Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 04-06 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota April 6, 1972 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 6:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Scott, Foreman, Bogucki, Grosshans and Engdahl. Also present were: Director of Public James Merila, Chief Building Inspector Jean Murphey, and Administrative Assistants Blair Tremere and Daniel Hartman. Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business which was Planning Commission Application No. 72020 submitted by Swanson Homes. He explained that the appli- cant is requesting a zoning change from R1 to R4 for the West 150 feet of the proposed townhouse property located southerly of 73rd and Lyndale Avenues North. He stated the easterly 150 feet of the subject property was rezoned from Bl to R4 at the time the Compre- hensive Plan was adopted. Commissioner Foreman stated he had discussed the applicant's proposal with neighboring land owners, O. U. Ness of 7231 Lyndale Avenue North, and J. M. Benedix of 407 - 73rd Avenue North. He stated that both of these neighbors had no objection to the rezoning proposal. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who stated that the subject parcels as shown were not conducive to development. He stated that he proposed to construct townhouses at the R3 density on the parcels and he felt that these would be compatible with existing neighboring homes. He further commented that such use for the subject land was better than R4 apartments. in response to a question by Chairman Jensen, Mr. Swanson stated that the owners of the other R4 property were not interested at this time in selling their property at a reasonable price. Chairman Jensen then noted that none of those neighboring property owners who were notified of the proceedings was present. Commissioner Foreman stated that he had contacted serveral other property owners in the area relative to the desirability of the proposed rezoning and he stated they indicated no objection. Chairman Jensen recalled that during action relative to the platting proposal submitted by Thomas Construction Company, the owners of the property zoned RI abutting the subject parcel chose not to rezone their property to R4. Chairman Jensen then reviewed the Commission's practice of not making a final determination and recommendation at the same time as the public hearing to gain further input of neighborhood groups and the staff. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Following further discussion of the application, there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to table Planning Commission Application No. 72020 and to take the rezoning request under advisement. Motion passed unanimously. �.'..� I I li -2- The next items on the agenda were Planning Commission Appli- cations 72021 and 72022, also submitted by Swanson Homes. The Secretary explained that action on these applications was contingent upon determination of Application No. 72020. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to table Planning Commission Application No. 72021 and No. 72022. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Jensen then asked the applicant to informally discuss these two applications with the Commission to provide basic input which could possibly be used in the determination of the rezoning application. Commissioner Gross arrived at 8:45 P.M. Mr. Swanson presented the proposed preliminary plat and the site and building plans and briefly discussed them. During the discussion, Chairman Jensen noted that two of the neighboring property owners had arrived and he recognized Mr. A. J. Foslien of 7215 Dallas Road and Mr. T. E. Peterson of 7231 Dallas Road, who stated that they had no objections to the applicant's rezoning proposal. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72016 submitted by Mr. Bud Schlee. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat for the proposed Willow Lane Manor Addition. He stated that application No. 72003, seeking a variance to divide this property by metes and bounds was denied by the Planning Commission on February 17, 1972 and by the City Council on February 28, 1972, with the recommendation to the applicant that a plat would be required. He further noted that the applicant had met with the recom- mendations and had submitted a preliminary plat which appeared to be in order. The Director of Public Works commented briefly as to utility easements and suggested the requirement that they be shown on the final plat. in response to a question by Commisssioner Gross, the Director of Public Works stated that there were no current plans to obtain additional right-of-ways by the Highway Department relative to up-grading of Trunk Highway 169. He stated further ghat, in effect, there were no means to reserve the land for possible highway upgrading at this time. Following further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Cross and seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72016 submitted by Mr. Bud Schlee, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the plat is subject to the requirements of the platting ordinance; 2. Approval of the plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer; 3. Easements for utility purposes will be indicated on the final plat. Motion passed unanimously. 1 1 1 i -3- The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72030 submitted by Vern N. Weaver. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant is requesting approval of a Registered Land Survey. He noted that the subject property is 81.5 feet in width and 560 feet in depth and is located north of 69th Avenue between R.L.S . #1242 and Tisch's Addition. He noted the tracts on the proposed plat conform to the existing lots on either side. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Gross, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72030, submitted by Vern N. Weaver, subject to the requirements of the platting ordinance and the approval of the City Engineer. Motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72026 submitted by Rudy Peterson requestinc. rezoning from R3 to R5 to permit the construction of four 120 r unit three story condominium apartments. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposes to rezone to R-5 a portion of the large acreage in the northwest corner of the City which is currently zoned R3. He stated the remaining R3 property would be eventually developed with a number of townhouses. Chairman Jensen then recognized a representative of the appli- cant, Mr. Milt Bruflodt, who presented sketches and renderings of the proposed development of the 62 acre site. Chairman Jensen inquired as to whether the applicant had considered a planned concept which would be similar to the one proposed, but at an R3 density without a rezoning of a portion of the acreage to R5. The Secretary stated that it was the staff opinion that a project of this magnitude merits a more extensive and detailed planning effort. He noted further that it was conceivable that, through the planned development of a mixed residential use, and an ordinance comprehension of this type of concept, rezoning would not be necessary. He stated that more detailed data relative to the overall development plans for the area are needed prior to a determination of the proposed land use change. Chairman Jensen then announced that the Commission would proceed with the public hearing. He recognized the following persons who had been notified of the hearing and who commented relative to the proposed rezoning: Mr. Tyler of 7043 Regent Avenue North stated that similar proposals had been made for this area and questioned whether additional apartments are needed, given current vacancy rates in the metropolitan area. He also stated that traffic congestion would increase considerably. Mrs. Tyler stated that she is also concerned with the traffic congestion considering the proximity of churches, schools, and a nursing home in the vicinity. Mr. H. Hackleman of 7019 Regent Avenue North stated that he agreed with Mr. Tyler and inquired as to what the effect would be relative to the provision for storm sewer drainage systems. The Director of Public Works responded that what know exists is a drainage ditch system which no doubt would require some redesign. Mrs. Hackleman stated her concern that some guarantee that the proposed development would occur should the land be rezoned. i 1 i 1 -4- Mrs. R. Sommerfield of 7013 Regent Avenue North stated she agreed with Mr. Tyler relative to traffic congestion and felt a development of this magnitude was not warranted in this area. Miss Schonning of 6925 Regent Avenue North presented the Chairman with a petition containing 52 signatures stating that the signers were opposed to "building apartments out in back of Century Court Apartments near Regent and 70th. ". Miss Schonning stated that she was concerned with the wildlife and open space uses of the land and felt that the property should remain in its natural state. Miss Cameron of 5116 - 70th Avenue North agreed with Miss Schonning relative to the wildlife and open space uses of the area. Mr. R. L. Johnson, 6684 Fridley Street N.E. , and Mr. H. Shapr, 5206 - 70th Avenue North, stated they were against the proposal . and were concerned, as the others, about the soil conditions of the area and whether large amounts of fill would affect the relatively unstable soil conditions in neighboring areas. A brief discussion ensued with the City Engineer who stated that specific situations would have to be considered before determining what effect such development would have relative to soil conditions. Mr. W. M. Fisher of 5212 - 70th Avenue North stated his concern with regard to topographical questions considering the unstable ground conditions and he stated his concern for ecological considerations such as noise pollution and possibly water pollution in Shingle Creek. Mr. J. C. Wilhelm of 6901 Toledo Avenue North stated that he already had a drainage problem and felt the traffic was already congested in the area and that the proposed development would contibute substantially to these existing problems. Mrs. C. E. Miller of 6919 Toledo Avenue North agreed and stated she was worried about the drainage in the area as it existed and felt the traffic was increasing daily in its intensity. Mrs. E. C. Meyer, 6843 Toledo Avenue North, had similar con- cerns and felt there was not a need for more apartment dwellings. Mr. Warren Olson representing the Dietrich Company stated that, from the developer's prospective, he was aware that the City staff would be very concerned with the drainage problems in the area and that neighbors should not feel any developer would be allowed to proceed in an arbitrary or capricious manner. He stated that he was concerned with the overall density of the project and that his firm would generally oppose any development exceeding the R3 density. Mrs. D. Luc of 6931 Toledo Avenue North stated her concern over the effects such a development would have on property values. The Director of Public Works offered comments relative to the potential traffic generation by the proposed development, and stated that 'there would be approxiiaately 3,000 cars per day spread throughout the day. Relative to drainage problems and the design of the project, he explained that the City requires the developer to submit plans from a registered professional engineer and that these are then reviewed by the City's professional engineering staff. 1 1 -5- He briefly commented relative to existing water problems along 69th Avenue and stated that if a storm sewer system were installed, the improvement would be assessed against the benefitting property owners in the area. He noted, however, such an improvement was pending County plans to upgrade 69th Avenue. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Gross, to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Jensen then reviewed the salient points regarding the hearing on Application No. 72026. He stated the land in question was approximately 62 acres which was currently zoned R3; that there were evident water and drainage problems on the land; and the questions raised during the public hearing included: whether more apartments were needed (noting the Commission has certain reser- vations relative to the need for more R5 type apartments) ; existing and potential traffic problems in the area; area soil conditions and drainage problems; ecological considerations, including noise pollution and possible pollution of Shingle Creek; and, the concern that an open space wildlife area would be eliminated. Chairman Jensen further noted that there were several alter- natives that could be considered in the deliberation of the application, namely, whether the land use should remain at the R3 use; whether a concept of a planned mixed residential use should be pursued; or, whether the land should be rezoned to R5 as proposed by the developer. He noted that input would be sought from the Northwest Neighbor- hood Group relative to the pending application. Commissioner Gross felt that there were many factors that were yet unanswered and that there was a need for more data. He stated his concern with the ecology of the area and with whether the soil conditions in that area could sustain such a development. He stated at this point he could not see the need for increasing the land use density of the area. Commissioner Engdahl commented briefly relative to the potential for developing the entire parcel according to an R3 density and stated it appeared that economic considerations prohibited total development with R3 structures. Commissioner Bogucki noted that it was the Commission's policy to take rezoning matters under advisement and commented to the representative of the applicant that further planning data would be required before a final determination could be made. Motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to table Planning Commission Applications No. 72026 and 72027 submitted by Rudy Peterson. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 10:30 P.M. and resumed at 10:40 P.M. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72018 submitted by Wyman Smith for R. W. Steiner. The Secretary introduced the item and stated the applicant is requesting site and building plan approval for two buildings to be located on 69th Avenue between Fremont and Girard Avenues. He commented that building number one would be 100 feet by 60 feet and building number two would be 120 feet by 60 feet. He noted that this was the same property covered under Application No. 72002 submitted by R. D. Taafe, which was tabled on February 3, 1972. 1 1 -6- Commissioner Foreman stated that he would not take part in the deliberation of this application since he was a partici- pant in the proposed development of the property adjacent to the subject parcel. The Secretary commented further that the application covers only the two buildings on the north of the property and does not indicate what the rear six acres would be used for, or how they would be developed. He recalled this had been of major concern to the Commission during the deliberation of a prior application for the development of the parcel. Commissioner Foreman left the meeting at 10:55 P.M. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Smith and Mr. Thomas, a planner, who represented the developer, Mr. Steiner. in response to a question by Chairman Jensen, Mr. Smith stated the developer had no plans at this time for the development of the rear six acres and that the applicant felt a single access at 69th Avenue would be sufficient, based upon similar developments. Chairman Jensen then inquired whether the developer had considered any land use other than commercial for the property. Mr. Smith replied that the owner was not in town and had not yet reached any conclusions with regard to the entire parcel. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the development of the rear six acres as well as adequate access to future developments in that area. Mr. Thomas commented that the applicant hoped to provide adequate access to the south six acres from 69th Avenue. Commissioner Gross voiced his concern relative to the funneling of a substantial amount of traffic on to one street through one primary access. Mr. Smith stated that before any conclusion could be drawn relative to the development of the south six acres, the owner would have to be present. He inquired why specific attention could not be devoted just to the two acres fronting on 69th Avenue, since the proposed plans met with code requirements. Chairman Jensen reviewed the concern of the City staff and the Commission relative to the overall development of the entire parcel. Commissioner Bogucki stated, in addition, that the present plans did not appear to reflect a concern for the development of the entire parcel and in fact, set a tone for the overall develop- ment that could be difficult to change. He stated that hopefully, cooperation among the present applicant as well as the developer to the west could be encouraged, in that common problems such as access could be rectified and an overall development of the parcel could be planned. In response to a comment by Mr. Smith that it would seem dishonest for the applicant to present plans for a possible actual use of the rear six acres which might not be pursued, Commissioner Bogucki stated that to develop and discuss feasible concepts within a zoned land use, was not dishonest, but rather was a matter of sound planning principles. Mr. Smith commented that it appeared that the owner of the property was being penalized for not having a complete planned development of his own land. Chairman Jensen replied that it was 1 1 1 -7- not a matter of penalizing the owner, but rather was one of pro- tecting the City as well as the developer's interests, relative to the development and long term use of a substantial amount of land. In further discussion, the Director of Public Works commented relative to previous attempts to develop this parcel as well as the staff's concern that planning efforts be made for the overall development of the parcel. He noted that it was the City's concern to guide in the development of the City as a whole, and not to dictate specific development on one or two parcels. In this regard, Commissioner Bogucki stated that the Commission and City Council had been consistent in requiring master plan concepts, particularly ..for developments of this magnitude. Commissioner Gross commented that the applicant had indicated that he had discussed the develop- ment with the developer of the land to the west, and that it appeared further consultation was not out of order. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to table Planning Commission Application No. 72018 to permit the owner the opportunity to develop a master plan concept for the entire 8 acre parcel. In further discussion, Commissioner Engdahl stated that the staff should instruct the applicant as to what data were desired or required by the City. Mr. Smith commented,that, in his opinion, the motion was discriminatory in that it implied his client was required to consult and work with another developer before being allowed to proceed with the development of his own land. Cha irman Jensen then called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously. In other business the Secretary noted that it had been the consensus of the Commission at the March 30, 1972 meeting, relative to Planning Commission Application No. 72002 submitted by R. D. Taafe, that unless acceptable documentation was presented to the City, prior to the present meeting, substantiating that Mr. Taafe was, in fact, the bonafide owner and/or developer of the subject property, the application would be considered withdrawn. He noted that no such documentation or evidence had been sub- mitted by Mr. Taafe. Motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to acknowledge withdrawal of Planning Commission Application No. 72002, submitted by R. D. Taafe. Motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:55 P.M. r- r j Chairman 1