner Theis inquired whether the side . where the carport was attached to the structure would be considered an enclosed side. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. A discussion ensued relative to Section 2 of the proposed amendment. The Secretary explained that the suggested 200 sq. ft. standard was based on the 10 x 20 typical parking space: He stated that the suggested 15 foot standard is established elsewhere in the ordinance as the maximum height of an accessory building. A discussion ensued relative to the design of carports in the front yard and the location of the "roof line" of a house. Chairman Engdahl recognized Will Dahn, the Building Official , who stated that the roof line was generally construed to be the roof ridge. Commissioner Pierce noted that this meant that a flat-roofed carport could extend higher than the eavesline. It was the consensus of the Commission that such a situation would not be aesthetic. 5-25-78 -4- The Building Official drew diagrams of possible car- ports in the front yard, including flat-roofed carports and carports which were an extension of an existing roof line. Commissioner Hawes suggested that there could be different height standards for the different types of carports. Commissioner Pierce suggested that the outer dimensions of a carport should not extend beyond the silhouette of the existing house. The Secretary commented that the language could be amended to provide for carports not exceeding 15 feet in height and, if the carport extended higher than the eavesline, it must conform with the existing roof line. Commission Pierce raised the point that the proposed ordinance amendment might have consequences the Com- mission had not considered, such as influencing home- owners to remodel attached garages to family rooms and add carports in the front yard. Following further discussion relative to Section 2, Chairman Engdahl polled the Commission. Commissioner Hawes stated he was not in favor of Section 2. Com- missioner Book stated he was in favor. of the proposed Section. Commissioner Pierce stated that, while he was in favor of amending the ordinance, he had some reservations and felt the matter deserved thorough review of front yard setback standards in general . Commissioner Theis stated he was in favor of the amend- ment and felt the language should address the aesthetics of a proposed carport. Commissioner Malecki stated she was against the amendment and favored al- lowing carports in the front yard only by a special use permit. Chairman Engdahl stated, he, too, was against the amendment because he felt that carports in the front yard infringed upon the rights of the neighboring property owners. The Secretary explained that, if carports were to be permitted as special uses, they would be permitted uses subject to certain conditions. He continued that a special use permit would have to be granted without discrimination to anyone who met the conditions. He said -perhaps the standard for a special use permit could be that the property owner had no other way of providing covered parking space within the ordinance standards. He stated .that the variance approach was not feasible since it would generally not be possible to establish uniqueness and hardship. In further discussion, the Building Official pointed out that, if carports were permitted in the front yard, the Commission could expect to review variance re- quests to enclose the carport. He stated that once precedent had been set for allowing a structure in the front yard, it could be very difficult to refuse a variance to enclose the structure. A discussion en- sued relative to this possibility, and Commissioner Pierce stated that as a part of the carport issue, all possibilities of expansion into the front yard should be considered. Commissioner Theis inquired as to the purpose of the 35 ft. front setback. The Secretary explained that it was an original zoning standard in Brooklyn Center, as well as many other communities, and that its purpose was to provide for aesthetics, uniformity, open space for light, air, view and safety, and to provide space for off-street parking. Commissioner Theis commented that a carport in the front yard would seem to primarily affect one of these, uniformity. -5- 5-25-78 Commissioner Book questioned whether the amendments in Section l and 3 were necessary if Section 2 was not approved. The Secretary responded that those amendments were deemed appropriate for clarification, of the ordinance. A discussion followed relative 'to` existing ordinance language which established the size and number of permitted accessory structures. The Secretary stated that the purpose of the section was to limit the area of accessory structures on a lot so that the total ground coverage of accessory structures does not exceed the ground coverage of the principal building. The Secretary explained that the phrase, in the definition of carport in Section 3, "except as otherwise provided by this ordinance," was not needed if Section 2 were not adopted. Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Recommend Approval of Malecki to recommend approval of Sections l and 3 of Sections 1 and 3 of an An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Ordinance Amending Chapter Relative to Canopies and Carports, deleting the phrase, 35 of the City Ordinances "except as otherwise provided by this Ordinance" from Relative to Canopies and the definition of a carport. The motion passed Carports unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Motion Not to Recommend Malecki not to recommend adoption of Section 2 of an Section 2 of Ordinance "Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Amending Chapter 35 of the Relative to Canopies and Carports" on the basis that City Ordinances Relative to neither carports nor. any building should be allowed Canopies and Carports to encroach into the established front yard setback. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki , Engdahl and Hawes. Voting against: Commissioners Book and Theis. Not voting: Commissioner Pierce, who stated that, while he thought there was merit in the proposed amend- ment, he did not feel that enough consideration had been given to all of the consequences of revising an estab- lished ordinance standard. The motion passed. In other business, the Commission briefly reviewed the Other Business status of ordinance amendment relative to licensing commercial trash receptacles with signery. The matter was deferred until the next meeting. Also in other business, the Commission briefly reviewed the status of the property located at approximately 68th Avenue and Lee Avenue extended. The Secretary stated that the property was. zoned C-2, but because of the existing uses in the area, including a post office and the NSP property, the owner of the vacant property- had indicated difficulty in developing the property with a commercial use. He continued that the owner proposed a type of condominium wholesale distribution development for the property. He explained that the permitted uses `in the C-2 (Commercial zone could be amended to include some I-1 (Industrial Park) uses such as wholesale distribution. He stated the owner had also indicated a willingness to apply to rezone the property to I-1 (Industrial Park). The Commission reviewed photographs of condominium ware- houses located elsewhere in the Metropolitan Area, and a brief discussion ensued. Chairman Engdahl stated the Commission could review the proposal further, but that rezoning the land was not appropriate. The Secretary stated that the City Council had authorized Planning Consultant hiring Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, and Gardner as Planning Consultant for Comprehensive Planning and Critical Area Planning, He continued that a meeting would be set up in the near future between the Consultant and the Planning Commission. Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Adjournment Book to adjourn the meeting`. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commi in n journed at 13 -30 p.m. airman 5-25-78 -6-