Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 07-13 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota July 13, 1972 The Planning Commission met in special session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 7:30 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Bogucki, Foreman, Scott, Gross and Engdahl. Also present were: Director of Public works James Merila, City Attorney Richard Shieffer and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. The first item of business was continued consideration of the proposed off--site accessory parking ordinance amendment. Chairman Jensen noted that the City Attorney had been asked to consider the matter of permitting the off-site accessory parking spaces to serve as credits towards the parking requirements of the principal use, as well as the matter of whether the site of the accessory off-site parking should be zoned the same as the principal use. The City Attorney stated that, in effect, passage of the ordinance would be a type of rezoning of that land within the designated distance of the principal use, namely 300 feet. He explained that since the special use was provided for in each of the zoning districts, it did not appear requiring the off-site location to be zoned the same as the principal use was necessary. Relative to the issue of permitting the off-site accessory parking spaces to serve as credits towards the parking requirements of the principal use, the City Attorney responded to a question by Commissioner Grosshans that restrictive covenants or deed restrictions were not the most useful controls, from the City' s point of view, in that they represented agreements between two property owners and were not necessarily subject to City involvement. He stated that it appeared the major City control, as the ordinance was proposed, was the special use permit. Chairman Jensen reiterated the consensus of the Commission that the language providing for use of the off-site spaces for parking credit purposes should be eliminated. Commissioners Grosshans amplified that comment, and stated his concern was with the long run, wherein the off--site lots could be sold and potentially the parking provisions on the principal use site would be substandard. He stated there was a need for assurance that the parking approved off-site would be additional parking. only. Responding to Commissioner Bogucki's comment that it was vital to require sufficient parking on the site of the principal use, the City Attorney stated that the adoption of the proposed amendment, including a provision for use of the additional spaces for credit purposes, could dilute the intent and effect of the ordinance parking requirements. The Attorney noted in addition that it was probable the deletion of that language from the ordinance might not seem reasonable to businessmen who possibly would desire to use the additional parking for credit purposes. The Secretary stated that it appeared the alternatives before the Commission were four: to recommend the amendment as presented; to recommend the amendment less the language relative to utilizing additional spaces for principal use credit purposes; to create throughout the City parking zones; or, to not adopt any amendment. 1 1 1 -2-- The City Attorney stated in that regard the decision was a matter of planning policy. Commissioner Grosshans reiterated his concern regarding the implementation or enforcement of the provisions of the proposed ordinance amendment, particularly with regard to the effectiveness of covenants or deed restrictions. Chairman Jensen stated that it was apparent further discussion would be required on these points and stated the matter would be held over until the next study meeting. Relative to another matter, the Chairman asked the Attorney to comment whether the density, or the type of structure was the controlling factor in determining proper land use. The Attorney responded generally that one has to consider more than density alone. He noted, for example, in the case of setback requirements, more is involved than just density per se, in that the word itself connoted the type of surroundings and structure, namely, concerns of light, air and view. He further noted that, the City Ordinance provisions relative to land use generally comprehended this consideration. Chairman Jensen noted that a number of applicants were present for the matters scheduled on the agenda of the special meeting and he proceeded with the Chairman's explanation of the proceedings. The first item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72053 submitted by Robert Hillstrom and others. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicants proposed the rezoning of the properties generally located between Bryant and Camden Avenues North and 67th and 68th Avenues North from Rl to R2 to permit the construction of two unit dwellings. He further stated that the applicant intends to develop double unit dwellings for rental purposes and that the application was sub- mitted for the required public hearing of neighboring property owners who had been notified. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Hillstrom, an attorny for one of the fee owners and a representative of the developers, and inquired why the zoning change was necessary. Mr. Hillstrom responded that the developers feel that such a development is in demand, part- icularly in this area, where the land, as zoned Rl, had not been sold. He stated the intent would be to attract tenants less transient than apartment dwellers. He noted also that there was an R3 townhouse development to the south. Chairman Jensen inquired as to whether there was one ownership of the proposed development and Mr. Hillstrom responded that a partnership of several individuals was involved. A discussion ensued relative to the type of dwellings proposed by the developer and the meeting recessed at 8:20 P.M. to permit the Commissioners and interested property owners to view models of the proposed structures. The meeting resumed at 8:25 P.M. Mr. Hillstrom stated that the development would be a totally planned project built in one phase, in a time frame of less than one year. He stated the total value was in excess of one million dollars and that the units had been preliminarily appraised at approximately $50,000 apiece. Chairman Jensen then called upon the affected property owners who had been notified of the hearing. He was given and read into the file a petition containing signatures of 53 home owners declaring 1 1 1 -3- that they were against the rezoning of the property for the reasons stated on the petition. Chairman Jensen then proceeded to read the names of the notified property owners and recognized 13 of the 41 who were notified. Those persons recognized unanimously objected to the rezoning. Chairman Jensen then summarized the general concern of the neigh- boring property owners: problems with the nearby Georgetown Court apartments, which were rental units, and thus concern that more rental units would intensify problems such as traffic, parking, general nuisances such as vandelism, and pressure on the increasing number of students at area schools. He further noted the concern of the property