Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 01-07 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota January 7, 1971 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki, Karl Schuller, Paul Ditter, Robert Foreman and Ceclia Scott. Staff members present: James Merila and Tom Loucks. The Chairman noted that the approval of the minutes of the December 22nd study meeting would be deferred until the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Applica-ion No. 70066 and 70067 submitted by Village Builders, Inc. requesting rezoning from R1 to R5 and site and building plan approval. The application was introduced by Mr. Loucks who explained that the applicant is requesting rezoning to R5 to facilitate the construction of a 49 unit apartment ccmpiex. He indicated that the property in 2.97 acres in size located adjacent to an R2 zoning district on the East, Lions Park on the North, Shingle-Creek and City property on the West and the Brooklyn Center-Minneapolis municipal boundary on the south. He stated that the soil borings submitted by the applicant indicates that the westerly half of the parcel in question has peat soil conditions greater than 16 feet in depth. He further explained that primary access to the parcel is gained from 53rd Avenue North which is designated as a collector street at Penn Avenue North. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Richard Curry, an agent representing Village Builders, who indicated to the Commission that the site is difficult to develop because of severe soil conditions on two thirds of the parcel. He stated that these severe soil conditions make it prohibitive to build low density type of develop- ment because of the cost of roadway and utility construction. Commissioner Ditter then asked Mr. Curry if it could be developed at a lower density utilizing a method of piling for utilities and roadways. Mr. Curry responded that he is not an engineer, but a real estate brokers however, he did indicate that preliminary soil borings submitted by Soil Engineering indicate that the conditions are so severe that it would be difficult to do anything in a low densi-lCy development without a great amount of piling and additional cost. Commissioner Ditter then commented that, in essence, what Mr. Curry was saying that nothing is impossible for development on the site, however the cost considerations would be great. Mr. Curry concurred with Mr. Ditter. Chairman Jensen then called upon the affected property owners for their comments. It was the consensus of affected residents that they would be opposed to apartment zoning because of increased traffic and that such a development would change the character of the neighborhood. Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to close the public hearing. The motion carried unanimously. 1 1 1 -2- Chairman Jensen then noted that the Comprehensive Plan delineates the property in question as open space to be utilized for park and recreation purposes. Commissioner Ditter noted that because this parcel was con- sidered as open space in the Comprehensive Plan, that perhaps there should be some indication from the Park and Recreation Board as to their intentions of utilizing that parcel in the future. Commissioner Bogucki commented that due to the fact that the parcel in question is shown on the City Comprehensive Plan as an open space area, the City should pursue any means available to purchase the site to fill out the park concept for the southeast area. Motion. was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to table and take under advisement Planning Commission Application No. 70066 until further information can be gathered in regard to any future extension of Lions Park. The motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to table Application T1o. 70067 requesting site and building plan approval until the question of rezoning can be resolved. The motion carried unanimously. The next application was No. 70069 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. requesting preliminary plat approval. Mr. Loucks introduced the application stating that the appli- cant submitted a preliminary plat denoting 15 parcels large enough to be utilized for double bungalow construction with one .. large lot that would indicate higher density multiple development. He indicated that the applicant, in requesting plat approval, in absence of a rezoning request, is somewhat reversing the process of normal Planning Commission review. He indicated that this is brought about because the plat, as submitted, clearly indicates double bungalow and higher density multiple parcels which would require a rezoning to develop. However, he did indicate that the applicant had submitted a letter of intent in regard to what they plan to do with the parcel. A summary of the letter indicates that their intention is to build a buffer of double bungalows along the back side of June Avenue and Kyle Avenue with possible development of the large lot noted on the plat as Lot 19, into a R4 or R5 multiple development. Mr. Loucks recommended that if the Commission is to consider approval of the preliminary plat request, it should be viewed in terms of a probability of a request for future rezoning on the parcels in question. Chairman Jensen then recognized Charles VanEeckhout of Viewcon, Inc. , who indicated that it was the intention of his company, Viewcon, Inc. , to develop the parcels into 18 double bungalow lots with one large lot consisting of higher density multiple. Fe further indicated they had not realized that they could not develop doubles without a rezoning action being brought before