Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 09-06 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ' BROOKLYN CEkNTER'IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL SEPTEMBER 6, 1973 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Robert Jensen. Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Foreman, Scott, Gross and Engdahl. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and inspec- tion Blair Tremere and Administrative Assistant James Lacina. Approval of minutes for August 2nd, August 16th, and August 30, 1973, was deferred until later in the meeting. Application No. 73027 Following the Chairman's explanation, (Brook Park Baptist Church) the first item of business was planning Commission Application No. 73027 sub- mitted by Brook Park Baptist Church. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking approval of a preliminary plat for the large tract of land owned by the church, which was located east of Perry Avenue North and southerly of 63rd Avenue North._ He stated the entire parcel was zoned R1, and the initial intent was to create a standard size parcel for a parsonage. He explained that the remaining property was to be designated as an outlot until future development was deemed desirable. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Dick Rolf, and a brief discussion ensued. In response to a question by Chairman Jensen, the Director of Public Works commented as to possible future develop- ment of the area designated "Outlot B". He stated that the applicant's surveyor had prepared a conceptual plan indicat- ing a possible cul-de-sac arrangement. He noted that if Orchard Avenue were to be extended southerly from 63rd Avenue, along the common boundary of the church. and the Orchard Lane School property, it would be possible to have four residen- tial lots facing Orchard Avenue and four facing Perry Avenue. Action Recommending Following further discussion, there was Approval of Application a motion by Commissioner Gross seconded No. 73027 by Commissioner Foreman to recommend Brook Park Baptist Church approval of Planning Commission Applica- -1- 9/6/73 tion No. 73027 submitted by Brook Park Baptist Church, subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. The final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances; 2. Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73029 The next item of business was Planning (Homedale Builders) Commission Application No. 73029 sub- mitted by Mr. Norman Chazin for Homedale Builders. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the appli- cant was seeking rezoning from R-5 to C-2, of the 4 acre site located at the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I-94 and Trunk Highway 152. He stated the proposed C-2 use was a motel and a restaurant. The Secretary also commented that the Comprehensive Plan called for "planned development" of the area along Brooklyn Boulevard, southerly of the freeway and north of 65th Avenue North. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Chazin and asked him to explain and document for the record, why the rezon- ing was warranted. Mr. Chazin respond- ed that a logical use of the site was a motel, as a matter of good planning, given its proximity to the freeway, and that C-2 zoning of the site for motel use was more economically feasible than the development of an apartment complex. In response to Chairman Jensen's in- quiry as to whether there would be a conflict between a C-2 use and the sur- rounding residential use, Mr. Chazin responded that any conflict would be minimal in terms of the intensity of a restaurant-motel use versus a multi- residential complex. He noted that sub- stantial buffering would be provided between the motel site and the surround- ing residential properties to make the use as compatible as possible with the area. Chairman Jensen noted that the proposed use involved what was commonly termed as an "economy motel", and asked Mr. Chazin to discuss the concept. Mr. Chazin responded that the proposed facility would provide lodging and a restaurant only, and would not feature facilities for conventions, assemblies, -2- 9/6/73 ° and other non-lodging facilities found in larger lusury motels. Chairman Jensen then inquired whether the developers intent was to secure a liquor license for the motel and restaurant, and Mr. Chazin responded that while he did not want to preclude the possibility of a liquor license, the current plann- ing did not include that factor. Relative to access, Mr. Chazin stated that the State Highway Department had reviewed the preliminary site plans, and had approved the concept for access, in that it represented the best possible provision, given the location of the site. Mr. Chazin then presented renderings of the proposed motel and restaurant site development, and showed samples of materials which would be used in furnish- ing the motel. Public Hearing on Chairman Jensen then explained that a Rezoning Request public hearing for the rezoning action had been scheduled and that neighboring property owners within 250 feet of the subject site had been notified of the meeting. He further noted that 11 of the 37 notified property owners were present, and he recognized the residents of 3801 66th Avenue North, 4018, 4106, 4107, 4112 65th Avenue North, 6515 and 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, 6506, 6530, 6536 Indiana Avenue North, and 6449 Marlin Drive. Chairman Jensen noted for the record, that the consensus of the notified property owners present was generally negative as to the use of the site for a motel and as to the proposed rezoning. Chairman Jensen also recognized repre- sentatives of the West Central Neighbor- hood Advisory Group, who stated that the,, would reserve any comment until they submitted their report to the Com- mission. