Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 02-04 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State. of Minnesota February 4, 1971 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order b'y Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:02 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Robert Foreman, Cecelia Scott, Henry Bogucki and Robert Grosshans. Staff members present were: Tom Loucks. Motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to approve the minutes of the January 21, 1971 meeting as submitted. Motion carried. Commissioner Grosshans not voting because he was not in attendance at the January 21st meeting. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Application No. 71001 submitted by Dennis Schafran requesting a special use permit to allow the rental of E-Z Haul trucks and trailers at the Standard Gasoline Station located at 6900 Humboldt Avenue North. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and noted the staff had made an on-site inspection of the property and it appeared that there would be no particular problems with such a rental activity. It was recommended that this special use permit be approved pro-viding that the maxi_amm. number of vehicles are limited to 6 trucks, 12 trailers and that a display area in front of the bi-ii-1-ding line not have more than one truck or three trailers at any one time, that all vehicles except those utilized for display be stored at the rear of the lot behird the building and that the special use permit be reviewed on an annual basis. Chairman Jensen then asked the applicant if he would have any objections to restricting the maximum number of trucks and trailers to be utilized on the parcel at any one time. The applicant responded that he had no objection to the limitation suggested. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconced by Commissioner Foreman to recommend to the City Council approval of the special use permit subject to the following conditions: 1) That the maximum number of vehicles be limited to 6 trucks and 12 trailers; 2) That a display area at the front building line not-. have more-than one truck nor more than three trailers at any one time; 3) That all vehicles except those utilized for display be stored in the rear of the lot behind the building; 4) That the permit be reviewed on an annual basis. The motion carried unanimously. . ; .. ... z -2- The next item of business was Application No. 71002 submitted by Jerome Braun requesting a four foot side yard setback variance. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and indicated that the applicant is requesting a four foot side yard setback variance for a porch to be remodeled and converted into a family room on a parcel located at 4419 - 71st Avenue North. He indicated that the porch, as it exists, is located 6 feet from the side property line and if it is converted into a living area, the ordinance requires a 10 foot setback. It was recommended that the four foot side yard setback variance be granted because granting of the variance would not serve as a detriment to surrounding property owners, it would allow the appli- cant to utilize his property in a reasonable and appropriate manner, and that variances of a similar na`u*:e have been granted in the past. Following a discussion among the Commission . a motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Scott to recommend to the City Council approval of the four foot side yard setback variance because granting of a variance would allow the applicant to utilize his property in a reasonable and appropriate manner and further that variances of a similar nature have been granted in the past. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Loucks then noted that Application No. 71003 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park is being deferred until March 4, 1971, at the request of the applicant. The next item of business was Application No. 70066 and 70067 (amended) requesting rezoning from Rl to R4 the east 390 feet of Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and noted that the Commission held a public hearing on January 7, 1971, to consider rezoning of the parcel from R1 to F.5 and it was determined at that time to defer action on the request to allow further analysis for a decision to be reached on February 4, 1971. He noted that since the action of January 7, 1971, the original application has been amended and the applicant is now requesting R4 zoning for the east 390 feet of the parcel in question and site and building plan approval for a 36 unit apartment complex. Mr. Loucks reviewed the application and noted the parcels located adjacent to the property are R2 on the east, open space on the north and west in Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis Park Board open space on the south. It was pointed out that it appeared that Commission and City Council had recognized R4 for multiple uses as both adequate buffers and compatible uses with R1 and R2 develop- ments and noted areas zoned R4 that are adjacent to R1 and R2 residential developments. Mr. Loucks noted that building bulk in the R4 district appeared to be somewhat negligible because of the low profile (two story maximum) . Given that consideration and the fact that existing double bungalows in the area are one and one-half and two story variety, it would appear that the height of the proposed R4 develop- ment would not serve as a detriment to the neighborhood. In regard to traffic considerations, it