HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 07-08 PCM . 4
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF
MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
JULY 8, 1976
CITY HALL
Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and
was called to order by Chairman Robert Foreman at
• 8:00 p.m.
Roll Call: Chairman Foreman, Commissioners Scott, Engdahl,
Pierce, Horan, and Jacobson. Also present were
Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of
Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere.
Approval of Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by
6-24-76 Commissioner Engdahl to approve the minutes of the
June 24 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were
Commissioners Engdahl, Scott, Jacobson, and Pierce.
Not voting: Chairman Foreman and Commissioner Horan
who stated they were not present at that meeting. The
motion passed.
Applications No. 760Q9 Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of
(W.J. Dale) and No. business was reconsideration of Application 76009 and
76020 (City) companion Application 76020.
Kohrt Arrives Commissioner Kohrt arrived at 8:05 p.m.
The Secretary reviewed the application stating that
Application 76009 had been submitted by Mr. William
Dale requesting rezoning, from I-2 to C-2, of the
property south of Lakebreeze Avenue and west of T.H.
100. He stated the application had been tabled on
April 15 , 1976 to permit the applicant time to prepare
a conceptual layout and preliminary plat. The Secretary
stated that Application No. 76020 had been initiated by
the Planning Commission and involved the property
southerly of the Dale property, and its final disposition
was contingent on the recommended disposition of the
Dale application.
The Secretary reviewed the minutes of the April 15
meeting and of the February 12 meeting, when the
initial public hearing had been held. He stated the
Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group had recom-
mended approval of the application.
The Secretary reviewed a conceptual preliminary plat
which indicated a possible layout for a commercial use
at the easterly side of the property abutting the
Highway 100 right-of-way. He also noted the proposed.
right-of-way line for future possible highway acquisi-
tion. He stated that efforts had been made by the
applicant and the staff to coordinate the adjacent
property in the replatting, but that so far the efforts had
not been productive. He stated the City Engineer was
continuing to review the conceptual plat in light of
information received from the State Highway Department.
-1- 7-8-76
Chairman Foreman commented that the proposal had been
supported by the Neighborhood Group as well as by
neighboring property owners who were concerned that the
area shbuld be developed and that commercial uses were
preferable to industrial development. He stated that
provided proper planning measures were taken with
respect to platting and access, commercial development
impact on the residential neighborhood could be minimized
while upgrading the area in general.
Following further discussion there was a motion by Recommend Approval
Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Horan of Application No, •
to recommend approval of Application No. 76009 sub- 76009 (W. J. Dale)
mitted by William Dale in that: C-2 zoning is deemed an
appropriate land use for the area as more desirous than
industrial land use in terms of properly planned enhance-
ment of the neighborhood which contains no developable
C-2 land; the proposal has been reviewed and recom-
mended by the Southwest Neighborhood Advisor, Group;
and the neighboring property owners have voiced support
for the proposal; and, subject to the condition that the
property shall be replatted prior to development accord-
ing to the requirements of Chapter 15 , taking into account
current planning information available from the State
Highway Department and the need to minimize develop-
ment impact upon the residential neighborhood. The
motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Recommend Approval
Pierce t&recommend approval of companion Application of Application No.
No. 76020, initiated by the Commission, citing the 76020 (City Initiated)
reasons for Application No. 76009 and the merit of estab-
lishing the C-2 zoning on an area-wide basis. The motion
passed unanimously.
The next item of business was consideration of Application Application No. 76035
No. 76035 submitted by Mr. Douglas Peterson. The item (Douglas Peterson)
was introduced by the Secretary who stated the application
was considered at the public hearing on June 10 and was
referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group.
