Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976 03-11 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 REGULAR MEETING CITY HALL MARCH 11 , 1976 •Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order at 8:05 p.m. by Chairman Robert Foreman. Roll Call : Chairman Foreman, Commissioners Scott, Pierce, Horan, and Kohrt. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes: Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner 2-26-76 Pierce to approve the minutes of the February 26, 1976 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were: Commissioners Scott, Pierce, Horan, and Kohrt. Not voting: Chairman Foreman who explained he was not present at that meeting. The motion passed. Application No. 76014 Following the Chairman's explanation the first item of (Faith Community Church) business was consideration of Planning Commission Applica- tion No. 76014, submitted by the Faith Community Church. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks approval of a preliminary plat for the property of and adjacent to the Faith Community Church at 67th and Colfax Avenues North. He said the action was essentially a consolidation of older parcels and the necessary subdivision for acquiring some additional land from the owner of the large corner property at 67th and Bryant. He explained the action was an initial step in the church 's long term planning for an addition and parking lot expansion and upgrading. The Secretary and Director of Public Works reviewed the features of the proposed plat and recommended a realign- ment of the north-south property line in such a manner that the separate parcel for the church parsonage on Bryant Avenue would be of at least ordinance minimum depth. It was also recommended that the corner property, from which some land was being taken, should be included in the platting. Chairman Foreman recognized two representatives of the church who indicated they had nothing further to add. Recommend Approval of Applica- Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Com- tion No. 76014 missioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Horan to recom- (Faith Community Church) mend approval of Application No. 76014, submitted by Faith Community Church subject to the following conditions: 1 . The interior north-south property line shall be adjusted as indicated on the approved preliminary plat. 2. Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. 3. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 4. The final plat shall include the adjacent corner parcel addressed as 6645 Bryant Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Applica- Application No. 76013 tion No. 76013 sub nI tted by Word Aflame Apostolic Church. (Word Aflame Church) The item-was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for the 1 .47 acre tract at the southwest corner of 69th Avenue (County Highway 130) and Lyndale Avenue North (U.S. Highway 169) . He stated the proposed plat would consist of four single family lots which exceed the ordinance minimum requirement. The Secretary explained that information received from • both the County and State Highway Departments indicated that alternative access designs should be reviewed, in- cluding the possible construction of a cul-de-sac into the property from the southwest. He stated that if such alternatives were to be thoroughly investigated, contact should be made with neighboring property owners. Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 8:30 p.m. Engdahl Arrives The Director of Public Works commented as to the Highway Departments concerns and the status of present planning for widening of the right-of-way, particularly on Lyndale Avenue North. He reviewed the layout of the area in- cluding the utility master plan concept for the entire area which had. been reviewed by property owners a number of years ago. He explained the present traffic pro- jections for Lyndale Avenue North as well as tentative plans for upgrading the safety characteristics, including signalization of the major intersection. The Director of Public Works stated that two basic con- clusions were clear: it is likely that additional land will be taken from the west side of Lyndale Avenue North; and, there will be substantial increase in traffic both on Lyndale Avenue and 69th Avenue North. He stated that these two concerns plus other related matters were a sub- stantial basis for pursuing alternative means of access to the property rather than from Lyndale or 69th Avenue. An extensive discussion ensued as to the proposed layout as well as possible access possibilities from the south. Chairman Foreman inquired as to the timing for pursuing the various alternatives and the Director of Public Works stated that a relatively short period of time would be involved to notify neighboring property owners and to conduct a briefing session as to the long-term planning considerations for this entire area. An extensive discussion ensued among Commissioners Pierce and Horan and the