Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 09-27 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF. MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 27, 1973 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:00 p.m. by Chairman Robert Jensen. Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Foreman, Gross, and Scott. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Blair Tremere and Director of Public Works James Merila. Approval of Minutes : Motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded 9-6-73 by Commissioner Scott to approve the minutes of the September 6, 1973 meeting as submitted. voting in favor: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Gross and Scott. Not voting: commis- sioner Grosshans who explained he was not present at that meeting, and Commissioner Foreman who stated he was present for only a portion of the meeting. The motion passed. Applicat'iori No. 73029 Following the at.ic>2A (Homedale Builders) the first item of business was con- sideration of Planning Commission Application No. 73029 submitted by Homedale Builders. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the application had been tabled at the September 6, 1973 meeting, following the public hearing for the rezoning proposal. He explained the applicant was seeking rezoning from R-5 to C-2, for the 4 acre site located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I-94 and Trunk Highway 152. Chairman Jensen then read a letter submitted by the Chairman of the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group reflecting their consideration of the matter on September 17, 1973. The letter stated that it was the "unani- mous opinim of those present that the rezoning request should be denied". Chairman Jensen stated that the neigh- borhood group salt the effect of the rezoning to C-2 "would not be compa- tible with the strictly residential nature of the area". Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 8:10 P.M. -1- 9-27-73 Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant, Mr. Norm Chazin, and an extensive discussion ensued. Commis- sioner Gross inquired as to whether a traffic analysis had been made for the area, noting his concern with the proposed access to the site. Mr. Chazin stated that such an analysis had not been completed and that he did not feel such a study was a valid • criterion for determining rezoning. He stated that the Highway Department had indicated that access would be feasible for the site. Mr. Chazin also commented as to the feasibility of R--5 type development versus C-2 type development, and noted past efforts to develop apartments on the property. He stated that, in his opinion , Brooklyn Boulevard was not desirable for any permanent residential uses, but rather was more oriented towards transient lodging. In further dissuasion Chairman Jensen coruuented as to the concerns noted at the September 6th meeting, including the fact that rezoning action cannot by qualified by specifying the types of C-2 uses which could be built on the property. He continued, that despite the good intentions of the developer to proceed with a motel on the site, the fact was that once the land was rezoned, it was open to any type of C-2 development. Mr. Chazin responded that it was unfortunate that the City could not provide some means of assuring that only the proposed development would be developed on the site. He noted, furthermore, that current ordinance provisions would not permit certain higher intensity commercial uses such as gas stations or drive ins, because of the abutment of the property to single family residential properties. In further discussion, the Secretary amplified Chairman Tensen's remarks and stated that the basic issue in a rezoning proposal is potential land use according to established ordinance provisions; and, was not one of site and building plan approval for a specific development or project. Chairman Jensen noted the on-going study of undeveloped land which is zoned for multi-residential uses in the City, and comi�mented that perhaps a determination would be made that the subject parcel was actually "over- zoned" residentially, and should be rezoned to some lower residential use. -2- 9-27-73 He also stated that based on the data presented, so far, he was not convinced that C-2 zoning was the most desirable for the particular parcel. In further discussion, the Director of Public works and the applicant discusses the nature of the subject land and noted the substantial expense that would be involved in upgrading the land i to make it buildable. The applicant also discussed possible motel site and building plans referring especially to setback and buffering provisions. Commissioner Gross reiterated his concern that perhaps the final deter- mination on the rezoning matter should be layed over until the results of the housing moratorium study are finalized, since the subject property was currentl! zoned for multi-residential develop- ment. Chairman Jensen responded that given the information presented, including the concerns of the Neigh- borhood Advisory Group, he felt action could be taken at this time as to disposition of the application, although he agreed with Commissioner Gross that particular attention should be given to this parcel, with respect to its residential zoning, during the housing study. Commissioner Engdahl commented that based on the information presented, he was opposed to 'C-2 zoning, and perhaps even to the existing R-5 zoning due to traffic and access considera- tions at that location. He stated that more data by professional sources relative to traffic and access would be needed to -_.onvince him otherwise. Action Directing Resolution Following further discussion there Recommending Denial of a motion by Commissioner Engdahl, Application No. 73029 seconded by Commissioner Foreman tq: > (Homedale Builders) direct the Secretary to prepare a resolution denying Planning Commiss1 oii:�,: Application No. 73029 submitted by Homedale Builder3 noting the following concerns: questionable access provi sions; the "spot zoning" nature of the proposal; the incompatibility of C•-2 uses with the neighboring R-1 usest and the concerns cf the West Centra]6; Neighborhood Advisory Group. Votf an favor were : Chairman