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Samuelson who represented J.C.N.J. Pro- perties, owner of the subject site. Mr. Samuelson responded to a ques;.:ion poser by one of the property owners, regarding the fact that the restrictive covenants on the other properties in this addition were not placed upon the subject parcel. He stated that the covenants placed on the other properties -were common for such .residential areas, but that the owner had reservej the subject 4 acre parcel for possirlc development of a multi-residential housing complex. He noted that Plana for such a development on this rite had been developed several -3- 9/6/73 years ago, and a detezmination bad been made that the requirements of the • Village were too stringent, thus making the project economically unfeasible. Mr. Samuelson also commented that he appreciated the concern of the neighbors as to assurance that the proposed use would be developed on the site, if it were rezoned to C-2, and would not be sold and developed in some other fashion. He briefly explained a pro- ' cedure utilized in another connunity, wherein developers were required to submit complete site and building plans as well as an application for building permit, following the first reading of a rezoning amendment to t-r,,e ordinance, but before the second and final reading. Chairman Jensen responded that concerti. did not completely resolve the cor:icerna of the neighboring property owners, in that, once rezoned to C-2, the lard could be put to any permitted C-2 use. Chairman Jensen stated that the main concern before the Commission was one of a proposed change of land use. He then recognized Mr. Chazin who respond- ed to concerns of several property owners as to access. He stated that a proposed right turn lane would alleviate any potential problems for traffic con- gestion, and he noted that motels are located in high traffic areas to draw off of the traffic and do not generally create substantial traffic. In that regard, Mr. Samuelson stated that traffic design and control was a matter for the state to resolve since it in- volved state roads, and he questioned whether the matter of access design for this particular location would sei- e as acceptable grounds for denying the re- zoning application. Action Closing Following further discussion there was Public Hearing a motion by Commissioner Gross seconded by Commissioner Scott to close the public hearing. The motion passed un- animously. Chairman Jensen then reviewed the dis- cussion, noting the following points which would be considered in devclopi.r°,g a final recommendation: • 1. The history of the zoning in this area and previous attempts to develop the silt-i.act property; 2. The developer's rationale for the rezoning request being primarily economic and not mainly directed at the issue of planned land use development -4- 3/6/73 3. The question as to whether the land may be possibly "over-zoned" at the present time, and the pos- sibility that appropriate "planned development" might involve lower intensity mt.lti-residential use; 4. The merit of developing a motel on the site, being the proximity to the freeway; and the drawback being that commercial development on the site was in close proximity to residential areas; • 5. That the restaurant could be de- veloped into a full-fledged supper club; 6. The affect of the proposed rezon- ing upon the general land uses in the neighborhood given the con- cerns of the Comprehensive Plan, and recognizing the restrictive covenants on the other residential properties. Chairman Jensen then noted the estab- lished Commission policy of referring rezoning matters to the Neighborhood Advisory Group, and the need to give the matter further analysis based on the in- put of the Advisory Group, and the staff. Action to Table Following further discussion there was Application No. 73029 a motion by Commissioner Foreman second- (Homedale Builders) ed by Commissioner Engdahl to table Planning Commission Application No. 73029 submitted by Mr. Norm Chazin for Homedale Builders, and to refer the matter to the Neighborhood Study Group, requesting their report to the Commis- sion at the study meeting. The motion passed unanimously. Recess The meeting recessed from 9:10 P .M. to 9:30 P.M. Commissioner Foreman left the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Application No. 73030 The next item of business was Planning (D.Farr Development) Commission Application ro. 73030 sub- mitted by Mr. John Klick for Darrel Farr Development. Vie item was intro- duced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking preliminary plat approval for the Shores Townhouse devel- opment on County Road 10, west of June Avenue North. He stated that Phase I of the development consisted of 40 individ- iial home lots and a common area lot, all of which were contained in 9 separate blocks. He stated that the Phase II area was shown as a second lot of the Phase I (common area) block 119" and that it -5- 9/6/73 should be redesignated as an outlot, until such time that the second phase • itself is plat-4eJ. An extensive discussion ensued and the Director of Public Works recommended that the item be tabled to afford the staff an opportunity to further analyze the proposed plate He explained that he had noticed A discrepancy in the location of .the buildings, as indicated on the preliminary plat, from the lo- cations indicated on the originally approved site plan. He stated that he had discussed the matter with the applicant's surveyor, and that ap- parently a number of the plat lines were drawn according to the actual location of buildings or foundation, and not according to lot stakes placed before construction. He stated that the biggest deviation from the original site plan appeared to be between block 7 and block 8, and stated that he had not yet fully evaluated the extent of the discrepancies. Commissioner Gross inquired as to how the discrepancies occurred and Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Klick and Mr. Riedesel, who represented the developer and who commented that they had not been involved with the development of Phase I, and that perhaps