Director of Public Works as to proposed right-of-way widths and design features along Lyndale Avenue North, as well as the nature of the proposed safety and signalization improvements at the intersection with 69th Avenue. Chairman Foreman recognized Reverend Farris, who repre- sented the applicant, and who explained that the church was most anxious to sell and dispose of the property since it had been determined that it would not be used for church purposes. He stated that he was unsure of the timing of the State taking or even the cul-de-sac concept as proposed i by the City staff. He stated the concern of his church board was exactly how long they would have to wait for a determination, since they had a contractor who was in- terested in buying platted lots so he could begin construc- tion of single family dwellings this spring. Reverend Farris also commented that the westerly lot of the proposed plat was actually a separate parcel at this time and that he had a potential buyer for that property alone. He in- quired as to whether that property could be developed now and whether building permits could be secured without any conflict from the Highway Departments or the City. 3/11/76 -2- The Secretary stated that if a single parcel meets or exceeds the Subdivision Ordinance standards, and in all other respects is buildable, permits can be issued. He stated, however, that to develop this piece of property separately from the rest of the proposed subdivision could be detrimental to the overall development of the area. He recommended that the applicant allow for additional time so that other access concepts could be pursued. • The Director of Public Works stated that it would be preferable to work with a package concept such as a re- platting which might differ in design from that sub- mitted by the applicant; and that it would be sound planning to pursue the various access possibilities and then evaluate what the development potential was for the land. In further discussion, Chairman Foreman and Commissioner Engdahl stated that tabling would be in order, and while the applicant might technically be able to secure a permit to build on the one parcel , it would be in the best interest of the applicant and the community to defer that decision pending further investigation. Commissioner Pierce stated that either the application should be tabled pending further detailed research and planning of the subdivision potential for the entire area, or the present application should be denied as presented. Action Tabling Application Motion by Commissioner Horan seconded by Commissioner No. 76013 Scott to table Application No. 76013, submitted by (Word Aflame Church) Word Aflame Apostolic Church to enable the staff to work with the applicant and neighboring property owners as to possible access and subdivision design for the area . The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 76011 The next item of business was consideration of Applica- (Dr. Robert Schell ) tion No. 76011 submitted by Dr. Robert Schell . The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant is requesting rezoning, from R-4 to C-1 , of a 90 x 170 foot parcel , lying approximately 200 feet west of Humboldt Avenue on the north side of 69th Avenue. He stated the property was zoned R-4 in 1968 as part of the Comprehensive Zoning, apparently in an effort to provide an intermediate land use between the R-1 land to the west and the corner to the east which was zoned C-2. He stated that, to date, neither the corner or the R-1 properties have developed, although a preliminary plat was approved last year for nine single family lots on the R-1 property. Chairman Foreman recognized the applicant who stated he has operated a dental facility at 52nd and Bryant Avenues North for a number of years and that he did not intend to jeopardize the planning efforts of the community through the requested rezoning from residential to commercial . He stated, however, that he had exhausted his efforts in looking for a properly zoned site on the east side of Brooklyn Center, but that most of the owners had wanted to sell large tracts of land. He stated he was interested only in a small tract on which he could build a dental clinic for himself and his son. He explained that the subject property represented an adequate area for what he felt would be the require- ments of a small dental facility. Chairman Foreman also recognized Mr. Harris Van de Velde who introduced himself as a realtor who represented the owner of the property, Mr. John Horbal . Mr. Van de Velde showed slides of the parcel , surrounding development, -3- 3/11/76 several R-4 type developments throughout the City and an existing small dental clinic on Brooklyn Boulevard. He commented as to the effective use of the R-4 parcel as a buffer from the C-2 commercial and the residential property to the west and he questioned its value, noting the relatively large amount of commercial retail de- velopment in the immediate area. He stated that