Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 03-15 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF I ENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 15, 1973 CITY HALL Call to Order The Planning Cominission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Robert Grosshans at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call Chairman Pro tem Grosshans, Commissioners Bogucki, Foreman, Scott and Gross. Approve Mintues: Following the Chairman's explanation, (3-1-73) there was a motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Gross to approve the minutes of the March 1, 1973 meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73002 The first item of business was Application (Marvin Gordon) No. 73002 submitted by Mr. Marvin Gordon. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained that the applicant was seek- ing special use permission -to construct attached single-family dwellings on the property located south of FI-94 and north of 66th Avenue North, from Noble Avenue to approximately 400 feet easterly of Lee Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the Com- mission had given the application pre- liminary consideration at the March lst meeting. fIe noted that the special use permission sought by the applicant was comprehended under Section 35-310 2 (g) of the ordinances, which provides for "Other noncommercial uses required for the public welfare in an R-1 district, as determined by the City Council". The Secretary briefly reviewed the develop- ment plans submitted by the applicant, and Chairman Pro tem Grosshans recognized the Director of Public Works who presented engineering data indicating the relation- ship of the site to the freeway. He ex- plained that a substantial amount of earth berming would be required, particularly in that area near Noble Avenue if optimum noise abatement were to be realized. Commissioner Bogucki commented that it appeared the amount of land needed for an adequate berm noise buffer would make the project prohibitive, in that very little land would remain for the dwelling units. -1- 3-15-73 The Secretary responded that earth berm- ing was not necessarily the only form of noise abatement, and he suggested that consideration could be given to fencing or landscaping atop a smaller berm. T'he Director of Public Works stated that in terms of noise abatement for the single family residences to the south of the project, the proposed structures them- selves would serve as buffers. He stated that this was not the most :desirable for • the residents of the proposed project from a noise abatement point of view, but that the applicant had indicated special design features, such as minimum window space on the north side and central air conditioning. Commissioner Bogucki stated his concern with possible future expansion of the freeway. A brief discussion ensued and the Director of Public Works commented that for the portion of the freeway ex- pansion easterly of Trunk F?ighway 152, the Highway Department had indicated extra lanes would be constructed upon the right- of-way portion between the east and west traffic lanes. He also noted that at the present time, there was no indication of expansion of FI-94 westerly of Trunk Highway 152. Commissioner Bogucki stated he was also concerned as to whether the Fire Depart- ment would have any objection to the prox- imi-y of the proposed berms to the build- ings, since complete access around the dwellings would be restricted, particu- larly on the north side. Public Hearing on The Secretary noted that the public hear- Application No. 73002 ing for the special use permit had been scheduled and that neighboring property owners had been notified. Chairman Pro tem Grosshans then recognized a represen- tative of Mr. Raymond H. Ness, 7709 Dale- view Drive North, the owner of the parcel known as Lot 1000, which abuts the sub- ject property on the east. Mr. Ness 's representative stated concern with future access to their property which was cur- rently used for truck farming. He ex- plained that access was now gained via Lee Avenue North and across the parcel owned by Marvin Gordon. He further • stated that they did not want to see their parcel totally landlocked by the proposed development. The Secretary commented that the land owned by Mr. Ness was already totally landlocked, and that the only access to it was across neighboring properties. He explained that the access to Lot 1000 would not be restricted or hindered any- more than it is now, except that a formal -2- 3-15-73 private easement might possibly be re- quired by Mr. Gordon, or by any of the other owners of the property to the south of Lot 1000. He stated that approval of a special use permit to allow construction on the subject site would not in itself be a denial of access to Mr. Ness 's property. Chairman Pro tem Grosshans then recognized Mr. R. A. Richter of 4600 66th Avenue • North, who stated that he was the spokes- man for the neighborhood. He stated the group he represented was essentially the same as that which opposed the rezoning request submitted by Mr. Gordon approx- imately one year ago. He noted that at the rezoning hearing, a petition contain- ing several hundred signatures in opposi- tion to the proposed rezoning and develop- ment had been submitted and that same petition should be considered applicable to the present application. Mr. Richter further stated that federal financing approval .