He stated the applicant seeks rezoning, from R-1 to R-2,
of the 15,495 square foot lot at 7212 Lyndale Avenue North
to permit construction of a duplex. He stated the Advisory
Group recommended approval including concurrence with
the Commission's suggestion that the adjacent lot of
comparable size be included in the action. The Secretary
.stated that the owner of the adjacent property, Mr. Steven
Boone, concurred in the proposed action. He also re-
viewed the minutes of the June 10 meeting noting that both
parcels were included in the 1973 approved rezoning to
R-4, but which were not developed by the then applicant,
Mr. Boone, and, thus , the rezoning had not been finalized
by ordinance amendment.
In response to several questions, the Secretary explained
the proposed zoning would permit either a single family
or two family dwelling on each lot and represents a lower
density than the previously approved R-4 zoning.
7-8-76 -2-
Recommend Application Following a brief discussion there was a motion by
No. 76035 (Douglas Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner
Peterson) Jacobson to recommend approval of Application No.
76035 submitted by Mr. Douglas Peterson, noting that
the recommendation involves both parcels compre-
hended in the earlier Application No. 73004 and noting
the compatibility of the proposed R-2 zoning with the
established multiple family zoning in the area as well
as the single family development to the east. The
motion passed unanimously.
Application No. 76042 The next item of business was consideration of
(Stanley Westrom) Application No. 76042 submitted by Mr. Stanley
Westrom, 5312 Irving Avenue North. The item was
introduced by the Secretary who stated the request is
for permission to construct a major addition onto a
dwelling which is noncomplying as to yard setback.
He stated Sect-Lon 35-111 provides that ncncomforming
struc'_',.jre_,,' may not be enlarged or structurally altered.
He explained the structure sPs on a 50 foot wide lot
and was built in 1940, and that there is an approximate
6 foot side yard setback deficiency on the north side.
He stated the applicant intends to add a living area
addition and deck and to redo the exterior finish of the
0-
U j%j c J1.I�j-Lg. 'IT
11 ne stated the proposed addition is on the
south side of the house and would not aggravate the
side yard deficiency. He noted that, given the size of
the addition, the entire structure must be brought into
compliance with the Building Code.
Public Hearing Chairman Foreman noted that a public hearing had been
scheduled and that none of the notified property owners
was present. Motion. by Ccmmissioner Jacobson,
seconded by Commissioner Pierce to close the public
hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
The Secretary explained that the applicant is the
owner/occupant and feels the structure rii�;rits the
investment of a major addition and upgrading. He stated
a ,;uhstantial renovation and improvement to the struc-
ture would result in an enhancement of the neighborhood.
The Secretary stated the application is virtually
identical to Applicaticri No. 75016 which was approved
by the City Council on June 2 , 1975 for the property
at 5322 Irving Avenue North.
Following an extensive discussion, there was a motion
by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner
Scott to recommend approval of Application No. 76042
submitted by Mr. Stanley Westrom in that: the request
satisfies the ordinance standards for a variance and,
in particular, that the situation was not created by the
applicant; the proposed addition does not involve the
• yard deficiency; and noting the basis for similar action
for a neighboring property and the resultant enhance-
ment of the older southeast neighborhood; subject to
the following-
a. The proposed addition shall conform with
existing setback requirements.
-3- 7-8-76
b. The exterior finish of the existing structure shall .
be rejuvenated so to be compatible with the
finish of the new construction.
c. The entire structure shall be brought into com-
pliance with applicable building codes as
determined by the Building Official.
The motion passed unanimously.
The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 76041
Application No. 76041 submitted by Meadow Corporation. (Meadow Corp.)
The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the
applicant seeks special use permit site and building plan
approval for a planned residential development (PRD) as
comprehended by Section 35-312 of the ordinance. He
stated that PRD is a concept providing for a variety of
dwelling modes in the R-3 district. He stated this pro-
ject is known as "Fox Run II" and proposes an ultimate
320 units on 64.4 acres to be built in eight separate
phases. He stated the application is actually comprised
of two parts: the total conceptual plan for the develop-
ment; and the site and building plans for the first phase,
which he stated would be at the south end at 69th Avenue
North and would consist of tW my units, six of which
are townhouses. He stated each subsequent phase would
be subject to review and approval as separate items.