perhaps a C-1 lower intensity use would be better land use. Chairman Foreman stated his concern that the request • had characteristics of "spot zoning in that there was substantial commercial-.zoned land available throughout the City, including smaller parcels. He inquired whether the applicant had investigated, for example, the ac- quisition and development of-the adjacent parcel at the corner of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North, which was zoned C-2, and which, to his knowledge, was owned by the same party. The applicant responded that the parcel was too large for his purposes and that the owner was asking a more substantial price for the land. A brief discussion ensued as to the status of the property to the west for which a preliminary plat was approved last year. The Director of Public Works stated that the de- veloper who submitted the plat had experienced financial problems with respect to- bonding requirements for the platting, and thus there had been a delay in filing the plat. He stated, however, that the developer had in- dicated there would be likely development-of the property later this year. Chairman Foreman announced that a public hearing had been scheduled and he recognized Mr. Diel Gustafson, who identified himself as the owner of property on the south side of 69th Avenue North and who stated he had no particu- lar objections to the proposed rezoning. Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Close Hearing Pierce to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Jacobson arrived at 9:10 p.m. Jacobson Arrives An .extensive discussion ensued and Commissioner Pierce recalled a recent application submitted by the owner of a small dental facility, which was experiencing growth problems due to the restrictive size of the parcel . He inquired whether the subject property was large enough � to support-a clinic in light of setback, buffering, and parking requirements.. The Secretary responded that the parcel met the minimum requirements for a developable parcel in the C-1 zone, but that whether it could adequately support a clinic would be a function of site and building plan review. Commissioner Engdahl stated that it was clear the appli- cant felt the subject parcel would meet his particular needs but that. he: stated as a matter of land use, con- sideration should be given to the availability of properly zoned parcels in-the area, including the adjacent parcel . Commissioner Scott stated that while she was not particu- larly opposed to C-1 - developments serving as an intermediate land use between C-2 zoning and- R-1 zoning, she felt that there was more than adequate C-2 and C-1 zoned land in the City. She commented that while there might be merit in reviewing the zoning of both this piece as well as the - corner property, rezoning the parcel alone without such an area review would constitute "spot zoning" . Commissioner Horan stated he was not convinced of the 3-11-76 -4- alleged. need to create -more- C-1 property to accommodate a particular use. He stated he was mostly concerned with the adequate size of the site and the parking capa- bilities. He noted that in fact the applicant may be limiting himself-as-to future growth potential . Commissioner Kohrt stated-that he would reserve his comments pending -review by the neighborhood group. Chairman Foreman stated that in his opinion, the appli- cation itself represented-a "spot zoning" request, and that consideration should be given to the overall availability of properly zoned land in the City. He noted the pol-icy of the-Commission to refer rezoning matters to the ne-ighborhood advisory group and he suggested that the zoning of both this parcel as well as the vacant adjacent parcel be closely reviewed in terms of comprehensive planning and zoning in the area. Action Tabling Application Following further discussion there was a motion by No. 76011 Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Engdahl (Dr, Robert Schell ) to table Application No, 76011 , submitted by Dr. Robert Schell , and to refer the request to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The motion passed unanimously. Recess: The meeting recessed at 9:45 p.m. and resumed at 10:00 p,mw Application No. 71019 The next item of business was consideration of an (Amendment) amendment to Application No, 71019, submitted by (Standard Solvents Company) Standard Solvents Company. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the application was initiated in 1971 for approval of an addition to the plant at 4906 France Avenue North. He stated conditions of that approval included site upgrading and the burial or elimination of all above ground storage tanks. That improvement and other site work was not completed by 1974 when the Council reviewed the applicant's site performance bond. The Secretary stated the Council , in May, 1974, adopted Resolution No. 74-82, establishing a schedule for com- pleting the improvements and that all tanks are to be buried by July 1 , 1976. He explained the applicant has buried most of the tanks, including those containing the most flammable Class 1A and 1B liquids, but that some smaller bulk storage tanks remain above ground. He stated the applicant proposes to retain seven smaller above ground tanks for storing the least flam- mable Class 2 and Class 3 liquids. He explained the ordinance requirement for fuel storage in the industrial district was adopted since 1971 and provided for a screening, using earth or opaque structural materials aesthetically compatible with other structures on the site. He indicated the applicant con- tends the bulk storage tanks are similar in nature to the fuel storage and thus proposes a concrete block screening structure for the remaining tanks. Chairman Foreman recognized Mr. Dave Heegaard who re- presented the applicant and a discussion ensued as to - the type of tanks. The Commission also reviewed the structural plans for the proposed enclosure. Commissioner Scott stated her concern as to the com- pletion of the required site improvements and the Secretary responded that the schedule contained in the resolution called for completion of all site improve- ments by October 1 , 1976, She then inquired as to the timing of the proposed screening structure and the -5- 3/11/76 J Secretary-stated that that should-be completed as per the schedule,-no later-than July 1-, -1976. The applicant indicated that .once the--construction was completed, there would be several unused: tanks re- __ -maining-which would be-sold and disposed of during the summer. Commissioner Pierce. inquired as to the aesthetics of .the scree-ni n.g -s-tru€tore-and the-a:ppl:i cant i ndi cated that a pattern block similar- to that used for the main building would- be utilized. Following further discussion-there was a motion by - -- - - Recommend Approval of - Commissioner-Engdahl seconded-by-Commissioner Scott to - Amendment to Applica- recommend approval - of- the amendment to Planning Commission tion No. 71019 and Application No. 71>019 and Council - Resolution Noe 74-82 Resolution No. 74-82 as follows: -- - (Standard Solvents Co..) I - 1 . Storage tanks for at least all Class l liquids shall be buried by July 1 , 1976. 2. Storage tanks for liquids other than Class 1 shall be--either-buried or enclosed with the -- approved-screening-structure by July 1 , 1976. conform all 3. Said screening structure shall c m with the approved plans. 4. All unused -tanks not buried or screened by -July- 1 , -1976, shall be- removed from the site no later than October 1 , 1976. 5. The approved screening structure improvement is comprehended by- the- pending site performance bond. The motion passed unanimously. . The next:item-of business .was consideration of-Applica- Application No. 75045 tion-No. 75045, submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial (Brooklyn Center In- Park, Incorporated. The item was introduced by the dustrial Park, Inc. ) Secretary who explained the applicant sought-rezoning, -from I-1 to C-2, of the property generally -bounded by Interstate 94; .Summit Drive, Earle Brown Drive, and Shingle-Creek-Parkway; He stated--the matter- was -initially heard- on- December- Ili-1975, -when- it--was -tabled to enable development-of-additional information and-,recommendations as to the- proper extent of--any- rezoning- in light of: 1 ) traffic generation-and-intensity; -2) the design capacity -of existing and proposed public facilities; -3) the com- prehensive-land- use planning of the area. He stated the item-had been discussed at-several subsequent-meetings , and that-the-applicant generally sought-to-increase the development-flexibility-of the entire industrial park -by-the expansion of commercial uses in the-industrial park- to include-additional -retail uses. -The Secretary:and the Director of Public Works then re- viewed several -slides-of the-industrial park, indicating the amount of- undeveloped-land,-both north and south of the interstate highway. He then reviewed the history ­of- the zoning on- the- farm, referring to Master Plan studies conducted by-the- Brooklyn Center--Industrial Park, Incorporated several years ago as well as the Comprehen- sive-Planning for the City. He recalled that the Commission had- discussed the -possibility-of-expanding commercial uses- within the I-1 district, rather than rezoning; in order to-retain con- trol by review and approval - for those commercial uses - -which would-require special -use permits. 