Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 01-27 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 27, 1972 The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Foreman, Gross, Grosshans and Scott. Also present were: Chief Building inspector Jean Murphey, Director of Public Works James Merila and Administrative Assistants Blair Tremere and Daniel Hartman. Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 71052 sub- mitted by Marvin Gordon requesting rezoning from R1 to R3 to permit the construction of three 8 unit townhouses. The Secretary stated that the property in question is located on the south side of Interstate 94 with access over Lee Avenue or Noble Avenue extended. Chairman Jensen commented that the application had been presented and discussed at a public hearing on December 2, 1971, and that the matter had then been referred to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group for further consideration. Chairman Jensen then read and placed on file a report dated January 5, 1972, from the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group relative to Planning Commission Application No. 71052. Chairman Jensen also noted that he had requested and received a memorandum dated January 27, 1972, from the Director of Public Works regarding the feasibility of developing the property in question into residential lots. The memorandum was read and also placed on file. Chairman Jensen then commented relative to the reference of the Comprehensive Plan to the development of the neighborhood, and he further noted that a petition signed by residents of the West Central Neighborhood had been placed on file which opposed rezoning from R1 to R3. Commissioner Bogucki suggested that possibly the Park and Recreation Commission should be consulted as to whether the subject land could be used as an extension of Orchard Lane Park. He noted that the proximity to the freeway was not conducive to sound neigh- borhood development and thus consideration should possibly be given to acquiring the land for open space. Commissioner Gross commented that he was aware of the situations where townhouse developments had been located in comparable areas, namely, sites which abutted freeways. He stated that such develop- ments, in themselves, were not incompatible, but given the particular nature of the parcel in question, a park-type or open space use might be the mose desirable. A brief discussion ensued relative to the memorandum from the Director of Public Works. Commissioner Foreman inquired whether approval of the application would mean the creation of a row of substandard lots. The Director of Public Works responded that there would be some substandard lots, but he noted that any subdivision approval and resultant use of the parcels were a matter for Commission and Council determination, when the tights of the owner as well as other factors could be considered. He stated that his analysis of 1 1 1 -2- the feasibility of residential development assumed that subdivision variances would be granted. In further discussion, Chairman Jensen commented that approval of the zoning application would result in "spot zoning" and further, he noted that the petitioner had failed to document that R1 resid- ential development was not feasible. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to direct the staff to prepare a resolution recommending denial of Planning Commission Application No. 71052 submitted by Marvin Gordon, noting that: 1. The subject property has consistently been conceived as R1 in nature and that there has been no significant change relating to the property since the last zoning review; 2. The proposed rezoning consitutes "spot zoning"; 3. The cost of developing the land for R1 purposes is not substantially different from R3 development costs; 4. With respect to non-econmic factors, no reliable testimony has been introduced to indicate that it is not feasible to develop the land for R1 use; 5. The size of the tract is not viable for sound R3 residential development. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of a letter dated January 26, 1972, submitted by R. C. Ernst, advising the Commission that he was withdrawing Planning Commission Application No. 71055. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Gross to acknowledge receipt of the letter from R. C. Ernst with- drawing Planning Commission Application No. 71055 and ordering said letter placed on file. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen. Commissioners Bogucki, Gross, Grosshans, and Scott; voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Foreman. The motion carried. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72002 submitted by R. D. Taafe, requesting site and building plan approval for a development on the property located at 69th and Girard Avenues North within the Hi Crest Square Addition. Commissioner Foreman stated that he would not take part in the deliberation of this application since he was an officer and director of a corporation seeking development of the subject parcel through the present application. Commissioner Foreman left the Commission table at 8:35 P.M. The Secretary explained that the applicant had assumed the option on the subject property from R. C. Ernst who had initially sought approval for development under Application No. 71055, now withdrawn. He stated the plan had been made for the total develop- ment of the property for retail-commercial use with construction to be completed in three phases. He stated that the applicant indicated the first phase would consist of a 5,000 square foot 1 1 1 -3- building with 50 parking spaces; the second phase would consist of an identical 5,000 square foot building with an additional 50 parking spaces; the third phase would consist of a mall-type shopping center with about 62,000 square feet of gross floor area, and would prob- ably not be constructed for several years. The Secretary further noted that there were some problems regarding public access and utilities that must be resolved with the City Engineer. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who reviewed the proposed commercial center. He stated that the construction of Phase One and Phase Two would be virtually concurrent, the completion of the second phase coming shortly after the opening of the commercial outlets in Phase One. Chairman Jensen then recognied Mr. Dave Miller, a representative of Transcontinental Development Corporation, who stated that his firm had recently acquired the land along Humboldt Avenue west of the subject land. He further stated that Transcontinental Develop- ment Corporation intended to proceed with the development of that parcel as soon as possible, in that site and building plans for the construction of a convenience center had been previously approved as submitted by the former owner (Application No. 70037 submitted by Ronald Krank, approved 7-13-70 and as amended 11-9-70) . Mr. Miller commented that his firm uo uld be willing to work with Mr. Taafe and his associates in coordinating the development of the entire parcel, considering their common interests. Mr. Taafa responded that he was