He explained that the plans had been reviewed and
generally conform with the PRD requirements and, in fact,
substantially exceed the R-3 density requirements. He
stated the proposed buildings are two and three unit
dwellings and that there are no multiple dwellings
(apartments) comprehended on the project. He stated
that a submitted preliminary plat scheduled for a subse-
quent meeting reflects condominium-type ownership
similar to several other established townhouse projects.
The Secretary stated that approximately four years ago
another PRD-type project had been approved for the site
and that it involved several multiple family dwellings.
He stated that project had undergone extensive review by
the staff and the Planning Commission prior to City Council
approval, and subsequently was not developed due to
financial considerations.
Chairman Foreman recognized Mr. Duane Dietrich who
represk ;rnted the applicant and who presented a graphic
explanation of the proposed site development and dwelling
unit. He explained the phasing proposed for the project
and noted that it proceeded from a small phase to a larger
phase, and that phases I through VI consisted of condo-
m1nium two and three family dwelling buildings, while
phases VIII and VIII at the north end of the project com-
prehended condominium multiple unit townhouse design
structures. •
Mr. Dietrich stated that he realized the PRD provisions
of the ordinance required a .minimal number of townhouse
type units (defined as three or more attached units) and
that he would prefer to have the flexibility of providing
predominantly two family type dwellings . He stated the
proposed conceptual plan and site and building plans_for
Phase I were consistent with the ordinance requirements.
He asked that the Commission give consideration to an
ordinance amendment at a future date.
7-8-76 -4-
Public Hearing Chairman Foreman noted that pursuant to ordinance
requirements for special uses, a public hearing had
been scheduled and notices had been sent to neighbor-
ing property owners within 1.50 feet. He recited the
list of the thirty-one residents so notified and recog-
nized eleven property owners including the residents
of 5112 71st Avenue North; 7043 , 7019 , and 7013
Regent Avenue North; 5106, 5118, 5200, 5206, and
5212 70th Avenue North; and 6913 and 6907 Toledo
Avenue North.
Those persons recognized stated general opposition to
any development of the area as well as concerns
regarding the extensive amount of open water indicated
on the conceptual master plan. Several residents
stated a concern as to safety for small children and
inquired as to what measures would be taken to pro-
vide screening and security fencing from the open
water.
Several residents stated their concern about drainage
problems experienced in the area and inquired as to the
effects of this development.
The resident of 7043 Regent Avenue North read an
exten,ciivu prepared statement citing general concerns
as to the need for proper planning and the concern for
the effect upon the environment and people in the area.
She a,,!Fked that the Commission take a broad perspec-
tive, citing several physical and social factors
inherent in sound planning. She also suggested that
based upon conversations with the State Environmental
Quality Council staff an environmental impact assess-
ment possibly would be required due to the natural
characteristics of the area and the proximity to Shingle
Creek.
The Secretary and Director of Public Works responded
to the several concerns raised by the resident of 7043
Regent and explained that ordinance requirements as
well as the City's planning policies and procedures
took into account a variety of environmental and social
factors. The Secretary stated that while the basic
planning considerations were applied to development
requests such as this, he was not specifically aware
of mandated requirements for an environmental impact
assessment or environmental impact statement per
State law. He commented that prior to further review
and disposition of the application, a determination
would be made whether such procedures were mandated.
Several residents suggested that an environmental
assessment would be in order whether mandated by
State law or not and recommended that the Planning
Commission consider such a requirement. It was
suggested that the City acquire the property to assure
no development would occur. The Secretary responded
to additional remarks , that development should be pro-
hibited on the site, by explaining the legal right of the
private property owner to develop his land according to
the requirements and guidelines of established laws
and ordinances. He commented that the City was not
in a position to acquire the land due to cost and plan-
ning reasons, and that the Commission was not in a
position to evaluate that consideration.
