HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 03-16 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Planning Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center in the County of
Hennepin and State of Minnesota
March 16, 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 Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Foreman,
and Scott. Also present were: Chief Building Inspector Jean Murphey,
Director of Public Works James Merila and Administrative Assistants
Blair Tremere and Daniel Hartman.
Chairman Jensen recognized a number of students from Robbins-
dale Junior High School and briefly reviewed the role of the
Planning Commission in the Brooklyn Center municipal government.
Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Scott,
to approve the minutes of the March 2, 1972 meeting. Motion passed
unanimously.
The first item of business was consideration of possible develop-
ment concepts relative to the Marvin Gordon property on the south
side of I-94 at Lee Avenue North. The Secretary stated that rezoning
of this property from R1 to R3 was denied by the City Council on
February 28, 1972. He stated the applicant is now suggesting a
condominium single family attached dwelling at R1 density as an
appropriate use of the subject property.
Chief Building Inspector commented that a possible definition
of this use might be "condominium single family attached dwellings",
being two or more dwelling units horizontally attached in a linear
arrangement with separate dwelling units within the building separated
from each other by a wall or walls extending from the foundation to
the roof.
The Secretary commented that this concept appeared to have
some merit in that it would enhance the subdivision design and
flexibility and make it possible to develop odd shaped parcels of
land that are not well located, the subject property being a case
in point.
A discussion ensued relative to the type of platting and the
nature of the ownership of the land.
Commissioner Bogucki then questioned the use of the particular
parcel for living dwellings. He stated that the City should con-
sider acquiring the land as an extension of the neighboring park,
and that it was his opinion that there was a need for more park
area in the neighborhood.
Chairman Jensen stated that the basic question seemed to be
whether density or the type of construction was the main criterion
for determining land use.
He then recognized Mr. Gordon who responded to Commissioner
Bogucki that there were a number of homes in the Garden City area
which were near the Interstate that were suitable as living dwellings.
Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 6:30 P.M.
;�
f,
y
5 .
,._
.. .. _ :�,
-2-
Chairman Jensen inquired as to what had precluded development
utilizing this concept in the past. The Secretary responded that
apparently it was the definition in the ordinance relating to the
type of structure. Fie noted that the staff felt that the type of
development suggested by the concept was not prohibited by the
ordinance and that it was worth pursuing as a concept, considering
such ramifications as the adaptability of the current ordinance
provisions.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that it seemed the ordinance pro-
visions were primarily concerned with the type of structure related
to land use as a matter of definition, and that ordinance changes
would be required to comprehend this concept. Chairman Jensen
stated that possibility a rewording of the ordinance would be needed
and he proceeded to poll the Commission relative to the viability
of the concept.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that his concern basically was the
proximity of the parcel in question to the freeway and that it was
not conducive to any sort of residential development.
Commissioner Foreman stated that the present concept had more
merit than others which had been submitted to the City by the
developer, but he felt there was a need for further study. He
stated that he had no major objections to the concept. He further
noted that while it was essential to consider the rights of the
owner to develop his land, possibly the City should consider the
purchase of the land to serve as an extension of the nearby park.
Commissioner Scott stated that the concept appeared to be
viable and definitely had more merit than other proposals which the
applicant had submitted.
Commissioner Engdahl stated that he had no major objections
to the concept as presented.
Chairman Jensen suggested that the question of whether the
subject property could be considered as a possible extension of
Orchard Lane Park should be referred to the Park and Recreation
Commission for further input.
He commented that there was a need for further research to
the concept and that he could foresee an increasing number of similar
situations, namely, small undeveloped parcels or remnants of land.
He stated further that there seemed to be an advantage to providing
for a flexibility within existing land use zones versus a philosophy
which would change zones to accomplish high densities for particular
development purposes.
There being ho further discussion on the concept or the
development of the particular parcel, the matter was deferred until
a later study meeting.
The meeting recessed at 9:15 P.M. and resumed at 9:30 P.M.
The next item of business was discussion of a proposed draft
resolution relative to off-street parking. The Secretary explained
that the resolution proposed to amend various sections of the
zoning ordinance to include accessory off-street parking not
located on the same property with the principal use.
1
1
1 .
-3-
He further noted that Section 35-701(3) would be amended to
comprehend the use of special use permits and that paragraph 3
of that section would be amended to read as follows:
Spaces accessory to uses located in a business or industrial
district shall be on the same lot as the uses served, unless
a special use permit authorizes accessory off-street parking
not located on the same property with the principal use.
Parking spaces so authorized off-site shall not be credited
toward parking requirements unless the off-site property is
legally encumbered for parking accessory to the principal
use through deed restrictions and/or covenant.
The Secretary explained that the special use concept would
provide for better control and flexibility in governing the estab-
lishment of off-street parking sites not located on the same
property with the principal use.
Chairman Jensen noted his concern with the distance between
the principal use and the removed parking site, in that an owner
might attempt to use the accessory site to meet the parking require-
ments on the principal use property.
Commissioner Foreman agreed and stated that possibly the
subject paragraph should be terminated following the sentence,
"parking space so authorized off-site shall not be credited toward
parking requirements". He explained that this should not leave
the matter open to question.
Chairman Jensen stated his concern that the Commission might
be considering tailoring an ordinance to fit a particular situation,
namely, the parking demands of specific developments around the
City.
There being no further discussion, the matter was deferred
until the next study meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Foreman,
to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
t
Chairman
1
1
1