3/11/76 -6- Commissioner Engdahl- stated his concern that expansion of commercial -special uses in the I-1 district would - effectively apply throughout the I-1 district, both north and south of the freeway. Chairman Foreman stated-that that had been a concern of the City Council several years ago when the I-1 - -district uses were amended, but that both the Com- mission and-the Council had felt amendment of the I-1 district was a better approach than creation of a • nPw zoni-ng district or rezoning to C-2. He stated - that treatment of various retail commercial uses as - special uses in the-I-1 district would afford the de- veloper more flexibility as well as retain planning control by the City. The Secretary explained-that the City Council had been concerned as to the extent of retail uses abutting the freeway but that the entire concept of special com- mercial uses- in the I-l-district was intended to avoid the need to rezone the-property in a piecemeal fashion. He stated that the application, if approved, would allow for all types of permitted and special C-2 uses, whereas special uses in the I-1 district would poten- tially allow for only- certain retail-commercial uses provided the established special use standards were met. Chairman Foreman stated that it was a matter of which method could be used to provide for additional flexi- bility, and if the Commission and Council were inclined to provide for additional commercial uses, the best method would be amendment of the I-1 district rather than rezoning. Commissioner Pierce stated that while there was merit to providing for additional flexibility for the de- veloper, it was imperative that sound land use controls be retained and that effective on-going planning efforts be made-with the developer. Chairman Foreman then recognized Mr. Deil Gustafson, Brooklyn Center Industrial Park Chairman of the Board, and Mr. Roger Newstrum, President of Brooklyn Center Industrial Park. Mr. Gustafson presented an overview of the applicant's development efforts and stated that - the City and B.C.I.P. , Inc. , have the opportunity to realize some substantial and exciting projects on the Earle Brown Farm in the next few years. He stated that there were-large tracts available but that there was a need- for complete flexibility, offering potential land uses for prospective buyers as a matter of good develop- ment He stated that he realized the zoning designa- tions and-ordinance requirements were significant in terms of controlling density and assuring proper land use, but that the ordinance should also allow for proper economic development of the available -land such as the proposed Farm-Towne Commercial Center. He displayed several graphics of the proposed commer- cial development and explained the various types of uses which could be realized within that development. 40 He stated that there were a number of signed leases al- ready- acquired on the basis of minimal advertising, and that the applicant was optimistic about the completion of the project. Mr. Gustafson recognized Mr. Hennsinger, the designer of the Farm-Towne project, who reviewed the overall development concept utilizing the Earle Brown -farmstead area. - He emphasized the intent of the de- - veloper to retain and preserve-the buildings, provided - - that compatible commercial uses could be related to them. Mr. Gustafson continued his presentation and emphasized -7- 3/11/76 the need-for community efforts to assist in developing the farm by attracting goed clientele and he stated that he highest-development was not only-good for the City, but good for Brooklyn Center--Industrial -Park, Inc. In conclusion, Mr. Gustafson- stated that Brooklyn Center Industrial Park-was concerned as to-the-proper develop- ment of the area north of the freeway and west of Shingle Creek. He stated that the-applicant would prefer the zoning of this area be-relatively "open" so that a variety of uses could be attracted :to -that area. Commissioner Engdahl stated--that whi.l.e-he appreciated the developer's concern about having as much flexi- bility as possible, the-City should be- very concerned with the-intensity-of the- types of uses-, -particularly as to their- affect on- public utilities and facilities. He stated that ultimately the-development--of the Farm would establish a character- for-the entire City, and thus, the need -to .have-careful short-term and long- term planning was essential . Commissioner Scott agreed and stated that as a matter of-proper-industrial - park-zoning, perhaps that area now zoned C-2, in B.C.I.P. , should be rezoned I-1 , so that all -of the Brooklyn Center- Industrial Park land would be literally-comprehended-as an industrial park zone. She stated-then the City-and the developer could work together-in providing proper controls with flexibility-for uses within that exclusive zoning . . district. Chairman Foreman stated that he agreed that rather than rezoning--I-1 - land to C-2 to provide for commercial uses, the- C-2 property should be rezoned I-1 with appropriate ordinance amendment allowing for a mixture of permitted and special industrial and commercial uses. An extensive discussion- ensued with Mr. Gustafson as to the need-to have-a common planning-and-coordination effort between Brooklyn Center Industrial Park and the City. In response to several comments and- questions by the applicant-and the Commission, the Secretary explained -that zoning requirements and-standards were an imple- mentation tool -for sound long-range planning. He stated that both the developer-and- the City had distinct and-basic interests as to the proper devel- opment of-a given area,- and that the value of on-going communication and planning was to establish the common interest or denominator which would serve both parties. He stated, however,-that-experience--showed that there would be occasions when developments that represented the highest-economic value to the applicant, were not necessarily-the-highest and-best land, -use with respect to the community's -interest.