-5- 7-8-76
Several residents stated a concern as to the elevations .
of the proposed units and following a description by the
applicant, the Secretary suggested that perhaps elevations
of the proposed units abutting the single family residential
areas be prepared for review by the Commission at a sub-
sequent meeting.
Other residents commented as to the effect such a
development would have upon traffic in the area and noted
the existing intensity, particularly along 69th Avenue
North. Inquiries were also made as to the proposed
access for the project, and the Secretary responded that •
initially the access would be onto 69th Avenue North and
ultimately the internal roadway would connect with 73rd
Avenue North in Brooklyn Park.
Further concern was voiced as to the proposed pending
on the site and Mr. Dietrich explained that the design
utilized existing drainage patterns and high water table
characteristics of the property. He stated no major
intrusions were proposed into the area and that the effect
upon Shingle Creek would be minimal.
The applicant also stated that the proposal reflected the
current trend in providing reasonable cost housing which,
by economic necessity, differed in design from the:
detached rambler style which was popular over the past
15 - 20 years. He also noted that the density of the
project was lower than the ordinance maximum.
During further discussion Mr. Dietrich stated that the
applicant proposed to mine a portion of the poorer material
from the site and replace it with better material more
suitable for construction purposes. He noted his involve-
ment with two residential projects in Brooklyn Park which
also incorporated ponding and a planned residential
development scheme.
Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Close Hearing
Jacobson to close the public hearing. The motion passed
unanimously.
Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Fable Application
Commissioner Pierce, seconded by Commissioner No. 76041 (Meadow
Jacobson to table Application No. 76041 submitted by Corp.)
Meadow Corporation to permit the staff and the applicant
the opportunity to investigate whether an environmental
impact a .;sessment or environmental impact statement is
mandated by State law or regulation for a project such as
this for further consideration at a subsequent meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed at 10.20 p.m. and resumed at Recess
10035 p.m.
The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 76040 •
Application No. 76040 submitted by Titus, Inc. with ('Titus, Inc.)
Dayton Development Company. The item was introduced
by the Secretary who stated the applicant proposes a
9,800 square foot retail center on the approximate 46,000
square foot site immediately north of the Dayton-Bachman°s
Garden Store at the southeast corner of Shingle Creek
Parkway and County Road 10.
7-8-76 -6-
He stated the development represented the culmination
cf the east perimeter development of the Brookdale
Shopping Center -- an area once comprehended as
parking lot expansion for the center. He stated there
are several details which must be clarified in this
area. finalization of certain improvements such as
curbing which were installed as temporary; replatting
the area to establish distinct tracts, including this
site which Dayton Development proposes to sell; and
resolution of necessary joint parking agreements
between the applicant and the Plitt Theater.
• He explained this development has a parking deficiency
of approximately 37 spaces which the applicant pro-
poses to accommodate through a joint parking agreement
with Dayton Development Company which retains a 150
foot wide strip between this site and the theater
property. He explained that the 150 foot strip has been
paved and is currently utilized by the theater which
also has a parking deficiency of approximately 100
spaces. He stated the use of the property by the
theater is based upon a private easement agreement
which was acknowledged by the City Council in
Resolution 69-34 which was approved concurrent with
Planning Ccrmmission Application No. 68069 for the
th&iter. He stated that no formal joint parking agree-
ment was approved at that time, pending future
Brookdale Center development.
He stated that the early files, private agreements,
plans and surveys had been reviewed and that there is
enough surplus parking for this proposed use and the
theater.
He stated that consistent with the ordinance require-
ments per Section 35-720 and the Resolution No.
69-34, joint parking agreements should be required for
both this development and the theater.