Jensen C sioners Foreman, Gross, Scott and Engdahl. Nom voting : Commissionez ` Grosskans who stated that he was not. present duri :3 the public hearing. The motion passed. Comaii.ssioner, Gross left the table at 8 :59 p.m. -3- 9-27-:3 Recess The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and resumed at 9:15 p.m. Application No. 73031 The next item of business was consi- (Darrel. Farr Dev. ) deration of Planning Commission Appli- cation No. 73031 submitted by Darrel Farr Development. The item was intro- duced by the Secretary who stated the application represented a site and building plan approval request for Phase Two of the Shores Townhouses. • He noted that the preliminary concep- tual review of plans prepared by the developer for this phase had been reviewed at the September 6th meeting. He stated that the proposed plans had been further refined and that they were presented only for review purposes so the developer might gain input frost the Commission as to the feasibility of the proposal. The secretary also noted that neigh- boring property owners had been sent an informational notice of the meeting and that several persons were present. Chairman jensen then recognized Mr. John Klick, Mr. Loran Galpin and Mr. Jackson Riedesel, who represented the developer. Mr. Klick and Mr. Galpin then proceeded with a presenta- tion of slides and other graphics demonstrating the building layout and landscaping proposed for Phase Two. Chairman Jensen then recognized a number of the neighboring residents including Mr. Buhler, 5837 June Avenue North and Mr. Almen, 5925 June Avenue North. An extensive discussion ensued. Mr. Buhler stated his objection as to the slow progress and various problems which had been experienced with the development of Phase One and he noted that, in his opinion, the height of the buildings as well as the long "row house" effect was not aesthetically desirable. He stated that the plans as presented for Phase Two, in his opinion, did not represent a significant improve- ment over the landscaping and site layout of Phase One. Mr.. Galpin responded-that-the submittad plan represented an honest approach to a problem which had been perceived during the course of the development of Phase One and that it was the intent of the applicant to provide amenities which were reasonable and acceptable to all parties concerned. Mr. Buhler, stated that he doubted the effectiveness of the screening provided in the buffer area. Mr. Klick re- sponded that it was not the intent of the developer to totally screen or block off the development from the neighboring properties. 3 Further discussion ensued relative to the status of Phase One. Mr. Riedesel commented as to the current market and economic situations. He stated the applicant was in the process of cleaning up the site and putting it in order and he noted that there were models open for inspection. He stated, however, that work on the buildings which were incomplete, .had been halted until such time that sales �. commenced. Commissioner Foreman noted that one of the conditions of approval of Applica- tion No. 70012 for Phase One of the townhouse project stated: That the master site plan be approved with the provision that Phase Two be roviewed by the Planning Commission and Council upon completion of Phase One to determine if there are any necessary adjustments to the total development plan prior to enter-`.ng izitu the construction of Phase Two. Commissioner Foreman inquired as to why the application was before the Commis- sion since Phase One had not physically been completed. The Secretary responde that the applicant had indicated that he was prepared to proceed with Phase Two, including the submission of all required documents. The Secretary stated that in light of the experiences with Phase One, and in light of the changeover in personnel representing the developer, it was the staff deter- mination that preliminary review of such plans could commence at this time, since it was likely a number of pre- liminary meetings would be required before a final approval would be feasible. Mr. Buhler commented that it had been his understanding that nothing would be done relative to Phase Two until such time that Phase One was totally completed, so that an evaluation could be made as to the effect upon the area. He stated the project had been continuing over a period of three years and still was not finished. An extensive discussion ensued as to the development of the transitional area between the townhouse project and the neigl-iboring R-1 properties. The Secretary reviewed a conceptual plan known as "Development Plan C" which was approved by the Commission and Council in 1907. A number of -5 9-27-73 property owners stated that the current plans did not indicate a large undeveloped area in the northeast corner of the project as shown on the approved conceptual plan. Mr. Galpin and Mr. Klick e:;plained that, in order to enhance the general site as proposed, which involved a reduction in the total number of units which had been planned in 1967, it was • necessary to utilize a portion of the northeast corner for the internal roadway. Mr. Galpin pointed to the relatively heavy landscaping in that area and noted also, the bikeway and pedestrian walkway connecting 59h Avenue with Y.ylawn Park. In review of the evening's discussion, Chairman Jensen listed the primary concerns which had been developed: the visual impact of the "row house" effect of the Phase One buildings and the proposed Phase Two buildings upon the properties 'to the east; the loca- tion of the pedestrian walkway and bikeway at the northeast corner of the property and the related screening; the issue as to whather the northeast corner of the site should be left in a natural state as indicated on "Development Alternative C" as approve' in 1967; and the provisions for drainage of the site and whether there would be negal`ive ramifications upon the neighboring properties. In further discussion, Chairman Jensen affirmed Mr. Buhler's comment that it was his understanding that construction of Phase Two will not proceed until Phase One is physically completed, or unless the City formally amends the conditions of the original approval, the later alternative involving public input. Action to Table Motion by Commissioner Foreman, . Application No. 73031 seconded by Commissioner Scott to (Darrel, Farr Dev. ) table Planning Commission Application No. 73031 submitted by Darrel:. Farr Development until a future study meeting to permit the applicant the opportunity to prepare further data in support of his petition. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73030 The next item of business was con- (Darrel Farr Dev. ) tirued consideration of Application No. 73030 submitted by John Klick for Darrel Farr Development Co. The item was in.,a_o_-1uced by the Secretary who explainr�d the matter had been tabled at the September 6, 1973 meeting to permit further analysis of the submitted documents. -6- 9-27-73 ti He further explained the Director of Public Works had discussed with the applicant several discrepancies in building locations between the plat and the original approved site plans. Chairman Jcnsen recognized the Director of Public Works who stated the plat had been revised and updated by the surveyor and was in order. He noted that certain discrepancies in • building location remained from the approved site plan, but the bu:dings were built and the location differences had been minimized. A brief discus- sion ensued. Action to Recommend Approval Following further discussion, there of Application No. 73030 was a motion by Commissioner Scott, (Darrel Farr Dev. ) seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to recommend approval of Application No. 73030 submitted by John Klick for Darrel Farr Development subject to the following conditions : 1. Final plat is subject to the requ�._.:azacnts of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances; 2. Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer; 3. The ownership, management and maintenance of all outside common areas and common facili- ties, including roadways, utilities and street lighting, shall be under the jurisdiction of one homeowners association; 4. Homeowners association agreement and bylaws shall be submitted to the City; shall be subject to review by the City Attorney; and shall include : a. Provisions for the City to provide maintenance and re- vitalization of roadways, utilities, and other common use facilities in the event the City Council deems such maintenance and revitaliza- tion necessary, with the cost of such expenses that might be incurred to be assessed to the property owners. b. Prevision for water and sewer main and fire hydrant maintenance and inspection agreements pursuant to Section 35-410 (5) of the c zdinances. -7- 9-27-73 .err . .. Voting in favor were : Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Foreman, Scott, and Engdahl. The motion passed unanimously. Other Business : In other business, the Secretary Group Day Care Center discussed proposed guidelines for Guidelines Group Day Care Centers in multi-resi- dential apartment buildings and com- plexes. He explained that the guide- lines would be submitted to the Council for review and adoption. Following a brief discussion, Chairman Jensen determined that it was the consensus of the Commission to endorse the proposed guidelines for Group Day Care Centers in multi-residential apartment buildings and complexes. Housing Study Relative to the Council moratorium on multi-residential development and the interim study of ordinance require- ments, the Secretary noted that the Southwest Naighborhood Advisory Group had sWbmitted a list of observations and corpaLents relative to the undevel- oped land which was zoned for multi- residential development in that por- tion of the City. Chairman Jensen stated that the other groups should also have preliminary meetings and submit similar reports. The Secretary staLcd that d iuemorancitnn relative to the four specific areas of concern listed in the original motion establishing the moratorium would be distributed in the near future to the Neighborhood Groups and the Commissioners. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:50 P.M. Chairman -8- 9-27-73 Excerpt, Official Minutes of Brooklyn Center Planning Commission `...Me.-r g September 27, 1973 Application No. 73030 The next item of business was con- (D. A. Farr Development) tinued consideration of Application No. 73030 submitted by John Klick for Darrel Varr Devclopment Co. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the matter had been tabled at the September 6, 1973 weeting to permit further .a:.ulysis of the sub- mitted documents. He farther explained the Director of Public Works had discussed with the applicant several discrepancies in building locations between the plat and t'sie original approved site plans. C::ai.rman Jensen recognized the Director of Public Works who stated the plat had been revised and updated by the ::urveyor and was in order. Tie noted that certain discrepancies in building loc .ion remained from the approved site plan, but the buildings were built and the location differences had been minimized. A brief discus- sion ensued. Following further: discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Grasshans to recommend approval of Application No. 73030 submitted h1 John Kli.ck for Darrel ti arr Development subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat is subject to the re- quirements of Chapter 15 of th City O-dinances; 2. Final plat is subject to review by trxe City Engineer; 3. The ownership, management and maintenance of all outside common areas and common facili- ties, including roadways, utilities and street lighting, shall be under the jurisdiction of one homeowners association; 4. Homeowners as nociation agreements and bylaws shall be submitted to the City; shall be subject to review by the City Attorney; and shall include: a. Provisions for the City to provide maintenance and re- vitalization of roadways, utilities, and other common use facilities in the event the City Council deems such maintenance and revitaliza- tion necessary, with the cost of such expenses that might be incurred to be assessed to the property owners. b. Provision for water and sewer main and fire hydrant maintenance and inspection agreements pursuant t<� Section 35-410 (5) of the ordinances. voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Foreman, Scott, and Engdahl. The motion passed unanimously. -2- 9/27/73