--- He-continued it was essential , through regular communication and planning, to apprise the applicant and potential clientele of --the parameters within which- the City expected the Farm -to ultimately develop. Commissioner_Engdahl stated it was important to specify -those types .of uses that the City did not want, so the developer-would-have such prior knowledge and so the City-would not have to be overly- concerned about con- frontations concerning-less-than desirable land uses. Further discussion ensued as to creating a planned unit development ordinance procedure for Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, since there was a-common ownership and since the zoning district could be geographically defined. 3/11/76 -8- 1 Chairman Foreman stated that since there was a sub- stantial amount of land to be developed, it would seem that a planned unit development technique might be in order, The Secretary stated, however, that a planned unit de- velopment technique as an innovation to the present ordinance could require a substantial amount of time for research and design to assure compatibility with the basic ordinance structure. He explained that the • concept had merit but that implementation would no doubt involve a complete revision of the entire in- dustrial park zoning district requirements. He stated that for the present, especially with respect to the subject application, an ordinance amendment allowing for certain additional special commercial uses would be more appropriate in the short run. Chairman Foreman determined that it was the consensus of the Commission to recommend denial of the rezoning application as submitted, and to develop a separate recommendation to the Council consisting of a proposed ordinance amendment allowing for additional specific commercial Ll5es which would require special use permits in the i.-1 district. Withdraw Application Following a brief discussion, Mr. Gustafson stated that Nor 75045 he would withdraw the rezoning application in the in- - terest of expediting a review of the I-1 district uses with the .intent of providing for commercial use flexi- bility. He also stated that the applicant would not ob- ject to rezoning existing C-2 land to I-1 , provided that there would be commercial flexibility in the industrial park. Acknowledge Withdrawl of Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Application No. 75045 Horan to acknowledge the applicant's withdrawl of (B.C. I .P. ) Planning Commission Application No. 75045, noting the Commission' s determination that, if commercial flexi- bility is to be provided in Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, it should be done through the vehicle of special use permit, rather than through spot rezoning of various parcels. 'The motion passed unanimously. Direct Preparation of Resolution Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Relative to Amending Ordinance Horan to direct the staff to develop a resolution con- Zoning Classifications in sisting of a recommended ordinance amendment to the BaC. I .P, City Council consisting of specific additional com- mercial activities as special uses in the I-1 district, and to recommend rezoning of existing C-2 property to I-1 . The motion passed unanimously. Other Business: In other business the Secretary reviewed a draft pro- posal in response to the Council 's request for a plan of action for obtaining community input with respect to yard setback standards. He explained that the program centered on a community attitude survey to be conducted by the Jaycees and that the City would assist in that effort, both in designing the question, pro- viding explanatory information , and in subsidizing the return mailing cost of the survey. Following a brief discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Scott to endorse the recommendation for determining com- munity attitude on zoning ordinance yard setback standards. The motion passed unanimously. In other business the Secretary distributed updated copies of the neighborhood group memberships and asked that the Commissioners verify the list for their particular neighborhoods at the next meeting. -9- 3/11/76 Chairman Foreman. designated Commissioner Kohrt to serve jointly with Commissioner Scott-on the South- west Neighborhood Group. Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Adjournment Jacobson to adjourn; the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting ad- journed at 12:30 a.m. • Chairman • 3/1 `76 p_