Chairman Foreman recognized Mr. George Bestrom who
represented the applicant and an extensive review
ensued of the site and building plans. Mr. Bestrom
,Mated that a registered land survey comprehending a
replat of this east Brookdale area had been submitted,
and the Secretary stated it would be reviewed at a sub-
sequent meeting.
The Director, of Public Works reviewed the site plan and
noted the prevision for utilities, berming, parking and
access.
Commissioner Engdahl inquired as to the provision for
loading space on the east side of the commercial
facility and the one-way access on that side. The
Director of Public Works noted the elevation of the
driveway area with relation to the theater property to
the east and stated that given the landscape treatment
proposed by the plans there should be sufficient
screening.
The Director of Public Works also stated that a sub-
stantial portion of existing bituminous curbing adjacent
to the site would be removed and replaced with per-
manent B-612 curb and gutter and he noted that the
bituminous curbing had been installed as a temporary
improvement.
-7- 7-8-76
Mr. Bestrom stated that formal parking agreement with the
theater ownership was being processed but was not yet
available and he requested that the application be acted
upon subject to the final approval of the joint parking
agreements. The Secretary cited a letter submitted by
Mr. Bestrom to the file with respect to the preparation
of the joint parking agreements,
Chairman Foreman stated that a graphic representation
of the 150 foot parking area should be provided with the
separate application for approval of the joint parking
agreements. He stated the plan should clearly represent •
the amount of parking available and those portions to be
utilized by the theater and by the proposed development.
Following further discussion there was a motion by Recommend Approval
Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner of Application No.
Pierce to recommend approval of Application No. 76040 76040 (Titus, Inca
submitted by 'Titus, Inc. with Dayton Development
Company subject to the following conditions:
1 . Building plans are subject to approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable
codes.
2 . Grading, drainage, utility and bexining plans
are subject to approval by the City Engineer.
3 . A performance agreement and supporting financial
guarantee (in an amount determined by the City
Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion
of approved site improvements.
4. The property .shall be subdivided, through plat
or registered laid survey, prior to occupancy.
5 . The parking space deficiency shall be resolved
through an approved joint parking agreement per
Section 35-720, with Dayton Development
Company who owns the adjacent land designated
as parking; the use of said adjacent parking area
by the theater shall also be approved through
joint parkins; agreement, as required by Council
Resolution No. 69-34; said agreement shall be
approved prior to the issuance of permits; and
the application for approval of those parking
agreements shall include a parking plan of the 150
r,ot wide area owned by Dayton Development
Company.
6. Any outside trash disposal facilities and all
rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appro-
priately screened.
The motion passed unanimously.
In other business the Secretary stated that, with respect Other Business: .
to Application 110. 76011 submitted by Dr. Robert Schell
for Mr. john Horbal, the City Council had asked the
staff and City Attorney to further investigate the zoning
issues raised by the application. He stated that the City
Attorney had prepared substaritial memoranda regarding
the matter of spot zoning and that the staff was prepared
7-8-76 -8-
to discuss a ,secondary concern, namely, planning
principles relative to buffering use of the C-1 zone in
lieu of R-5, R-4, or R-3 zoning. He stated the Council
had asked that the material be reviewed by the Planning
Commission for further input on the application. ,
Chairman Foreman stated that due to the substance of
the material more time was necessary to provide an
adequate review. He stated that he felt the application
should be held over indefinitely by the Council if they
wanted more in depth review by the Planning
. Commission. He stated, however, that he felt the
Planning Commission's resolution recommending
denial had conveyed the substance of the Planning
Commission's concerns.
Commissioner Engdahl stated that he had briefly
reviewed the Attorney's memoranda and stated the
Coun°-il should be informed that definition of "spot
zoning" reflected in the second paragraph of the
Attorney's memo No. S46 should be supported. He
stated the issue appeared to be simply rezoning a
small tract of land for the sale, development, and
profit of a particular developer. Commissioner Scott
agreed stating that there was lack of determined
specific public need for the rezoning.
