Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 04-15 PCM sAifttes of the Proceedings of the VlAning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota April 15, 1971 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:03 P.M. Roll Calls Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Paul Ditter, Karl Schuller, Henry Bogucki, Robert Foreman, and Cecelia Scott. Staff members present were: Tom Loucks an6 Jim Merila. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 71008 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park (Allen Engineering) . The item was introduced by Mr. Loucks who indicated that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for an 80,000 square foot manufacturing facility to be located in the industrial park. It was noted that due to unusual circumstances, site and building plan approval is requested on two parcels for the pro- posed project with the stipulation that the actual physical site would be determined prior to final approval by the City Council. Commissioner Grosshans arrived at 8:07 P.M. It was then i.n-lip ted that the sites in question are a six acre parcel located on James Avenue North, north of the existing specbuil.dings and west of the North--Lynn Apartments; and a six acre parcel located on the west side of Shingle Creek Parkway between 65th and 67th Avenue North. It was noted that the proposal encompasses a future expansion area of an additional 40,000 square feet and it is requested by the applicant that the portion designated as future expansion (165 by 460 feet) not be required to. adhere to the usual landscape requirements but rather be seeded ane maintained with a fast growing grass until the future expansion takes place. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Duffy Bower of B.C.I.P., who indicated that due to unusual conditions in regard to previous mortgage commitments on the James Avenue site and an early con- struction schedule for the Allen Engineering building, there is a need to have an alternate site located west of Shingle Creek Park- way. He commented further that the parcel size, building design and landscaping would be identical whether the building is located on James Avenue North or on Shingle Creek Parkway. In regard to landscaping, Mr. Bower commented that it is the intent of Allen Engineering to add 40,000 square feet of floor area within 2 to 5 years and requested that the area to be utlized for the future expansion be seeded with fast growing grass in lieu of the normal requirement of sodding until the expansion takes place. Chairman Jensen commented that the application represents an unusual circumstance in which the Commission is being asked to approve a site layout for a parcel yet to be determined. He then indicated that if the Commission is to approve the application, it should be stipulated that the question of location as to specific parcel should be resolved prior to City Council action. 1 1 1 -2- Commissioner Schuller commented that he questioned the advis- ability of allowing the applicant to dispense with normal land- scaping requirements until a future addition is constructed. Commissioner Ditter commented that, in his opinion, relaxing of the landscaping requirements may set an unwise precedent for future development in the industrial park. Commissioner Bogucki commented that he too was concerned about the relaxing of landscaping requirements, but felt that a reason- able solution to the problem would be one in which the Commission should set a time limit in which the applicant must comply by either beginning construction of the addition or satisfying the landscaping requirements of the ordinance. Following further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend to the City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 71008 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the applicant, prior to City Council action, submit a letter to the Secretary of the Planning Commission stipulating the location (by legal description) of the Allen Engineering industrial building. 2. That the portion of the approved site plan noted as future expansion area be: a. Graded, covered with 6 inches of organic top soil, and seeded with a perennial fast growing grass; b. Maintained in the same manner as all of their landscaped areas on the parcel. 3. That if the construction of the proposed future addition does not take place within a three year period, the portion of the site plan noted as future expansion must be sodded, landscaped and provided with an under- ground irrigation system consistent with existing ordinance requirements. 4. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes, 5. Utility, drainage and elevation plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a 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 the site improvements as designated on the plans submitted. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was the Southwest Neighborhood Study Report submitted by Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. 1 1 1 -3- Chairman Jensen commented that Mr. John Darling of Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. , would co n6uct a review of the report submitted by Midwest Planning and answer pertinent questions that the Commission members may have. Following Mr. Darling's opening remarks, . a discussion ensued at which time Chairman Jensen asked why higher density multiple development had been recommended in the area of the Joslyn Manufacturing Company. Mr. Darling responded that the recommendation was based upon two factors: one being that multiple residential development would be more compatible with the proposed park and lake develop- ment on the east; and aecopoly, that mid-rise building construction would dictate considerably less lot coverage and thus provide more open space for the developments that would occur. Commissioner Bogucki indicated that he felt that there may be a greal deal of incompatibility between residential development and the main line Soo Railroad tracks. Mr. Darling responded