the discrep- ancies in the location of the buildings were unintentional or accidental. Mr. Riedesel stated the fact was the buildings were located in the manner indicated on the preliminary plat, and stated that the discrepancies did not appear to be of major consequence. Chairman Jensen briefly reviewed the previous experiences with the develop- ment of the entire area and stated that in light of the Public Works Directo-r's findings, there was definitely .a need for further evaluation of the entire preliminary plat to assure that there were no other problems. A brief dis- cussion ensued and Mr. Riedesel assurred the Commission that it was the intent of the developer to work closely with the City and to cooperate in all respects. Commissioner Gross inquired as to • whether the common areas, roadways, and any easements should he designated separately as outlo-�s. The Director of Public Works stated that he had con- suited with the county and several area surveyors, and that the collective designation of roadways, common areas, and any easements as integrated outlots was acceptable. -6- 9/6/73 Action -to.:Table Following further discussion there was Application No. 73030 a motion by Commissioner Gross seconded (D. Farr Development) by Commissioner Scott to table Planning Commission Application No. 73030 sub- mitted by Darrel Farr Development to permit further analysis of the prelim- inary plat by the staff for reconsid- eration of the matter at the study meet- ing. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 73031 The next item of business was consider- (D. Farr Development) ation of Planning Commission Applica- tion No. 73031 submitted by Darrel Farr Development. The item was introduced • by the Secretary who explained the application was for site and building plan approval for Phase II of the Shores Townhouse project. He stated the item was presented as an informational item only, and that the developer, was . in. the process of revising the originally sub- mitted plans. An extensive discussion ensued relative to previous concerns involving screen- ing, landscaping, area hydrology, pro- vision for pedestrian access from the neighborhood to the west through the project to Kylawn Park, and the rami- fications of applicable flood plain land use policies. Chairman Jensen stated that as with Phase I, the Secretary should notify neighboring property owners of the meeting when complete site and build- ing plans are presented to the Com- mission for formal review. Action to Table motion by Commissioner Scott seconded Application No. 73031 by Commissioner Engdahl to table (D. Farr Development) planning Commission Application No. 73031 submitted by Darrel Farr Develop- ment until the study meeting to permit the applicant the opportuity to accom- plish necessary revisions to the re- quired plans. The motion passed un- animously. Application No. 73028 The next item of business was Planning (Harstad Construction) Commission Application No. 73028 sub- mitted by Harstad Construction Co. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for a 3,625 square foot retail convenience center to be located within the large C-2 tract located southerly of 66th Avenue North and easterly of Camden Avenue North. He stated the site for the specific convenience center structure was on a parcel located immed- iately west of the Shell Oil Station. He further comsl,need that there was a definite parallel of the need for a conceptual. master plan for the 3.17 acne tract with the large C-2 parcel at 69th and Humboldt Avenue North. He stated the need for a master plan was accentuated since the applicant was pro- posing a piecemeal development of the -7- 9/6173 tract. He noted that the applicant had submitted such a plan and stated that it was presented for review only. An extensive discussion of the concep- tual master plan ensued. Chairman Jensen stated that while the plan was quite basic, it did represent an effort by the developer to graphically indi- cate the potential development of the site. He then recognized Mr. Harstad, who explained that he had intentionally designed the conceptual master plan according to minimum ordinance require- ments, and that it did not necessarily reflect what he would conceive as the most desirable development of the tract. The Secretary stated that while the conceptual plan appeared to be in con- formance with ordinance requirements, it was essential to consider the rami- fications of the following factors: 1. The proposed piecemeal develop- ment of the subject tract; 2. The C-2 zoning of all the land between the subject property southerly to I-94, between Camden Avenue North and Trunk Highway 169. An extensive discussion ensued as to the potential development of the en- tire area, and Mr. Harstad stated there was no doubt that if the Lyn- brook Bowl development proceeded accord- ing to the plans which had been ap- proved by the City Council, there would be a significant impact on the entire area in the form of accelerated construction on the remaining com- mercially zoned land. An extensive discussion ensued as to the status of 5th Street North, and whether it could be expected that the street would be extended across the subject tract. The Director of Public Works stated that at this time, there were no such plans, but he noted that there was an extention of the public easement from 5th Street North across the property to 66th Avenue North. He noted also that the conceptual plan did not comprehend any construction on that easement. Consensus Developed Following further discussion, it was Approving Conceptual the consensus that the conceptual Master Plan master plan submitted by the developer was acceptable and Chairman Jensen asked the Secretary to review the site and building plans. _g_ 9/6/73 The Secretary stated that the staff had reviewed originally submitted plans and had noted several concerns as to land- scaping, parking, building elevations, and exterior lighting. He stated that the applicant