Commissioner Kohrt stated the issue should be
studied in more depth, particularly with respect to
the legal aspects since it was obvious the concept of
"spot zoning" was a rather elusive one.
Commissioner Horan stated that the matter of inter-
changeabill'ty of C-1 zoning for the higher residential
zoning had been addressed and that, in his opinion,
the circumstances of the request were unchanged. He
stated that the City Council should be given specific
input on the matters at hand, namely, "spot zoning"
and the interchangeability of buffering zones.
Commissioner Pierce stated that he felt additional time
was necessary to adequately review the material
presented.
Commissioners Scott and Jacobson stated they had not
changed their position on the specific application,
although there might be merit in reviewing the material
submitted.
Commissioner Engdahl stated that he felt there was no
need to further procrastinate the issue and that the
Attorney's memo is quite specific as to defining "spot
zoning" in the same context which the Planning
Commission conveyed in their resolution recommending
denial.
Chairman Foreman stated that he agreed with
Commissioner Engdahl and that substantial time and
input had been provided the application as reflected in
the Commission's resolution. He stated that perhaps
the Council should review the Commission's minutes
and recommendations in more detail since it was unclear
why further input was required. Commissioner Engdahl
stated he could not understand why the Council desired
further input when they apparently did not appreciate
the input already provided.
-9- 7-8-76
It was established that it was the majority opinion of the
Council that more time was necessary to fully review the
material presented regarding "spot zoning" and the matter
of the interchangeability of C-1 for higher multi-residential
zones as intermediate land uses.
In other business Chairman Foreman reviewed the Council's
action at the last meeting relative to disposition of
Application No. 75035 submitted by Mr. Jack Welsh. He
stated that the Council, on a three-to-two vote, had
approved the variance request despite the Planning
Commission's recommendation for denial and the results
of the Jaycee Community Attitude Survey regarding ordinance
yard setback standards. He stated he was most disturbed
with the action, not in the context of its reversal from the
Planning Commission's recommendation, but in the context
that the motion by the Council was void of any rationale
for the approval. He stated no language was provided as
to conformance of the request with ordinance or statutory
standards for granting variances, namely, uniqueness
and demonstrated hardship, and he stated his personal
inclination was to advise the City Council the -action
should be rescinded so that a more definitive action
could be taken.
Chairman Foreman stated he had requested time before
the City Council at the next meeting and proposed to
make such a recommendation at that time. He stated at
least the Commission should be in a position to study
the issue further and develop alternative ordinance
language if it is the Council's inclination to alter the
ordinance standards. He noted that one of the
Commission's main concerns had been that if the standards
are to be altenE;d, At should be done through formal
ordinance amendment and not through perpetual variance
granting.
Commissioner Engdahl agreed and stated that a bad
precedent had been established wherein future similar
variance applications had no basis for denial. He stated
his concern that apparently the extensive discussion,,,
and reviews held by the Commission and jointly with the
Council over the last several months regarding this issue
had been ignored and that the lack of specific language
for supporting the variance action indicated a disregard
for the ordinance requirements and State law with respect
to granting variances.
Commissioner Horan stated that he felt the Council
discussion prior to the action had developed a rationale
and that it was his impression, notwithstanding the
Jaycee Attitude Survey , the matter of converting existing
accessory structures was the primary matter treated by
the Council.
Chairman Foreman stated that he intended to express his •
feelings, and preferably the feeling of the Commission,
at the Council meeting. During further discussion it was
established that Chairman Foreman was speaking for the
majority of the Commissioners relative to the recommended
rescinding of the Application No. 75035, so that specific
supportive language could be developed or so the
Commission could be given direction in the preparation
of ordinance language which would recognize the change
in established setback standards.
7-8-76 -10-
r �
Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by
Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion
passed unanimously, The Planning Commission meeting
adjourned at 1 :00 a.m.
Chairman
-11- 7-8-76
i
r
`Y
•