not familiar with the plans of Mr. Miller's firm, but that an attempt could be made to coordinate the develop- ment. Commissioner Bogucki stated that it was evident both parties have mutual interest in the development of the entire parcel as well as the related problems which involve the City, namely, traffic flow and control. Chairman Jensen commented that while he recognized Phase One and Phase Two were separate from the proposed Phase Three, it was the third phase which seemed most related with the plans of Mr. Miller's firm. Mr. Miller responded that the entire project, in. his opinion, should be coordinated, including Phases One and Two. The Director of Public Works emphasized that the applicant's plans are conceptual, and that the sound development of any project abutting 69th Avenue requires the analysis of the concept for the development of the entire parcel. He stated that there is a substantial amount of detailed work involving utilities as well as access to the property which needs to be accomplished subsequent to the approval of the conceptual plans. Extensive discussion ensued relative to the development of the entire parcel and the several aspects of concern to the City, namely, access and traffic flow. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Gross, to table consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72002, until the February 3, 1972 meeting. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Gross, and Scott. Voting against: none. Motion carried, 1 1 1 -4- The Planning Commission recessed at 9:35 P.M. and reconvened at 9:50 P.M. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72001 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park. The Secretary introduced the item stating that the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval to per- mit the construction of a 17,640 square foot addition to the LaBelle's Store located at 5925 Earle Brown Drive. He stated that the applicant proposed that the existing building site will be increased by the addition of a 109' x 460' tract of land on the west side. He noted that the added land area will provide room for 75 additional parking spaces. A brief discussion ensued relative to the use of the proposed addition as well as the provisions for adequate parking. The Secretary stated that the proposed addition will be used primarily for warehouse purposes with a small area being used as an extension of the present toy department. He commented that the LaBelle's Store operation experiences basically three peak traffic periods per year, namely, Christmas, Easter, and back-to-school seasons, and that there is adequate parking provided. The Director of Public Works commented that the submitted plans did not include provisions for landscaping and he suggested that these be included in the conditions of approval. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72001 submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, Inc. , subject to the following conditions: 1. Utility and drainage plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 3. 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; 4. Lamdscaping plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Gross, Grosshans and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was reconsideration of Planning Commission Applications No. 71060 and 71061 submitted by Paul DeZiel which was tabled on December 2, 1971. The Secretary introduced the Application No. 71060 stating that the applicant is requesting rezoning from R1 to R3 for all of the lots in the proposed DeZiel Addition, and he noted that some of the property lying to the east of and southerly along Camden Avenue adjacent to the land proposed for rezoning is an R4 use with approval having been given for the construction of two story multiple dwellings. -- Chairman Jensen stated that the rezoning matter had been referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Study Group and that it was the unanimous opinion, as stated in a letter filed with the City, that the rezoning request be denied and that the area remain R1. Discussion ensued relative to the overall development of the area and Commissioner Grosshans and Bogucki commented that the area appeared to be too small for sound townhouse development. Commis- sioner Grosshans further stated that action on the rezoning request was inter-related with a request for subdivision approval as indicate by the accompanying Application No. 71061. He stated that the appli- cation for subdivision was in need of certain adjustment as well as further consideration by the applicant. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Grosshans, to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 71060 submitted by Paul DeZiel noting that the total area for the proposed development was too small for sound R3 residential development, and that R3 development appeared to be incompatible with the residential zoning of the surrounding area. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Gross, and Scott. Voting against were: none. Motion carried. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Scott to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 71061. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Gross, and Scott. Voting against were: none. Motion carried. Commissioner Foreman returned to the table at 10:30 P.M. Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Gross to approve the minutes of the January 6, 1972, meeting. The motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Gross left the table at 11:05 P.M. The next item of business was review of a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance. The Secretary explained that the portion of Section 34-140 relative to residential districts, provided that cluster developments or complexes of three or more buildings and not less than 36 dwelling units were allowed one freestanding sign. He said the ordinance set the maximum size at 36 square feet and the maximum height at 10 feet. He further stated that the proposed change would specify the type of sign as an identification sign, and would allow a sign at each major entrance, not to exceed a total of three signs. Chairman Jensen stated that the term "major entrance" should be defined by the ordinance, in that the determination of the number of such entrances was seemingly arbitrary. The Secretary responded that the determination of the number of signs would be a matter for staff interpretation, based upon a review of the particular situation of each applicant seeking a sign permit. During further discussion, Commissioner Bogucki suggested that possibly the term "major street" should be used rather than "major entrance", since most such developments abut no more than two major streets. Discussion then continued relative to the maximum number of signs permitted, as well as the maximum size. 1 1 i -- Chairman Jensen determined that it was the consensus that the proposed amendment to Section 34-140 of the Ordinances was acceptable providing the maximum number of signs was set at two, rather than three. Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:25 P.M. t i Char n 1 1 1