had submitted a revised site and building plan. The Secretary noted that the dominate use in the two-part convenience center would tentatively be a nationally franchised food store. He explained that a previous proposal for develop- ment of such a food store on this site had not been pursued beyond the point of discussion with the staff, and that concerns at that time had been with proper design of the parking area so that there would be crderly and maximum use of the provided spaces. He stated the present application raised similar questions, although the site had been enlarged. The Secretary further commented that while the number of parking spaces actually exceeded the ordinance minimum, the bulk of the parking spaces were to the rear of the building, and commented that possibly a redesign of the build- ing, facing it toward the main parking area could be accomplished. Mr. Harstad stated that the prospective tenant was firm on the desire to have the store facing 66th Avenuo North. and the Secretary stated that the same rationale had been presented by the earlier developer, namely that a national franchise was virtually in- flexible as to adaptation to any partic- ular site. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the design of the parking layout, and the Director of Public works stated that it would be possible to provide additional parking northerly of the pro- posed building, if the building were shifted approximately two feet to the south and the berm area were shifted to the east, reducing the size of the easterly driveway. Mr. Harstad stated that such an amendment would be agree- able and that the plans could be re- vised accordingly prior to City Council review. Action Recorimending Following further discussion, there was iApproval of Application a motion by Commissioner Scott seconded No. 73028 by Commissioner Grow to recommend ap- (Y.;arstad Construction) proval of Planning Commission Applica- tion No. 73026 submitted by Harstad Construction Company, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to -9- 9/6/73 the approval of the Building r Official with respect to applic- able building codes prior to the issuance of building permits; 2. Drainage, grading, and utility plans are subject to the approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits; 3. A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee the in- stallation of site improvements . as shown on all plans approved by the City. 4. Approval is exclusive of all signery. 5. Additional parking shall be pro- vided along the southerly edge of the 66th Avenue boulevard area, between the driveways; and it is acknowledged that such revision will entail a shifting of the structure to the south, and a slight reduction in the width of the easterly curbcut (such plans to be approved by the staff prior to City Council review) . The motion passed unanimously. Discussion of 3rd Draft The next item of business was dis- of Proposed ordinance cussion of the third draft of proposed Changes Relative to ordinance definitional changes regard- Horne Occupations ing Home Occupations, Special Home Occupations, and rummage sales. The Secretary noted several language changes and it was the consensus of the Commission to include such changes in the final draft. Commissioner Gross stated his concern as to the clarity of the limitation on the number of students or children in instructional or day care situations. Action Directing Following further discussion, there Preparation of Final was a motion by Commissioner Gross Draft for Council- seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to commission Review direct the Secretary to prepare a fourth and final draft of the proposed ordinance changes regarding definitions of Home Occupation, Special Home Occu- pations, and Rummage Sales for presen- tation to the City Council at a forth- coming joint meeting. The motion passed unanimously. -10- 9/6/73 f Action Recommending Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded Extension of Moratorium by Commissioner Gross to recommend the on Issuance of Special extension of the moratorium on issuance Home Occupation Permits of Special Home Occupation permits through the month of October, to permit analysis and discussion of the pro- posed changes jointly by the City Council and the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. Approval of Minutes : Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded August 2, 1973 by Commissioner Gross to approve the • Planning Commission minutes of August 2, 1973 as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. August 16, 1973 Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to approve the minutes of the August 16, 1973 minutes as submitted. Voting infavor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Engdahl. Not voting: Commissioner Gross who explained he was not present at the August 16th meeting. The motion passed. August 30, 1973 Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Scott to approve the minutes of the August 30, 1973 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Engdahl. Not voting: Commissioner Gross who explained he was not present at the August 30, 1973 meeting. The motion passed. other Business: in other business, the Secretary ex- nousing Study plained that data had been prepared re- garding the study of multi-residential housing development ordinance provisions, and he stated the informational packets which he distributed to the Council members should be passed on to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Groups He commented that additional memoranda would be forthcoming, which would con- tain technical data and staff recommen- dations. Chairman Jensen emphasized the importance of initiating meetings of the Neighborhood Advisory Groups to provide input to the Commission at up coming study meetings. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Gross to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:30 P.M. Chairman -11- 9/6/73