was noted that a 36 unit apartment complex such as is being proposed would generate 1 1 1 -3- approximately 216 trips in a 24 hour period. Based upon this pro- jection, it was noted that it would be a very minimum volume for a local residential street, and further, that the site is located within two blocks of 53rd and Penn which is a beginning of a series of collector streets. It was noted that the Comprehensive Plan designated this parcel as open space, but it had not been rezoned 01 in conjunction with rezoning resulting from the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. It was then jndicated that the Planning Commission had requested that the Park and Recreation Commission examine the parcel in question and inform them of future plans and the desirability of acquiring it and adding it to the existing Lions Park. Mr. Loucks quoted an excerpt from the Park and Recreation Commission minutes of January 13, 1971, which indicated the following: "It was noted that the present acreage of Lions Park is approximately 17 acres. it was further noted that Lions Park is designated as a neighborhood playground which has a recommended size of from 10 to 15 acres. It was generally agreed by the Park and Recreation Commission that it would be desirable to acquire the subject property to the south thereby providing additional open space and unrestricted access to both Russell Avenue on the east and 53rd Avenue on the south. The Commission recognized that the possibility of acquiring the property is extremely remote in view of the cost of the land. The Commission suggests, as an alternative, that the land to the west of the property and contiguous to Shingle Creek be retained for public park purposes. After further discussion, a motion was made by Henrietta Anderson and seconded by Ruth Lind to recommend that appropriate action be taken for the City to acquire approximately 160 feet of the westerly portion of the property for public park purposes. The Motion carried unanimously. " it was then noted that the applicant had amended their request anO provided the west 190 feet of Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218, to be dedicated to the City for park purposes, however, it was pointed out that the proposal for dedication is not a consideration in the rezoning of the parcel, but was brought to the attention of the Commission because of its relationship to the desires of the Park and Recreation Commission as promulgated on January 13th. It was then recommended that the amended request for R4 zoning be approved because it is consistent with past Planning Commission and City Council actions in regard to compatibility of R4 to R1 and R2 developments, consistent with zoning principles of buffering, bulk and height, and because traffic flow resulting from the development would not serve as 'a detriment to the area. Site and building plans were then reviewed by Mr. Loucks and it was noted that in accordance with Section 35-400 (1) (c) of the zoning Ordinance, the applicant is requesting one density credit for 1.06 acres to be dedicated to the City for park purposes. It was then indicated that upon examination of the site plan, if a density credit were granted, it appears there would be no particular problems with over-crowding the remainder or the site to be utilized for the apartment development. I -4- It was then recommended the site and building plans be approved contingent on a favorable rezoning action by the Commission, the usual plan approval conditions, and the following special conditions: 1) That the north entrance to the property be designated as entrance only and the "south access be designated as exit only. 2) That two buildings be so located to provide a 10 foot separation between the curb line of the driveway areas and the buildings to accommodate additional snow storage capactiy and wide pedestrian access to the front of the parcel. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant, Mr. Richard Curry, who indicated that due to the soil conditions on the property, it was very difficult, from an economic standpoint, to develop it in anything other than a higher density. He further indicated that the type of buildings as proposed would be one containing a very minimum density of 36 units and that the type of construction of those buildings would be such that they would conform, architect- ually, with structures in the area. He then noted that beyond those considerations, it should be recognized by the Commission that the property is adequately served by collector streets, and further, that it is surrounded by either park, reasonably undevelopable property, Highway 100 and the Brookdale Shopping Center complex. It was the consensus of the affected property owners in the area that the apartment development on the site would serve as a detriment to the neighborhood "because of the size of the buildings and further, that it was their opinion that there would be traffic problems created by additional 36 units of multiple development. Commissioner Ditter commented that he had toured the site with members of the Southeast Neighborhood Committee and it was the consensus of those in attendance that the parcel should remain open space as designated on the Comprehensive Plan. He further indicated that he was concerned that the Southeast Neighborhood is lacking park open space and that if the area were rezoned and multiple dwelling units constructed, the Lions Park facility to the north could not be expanded at a future date. Commissioner Bogucki commented that development of an apartment complex in the area would set a dangerous precedent of allowing multiple developments to encroach into park areas. He futher noted that he disagreed with the Park and Recreation concept of 10 to 15 acres for a neighborhood park and indicated that he felt rezoning would destroy the continuity of the Shingle Creek and Lions Park concept. Chairman Jensen commented that he would not like to see the end of the park taken up by multiple development and further, that the Commission has resisted placing small multiple developments in neighborhoods that are basically single family in nature. Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Ritter to recommend to the City Council denial of Application No. 70060 by Resolution and direct the staff to prepare such a resolution encompassing the following paints: 1 1 1 -5- 1) Rezoning of the parcel adjacent to park facilities would set an unwise precedent for future multiple developments; 2) The multiple development proposed is incompatible with the existing neighborhood 3) That such a development would not be in the best interest of the concept of future park acquisition in the southeast neighborhood; and 4) That the rezoning proposal is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried unanimously. Motion was made by Commissioner Ditter and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend to the City Council denial of the site and building plans as requested in Application No. 70067. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 P.M. The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:40 P.M. Following the recess, Mr. P. L. Ernst requested that the Planning Commission reach a decision in regard to Application No. 69005 requesting rezoning of a parcel south of Upper Twin Lake from Rl and I2 to R5 (multiple) . Chairman Jensen indicated to Mr. Ernst that the Planning Commission could not make any determinations on the rezoning request until the Southwest Neighborhood Study was completed and., prepared to make their recommendations to the City Council. Mr. Ernst indicated that the City Council had suggested in December that they would render a decision on the rezoning appli- cation within 60 days. Chairman Jensen commented that when the City Council remanded the Southwest Study and the rezoning application to the Commission, that there had been no specific time limitation placed on the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council. He further indicated since the matter had been before the Planning Commission, a number of meetings have been held in regard to the southwest study, and that the Commission was moving as rapidly as possible under the circumstances to bring forth a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Ernst commented that, in his opinion, the Planning Commission was taking far too long to reach a decision on this matter and felt that a decision could be made on his application separate from the southwest plan study. Chairman Jensen noted that it was the consensus of the Commission that no action could be taken upon his rezoning request separately because of its distinct relationship to the Southwest Plan. However, he did indicate that if the applicant is requesting a decision to be made based upon the existing conditions without consideration of the Southwest Neighborhood Study, the Commission would do so. He further noted that if this was the case, the Commission had no other alternative then to recommend denial of the application based upon the same conditions that existed prior to the submission of the Southwest neighborhood Study. I a e'. -6- Commissioner BogucIU commented that, in his opinion, the Commission has spent far too much time on the application and would make a motion to deny Application No. 69005 based upon the same factors as the previous denial recommended by the Commission. Mr. Ernst indicated that he would be willing to give the Commission another 60 days to examine the Southwest Neighborhood Study and reach a decision on his rezoning request. Chairman Jensen noted that the Commission is not willing to accept a 60 day limitation on their study and deliberation of the matter, however, he did indicate that the Commission has been and will be working to resolve the matter as soon as possible. Mr. Loucks noted that the staff had received a letter from Arrow Development Corporation in regard to a portion of the proposed rezoning request. The letter suggests that Mr. Ernst no longer has complete control of the property and asked Mr. Ernst if this has any effect on his pending application. Mr. Ernst indicated that the problems involved with the parcel referred to are ones that are being resolved, but indicated that he would amend his application to include rezoning only on the 12 parcel. He further suggested that he felt it was not necessary to place a time limitation on the Commission, but noted that he was hopeful that a decision could be reached within 60 days. Mr. Bogucki suggested that the applicant should direct a letter to the Planning Commission Secretary in regard to his amended appli- cation and further indicate his willingness to wait for disposition of the rezoning matter based upon findings brought forth in regard to the Southwest Neighborhood Study. Mr. Ernst concureed and stated that he would direct corres- pondence to the Planning Commission sccrotnry in regard to the matter. Motion was made by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 12:10 A.M. Chairman 1 1 1