the Planning Commission. Chairman Jensen then recognized interested residents in the area. It was the consensus of the residents that they would be opposed to double and higher density multiple development as is being suggested by the applicant at this time. i i 1 -3- Chairman Jensen then noted that the Planning Commission will be considering a study of all R3 districts in February and indi- cated that he felt it would be premature to make any changes in this area or any other R3 districts until the Commission has had the opportunity to react to the study. After further discussion on various proposals to develop the property, Mr. VanEeckhout requested withdrawal of the petition for preliminary plat approval with the intention to come forward with a plan that may involve rezoning at a date in the near future. Chairman Jensen stated that it would be appropriate to do so and further indicated that he felt that the Commission could not act upon the application for preliminary plat approval since zoning would be involved and should precede platting consideration. The next item of business was Application No. 70070 requesting site and building plan approval. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and indicated that the applicant, Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, is requesting site and building plan approval for a three phase 360 unit apartment complex, to be located at 69th Avenue North and vacated James Avenue North. He stated that Phase One consists of a 120 unit building to be located at the northwest portion of the property. It was indicated that the staff would recommend approval of the site and building plans provided the usual conditions are adhered to and the following special conditions: 1) All excess earth material resulting from construction should be stockpiled and graded in such a manner that would not serve as a detriment to the aesthetics of the area; and 2)` The internal roadway be changed to 24 feet in width in lieu of the 22 feet as shown on the plan, and further required that those parking and driving areas adjacent to Phase II be curbed with bituminous curbing. Chairman Jensen then recognized Steve Krogness who stated that the building proposed for the site is one that has been utilized several times in the Twin City area and has been a very successful development. He further indicated that one of the unique features of the proposal is a swimming pool on the second floor of the building with lounge areas and saunas. Following a brief discussion of the application, a motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to recommend to the City Council approval of Application No. 70070 subject to the following conditions: 1) All excess earth material resulting from construction will be stockpiled and graded in such a manner that it would not serve as a detriment to the aesthetics of the area; 2) The width of the roadway be changed to 24 feet; 3) That all driving and parking areas adjacent to Phase II be curbed with bituminous curbing; 4) Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 1 1 1 -4- 5) Utility, drainage, and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the building permit; 6) A performance agreement and performance bond (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to the City to guarantee site improvements as designated on the plans submitted to the City. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:50 and reconvened at 10 o'clock. A motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to adjourn as a planning Commission and reconvene as a Board of Appeals. Motion carried unanimously. The first item of business before the Board of Appeals was Application No. 70068 submitted by Riverside Motel requesting appeal of denial by a city official to issue a building permit. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and indicated that the applicant had requested a building permit from the City Building Inspector on October 27, 1970, to re-build a portion of the motel which was destroyed by fire and explosion on September 20, 1970. He indicated that the Building Inspector did not issue a permit to the applicant because a motel operation is a non-conforming use in an R2 zoning district and in accordance with Section 35-111 of the City Ordinance which provides that "unless specifically provided otherwise, the lawful use of any land or building existing at the time of the adoption of the City Zoning Ordinance may be continued if such a use does not conform to the regulations of the ordinance provided, however, that any non-conforming use shall not be continued following 60 per cent destruction of the building by fire, wind or explosion according to the estimate of the Building Inspector". Mr. Loucks indicated that because the motel was built at various stages over the past 30 years as separate units, it could not be considered as a single building. Therefore, it is the interpretation of the Building Inspector that the southerly portion of the motel consisting of Units 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, at the time of the disaster, was a separate building from the motel and was greater than 60% destroyed by the fire and explosion of September 20, 1970. it was further indicated that the Inspector's determination that Units 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 constituted a separate building is based upon factors that the heating supply system was separate from other portions of the building, and in addition, the southerly building was connected to the other portions of the building by roof line only, which was constructed at some time unknown. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Coulter, Attorney for the Riverside Motel, who indicated that their appeal is based upon the factors that the Building Inspector's jucgement is in error in that the motel has existed as a unit for a number of years and although the construction occurred at different stages of time, it was in fact connected by roof line and was an intrical part of the motel complex. Given that determination, Mr. Coulter indicated the destruction of the 5 units did not constitute 60% of the structure and therefore, under the non-conforming use clause, would not be required to be removed and thus a building permit should be issued. 1 1 1 -5- After discussion in regard to the various stages of development of the motel units and consultation with the City Attorney, a motion was made by Commission Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Scott to table the matter until January 21st, 1971, to allow more time to gather data to determine: 1) If the building were allowed to be reconstructed, as a non-conforming use, if the new construction must adhere to existing ordinance requirements; and 2) Determine if there were separate utility connections between the southerly building and the buildings not destroyed by fire and explosion. Motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to adjourn as a Board of Appeals and reconvene the regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was a traffic study of June Avenue North from 69th avenue to 70th Avenue and consideration of traffic congestion in the general area of St. Alphonsus Church, concern for which was generated by consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 70060. Mr. Merila introduced the report and indicated that it is a result of a request from the Commission to investigate the traffic conditions in the area of 65th and 70th Avenue from T.H. 152 to Halifax Avenue Tlorth, and how the traffic congestion in the area of St. Alphonsus Church can be relieved. Mr. Merila briefed the Commission on the various factors that were utilized to make determinations. He indicated that the Brooklyn Center Police Department had made various field observations of the traffic congestion in the area of St. Alphonsus Church and that their observations indicated that the primary cause of con- gestion is that traffic is not entering and leaving the area in a punned traffic routing pattern. In relation to the curb cuts on the proposed White Castle site, he indicated that a traffic analysis of Highway 152 in the general area indicates that the average daily traffic is approaching 19,000 cars per day and that with such a large volume of traffic, it is very hazardous to exit on T.H. 152. It is necessary for southbound traffic to cross two lanes of traffic and then use the left turn lane to merge with traffic proceeding southward. He indicated that the proximity of the proposed White Castle driveway to the intersection of 69th Avenue North and T.H. 152 does not allow sufficient distance to satisfactorily make this movement. He further indicated that the safest egress of traffic from cortmercial sites such as proposed White Castle and the existing shopping center is by way of June Avenue North; thus, the traffic can use the signalized intersection of 69th Avenue North and T.H. 152. Mr. Merila made the following recommendations to the Commission: 1) Existing traffic conditions indicate that June Avenue from 69th to 70th Avenue North is not purely a residential street and should be considered as an aid ;rr j 1 1 1 1 -6- in reducing traffic congestion on T.H. 152 caused by commercial traffic egressing from the existing shopping center and the proposed White Castle site. 2) Two driveways should be permitted from the White Castle site on June Avenue. Mr. Merila indicated that the character of June Avenue would be least affected by the placement of two one-way driveways on the site. The location of the site is such that a single drive- way would cause more congestion than two-way driveway and would recommend the following locations: a) A driveway located approximately 50 feet north of 69th Avenue North would function very efficiently for existing traffic. It would discourage traffic from going northward to 70th Avenue and an entrance at this point would cause congestion at the 69th Avenue during peak traffic hours of St. Alphonsus Church. b) A driveway located at the north end of the proposed White Castle site designated as entrance only would allow stacking distance for traffic during the peak traffic hours of St. Alphonsus Church. 3) Development of a St. Alphonsus Church traffic routing pattern. Mr. Merila indicated that he is presently working with the officials of St. Alphonsus Church to help decrease some of the traffic congestion in the area. He then indicated graphically traffic patterns that have been discussed with church administration. After considerable discussion, the Commission determined that in view of the study presented by the City Engineer and other information, it would be well to reconvene the public hearing for the White Castle application on January 21, 1971. The next item of business was the Southwest Neighborhood Study. Chairman Jensen noted that he had established a sub-committee to study the southwest neighborhood report and return its findings to the Commission at the earliest date possible. He indicated that Mr. Ditter would serve as chairman of the sub-committee and Mr. Grosshans and Mrs. Scott would serve as committee members. Motion was made by Commissioner Schuller and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:15 A.M. h irman 1 1 1