that there is little question that the railroad tracks could be detrimental, however, through proper landscaping and building P acement, this factor could be negated. Commissioner Ditter asked if Midwest Planning had considered the difficulty of changing an existing I2 zoning classification. Mr. Darling responded that in the pole yard area, they had considered the use as one of an extensive nature, rather temporary and subject to change in the future. He further indicated that north of the Soo Line tracks, the greatest portion of the I2 property in question is undeveloped and could easily be converted. Commissioner Ditter then queried Mr. Darling, asking if he had considered the recently developed Davies Water Supply Company on Azelia Avenue. Mr. Darling indicated that the exclusion of consideration of this facility had been an oversite in the report. Chairman Jensen then commented that he wondered if it was practical, even if the City had a PUD zoning class ificatioiri : to develop in that manner. Mr. Darling responded that it would be considerably more difficult to utilize PUD concepts where large blocks or tracts of land are not readily available but contended that those areas such as the pole yard facility and north of the railroad tracks cou16 be developed with relative ease using the PUD concept. Chairman Jensen then noted that the report map considers the R5 site south of Lakeside Avenue now under construction as part of the single family residential neighborhood in the Twin Lake triangle. He asked Mr. Darling if this parcel had been recognized as R5 if it would have changed any determinations for the Twin Lake triangle. Mr. Darling responded that at the time the report was being worked on, he was unaware of the R5 zoning in that area. He further indicated that in his opinion, the R5 development would not signi- ficantly ;dhange the report recommendations for the Twin Lake triangle. 1 1 1 -4- Chairman Jensen noted that an excerpt of the report provided that if the land area presently zoned for general industrial would be developed into the type of industry for which the general tone of the area has been set, the desirability of a park area on the lake would be extremely questionable. He asked Mr. Darling if he could amplify that statement further. Mr. Darling commented that general industry, in itself, is functional and not beautiful, and to that end, it meets its purposes ane because of its functional characteristic, it is not the most desirable compatible land use next to a park and lake area. Chairman Jensen asked if the detriment caused by this type of development could not be somewhat negated by strict application of landscaping and setback requirements. Mr. Darling commented that this would be a desirable alter- native if: 1) the land area for park uses were expanded as recommended in the report; and 2) that those criteria for land- scaping, buffering, and setback be more exacting then currently exist. Commissioner Bogucki commented that during the ensuing discussion, many pointshave been brought up, pro and con, in regard to multiple and industrial developments versus park and lake property and asked Mr. Darling if he could summarily list some of the pluses and minuses of each. Mr. Darling responded that the most disruptive feature in the whole southwest area plan, is the existence of the railroad tracks and indicated that it would serve as a negative factor for multi- family development while on the other hand, industrial develop met can have a deleterious effect on existing residential devel*glAt ; and future park development. He indicated the factor favort multi-family development in the Southwest Neighborhood wouls be'- that it is close to a regional shopping facility and it is more compatible with a park and lake uses on the western periphery of the neighborhood. Following further discussion, Chairman Jensen noted that perhaps the Commission should be polled on what they feel should be the disposition of the Southwest Neighborhood Study, and further, formulate some ideas in regard to a recommendation to the City Council. Mrs. Scott indicated that she felt that the existing Compre- hensive Goal plans could best serve the ends of the total neighbor- hood and would prefer to leave the I2 industrial zoning and look at the probability of strengthening the ordinance in regard to proper buffering and setbacks between residential development and industrial uses. Commissioner Foreman indicated that he thought the I2 industrial use should remain because the rail service that exists in this area is in short supply in Brooklyn Center, pro- vides a needed service, and should be protected. Commissioner Bogucki commented that he felt the I2 zoning should be sustained w1jere tracks could be utilized to provide rail service. Commissioner Schuller commented that the 12 industrial zoning should be left intact where desirable; that the park area should 1 1 1 -5- be extended pursuant to Midwest Planning recommendations, and further, that portions currently zoned I2 areas should be developed and should be utilized for multiple use to provide a buffer between the industrial development and park and lake areas. Commissioner Grosshans commented that the area should remain 12 zoning with an expanded park concept as recommended in the Midwest Planning Report. Commissioner Ditter commented that the I2 zoning should remain and the expanded park concept as recommended by Midwest Planning report be implemented. Chairman Jensen commented that the areas now zoned I2 should remain and that additional consideration should be given by the Planning Commission to build in more exacting protective devices between industrial and residential uses. Following further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Ditter to direct the staff to prepare a critique of the Midwest Planning Report to be re- viewed by the Planning Commission at its next scheduled meeting. Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Scott to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Chairm n 1 1 1