-for buyers of dwellings close to the freeway was doubtful. He stated that it wa3 only logical to assume that if homeowner financing could not be secured for the proposed units, then the result would be rental apartments. He stated that the neighborhood concerns centered around the affect of the pro- posed project upon the single family re- sidential property values, and that there was little difference between the proposed attached single-family dwellings and town- house apartments. Mr. Richter further commented that an offer had been made to Mr. Gordon to buy the subject property several years ago, but that Mr. Gordon had not responded. A heated discussion then ensued between mr. Richter and Mr. Gordon, regarding the alleged purchase offer which Mr. Gordon denied. Chairman Pro tem Grosshans stated that the issue before the Commission was the request for a special use permit to develop the subject property, and that the hearing should be limited to that subject. Chairman Pro tem Grosshans then recognized Mr. Ewing•, 4230 66th Avenue North, Mr. Faatz, 4412 66th Avenue North, Mr. Weitzel, 4418 66th Avenue North, Mr. Kruger, 4506 66th Avenue North, Mr. Springer, 451-2 66th Avenue North, Mr. Fredrick, 4518 66th Avenue North, and Mr. Roering, 4606 66th Avenue North, all of whom stated their opposition to the request. Chairman pro tam Grosshans then revo9ni.zed other neighboring property owners who were not notified, including the residents of 4407, 4501, 4607, and 4413 66th Avenue -3- 3-15-73 North, all of whom stated their opposi- tion to the request. Further discussion ensued regarding noise abatement effectiveness. Close Public Hearing Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded on Application No. 73002 by Commissioner Scott to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. In further discussion Commissioner Bogucki recalled that the matter of FHA policy as to the proximity of residential dwellings to freeways, had been discussed previous- ly during informal discussions with Mr. Gordon. Commissioner Gross stated the relatively small number of dwelling units which, if they were sold, could result in a small homeowner's association, with a higher maintenance cost per homeowner, which could mean diminished consistent main- tenance of the relatively large site. He also stated that it appeared that berms large enough to provide effective noise buffering, would not be desirable aesthetically. Commissioner Foreman stated that he was opposed to the concept in that it would create a new and unusual land use, po- tentially applicable to every sliver' and remnant in the R-1 district. He stated that a possible alternative would be for the City and the neighboring property owners to request the Highway Department to acquire and use the land for an effec- tive noise abatement zone. The Director of Public Works responded that while such a request could be made, it was doubtful that the Highway Depart- ment could initiate any action in that regard. He explained that there would be no basis for purchasing the property since it was not involved in a roadway a0alli.siti.on program. Commissioner Foreman also stated that while he was sympathetic with the appli- cant as a property owner, he was not convinced that the proposed project was the best use for the subject property. Commissioner Scott stated that she agreed, and that the proposed townhouse-like units as designed, would not be desirable for the R-1 district. Chairman Pro tem Grosshans then recog- nized the applicant, who stated that the project represented an effort to develop the large tract of land for which he was paying taxes, and he stated that he had tried to design the dwelling units so to be adaptable to and compatible with the surrounding environment. -4- 3-15-73 Action Directing Following further discussion there was a Resolution Recommending motion by Commissioner Gross seconded by Denial. of Application Commissioner Scott to direct the Secre- No. 73002 tary to prepare a resolution recommend- (Marvin Gordon) ing denial of Planning Commission Appli- cation No. 73002, submitted by Marvin Gordon noting the concerns of the Com- mission and the following factors= The excessive present and future noise pol- lution generated by the nearby freeway; • the unusual and unorthodox nature of the proposal which would serve to establish an undesirable precedent for similar remnant-like properties in the R-1 dis- trict; and the relatively small size of the proposed homeowner's association which could result in a diminished abili- ty to maintain the large parcel. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Foreman left the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Recess The meeting recessed at 9:30 P.M. and resumed at 9:50 P.M. Cv,,Lliiuted Considera- The next item of business was continued tio±q of Home occupa- consideration of the matter of home occu- tions pations and special home occupations. The Secretary explained that the City Council had requested the Planning Com- mission to consider the present ordinance provisions, particularly in light of re- cent developments regarding retail bus- inosses in residential neighborhoods. The Secretary also explained that the Commission's determination on this matter would serve as the basis for one of the discussion items which would be consider- ed at the joint meeting with the City Council. i An extensive discussion ensued and Chair- man Pro tern Grosshans recognized several citizens who expressed their opinons re- lative to small businesses operating from homes. Following further discussion, Chairman Pro tern Grosshans stated that it appeared substantial input was available based upon existing ordinance requirements and a few specific incidences which generated questions about the validity of those re- quirements. He stated that the most significant input could be a public hear- ing whereby a more accurate reading of the communty's concern could be developed. Consensus Developed During continued discussion, the cons.en- to Defer Home occixpati.on sus was developed that the matter should Discussion be deferred until the next Planning Commission meeting so that the entire Commission could consider the scheduling of the public hearing relative to home -5 3-15-73 occupations and special home occupations. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Gross seconded by Commissioner Dogucki to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:40 P.M. • Chairman I -6- 3-15-73