owners that rezoning action did not entail the commitment as to time frame for the proposed development. Chairman Jensen further noted the procedure followed by the Commission in rezoning matters and noted that input from the public hearing was one of the major factors considered. He explained the requirements of the ordinance for public hearing and noted the Commission awareness of the possible ramifications of a change in land use, commenting that the matter would be referred to the neigh- borhood study groups before any final action was taken. He then called upon the petitioner for further remakrs. Mr. Hillstrom reiterated that the project would be a one stage development and noted that the units would be properly kept up, as that was a primary concern of the owner. Chairman Jensen then inquired as to what attempts had been made to develop the land at the R1 density and Mr. Hillstrom responded that this was the first con- crete effort to develop the subject land at all. Chairman Jensen states] his concern that it appeared the petitioner had not fully shown the need for rezoning. Mr. Hillstrom responded that other land in the City had been rezoned from R1 to even higher uses, and that the contention of the applicant was that he was willing to develop at this time a project which was perceived as that demanded by the market. Chairman Jensen then recognized one of the partners of the pro- posed development who commented that quality maintenance and manage- ment of the development was a prime concern of the owners and that conditions which were feared by the neighboring property owners would not be permitted. Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Gross to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Chairman Jensen then caILled for comments from the Commission. Commissioner Gross commented relative to the number of units and stated his concern with the possibility that housing developments of even higher density might be required of Brooklyn Center as a matter of Metropolitan Planning policy. Commissioner Bogucki stated that he was not impressed with the design of the buildings and commented relative to some of the remarks made by the neighboring property owners relative to problems of rental units . He noted that some R1 districts, comprised of ho=ne owners, are not without problems. He noted the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for the City was to provide housing for all people. Chairman Jensen summarized the discussion and noted the main question was one of determining proper land use. He stated concerns were for the appropriate use in the area, the rights of the property 1 1 1 owners, including the applicant, the effect of the type of zoning upon the neighborhood as well as the matters discussed during the public hearing. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Gross and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to table Planning Commissior Application No. 72053 submitted by Robert A. Hillstrom and others and to submit the questions to the neighborhood group for further input. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:40 P.M. and resumed at 9:55 P.M. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72045 submitted by Fox Run, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who noted that the application was presented for conceptual review only. He also stated that a draft of a proposed ordinance vehicle comprehending Planned Residential Development had been prepared, and copies were presented to the Commissioners. He stated that such an ordinance vehicle was required prior to final approval of the plans for a development such as that property. Chairman Jensen stated that the proposed ordinance provision would be placed on the agenda of the next regular meeting. He then recognized Mr. Milt Bruflodt and Mr. Dick Walsh, who represented the developer. Mr. Bruflodt briefly commented relative to the density of the proposed project, noting that it was to be constructed within the requirements of the R3 district and he pre- sented sketches and renderings. The Secretary stated the development comprehends the construction of condominium apartment units and townhouses to be built in phases upon the 62.7 acre site. He noted that some of the initial observation and concerns of the staff included the status of the Home Owner's Association membership, in that it was not fully clear as to what the relationship of membership in a given phase of Fox Run had to membership in Fox Run as a whole. He further noted that one of the most crucial factors involved in the proposal was drainage of the site. He stated substantial engineering and detailed planning would be needed. Chairman Jensen inquired what the time frame of the construction of the project would be. Mr. Bruflodt responded that it was a matter or economics, and Mr. Walsh states; that the First Mortgage Investment Company, who would be financing the project, had conducted a feasibili- study which indicated the maximum time frame would be three years. He stated Phase One should be completed about the Spring of 1973, Phase Two in later 1973, and Phase Three in 1974. He further commented that this represented the first full scale condominium apartment development in the State of Minnesota. commissioner Gross stated his concern with the poor soil condition in the area and noted the proximity of some of the townhouses to Shingle Creek. Commissioner Engdahl stated his concern with the provisions of the Home Owner's Association agreement, and inquired exactly what the status of membership in a phase association was relative to the membership in the Fox Run Association as an entire project. 1 1 Mr. Walsh responded that basically there would be one Home Owner's Association, and that members of the Home Owner's Association in Phase One would merge with Phase Two, if and when Phase Two was constructed and completed. He stated that similarly, Phase One and Two, as a Home Owner's Association, would be eventually merged with Phase Three. He stated there was a legal question involved as to exactly what point the mergers would occur. He emphasized that the developers propose each phase would be a self-conta$.red unit. Commissioner Engdahl further inquired as to whether members in the Phase One development would be required to pay more to merge with Phase Two, so as to enjoy the amenities of the recreation building and facilities scheduled for construction in Phase Two. Mr. Walsh responded that members of Phase One would have use of the recreation building and other amenities, if and when Phase Two was finished, and that the membership would be according to the terms of their original contract with the Fox Run Home Owner's Association. Commissioner Gross stated his additional concern with the traffic generated, and the intensity of the present traffic on 73rd Avenue Borth, including the possible effect of townhouses which would be included in Phase One according to the provisions of the proposed ordinance. Chairman Jensen noted that the matter was before the Commission as a conceptual review, and that while there were problems which could br resolved, such as the condition of the land and various necessary easements, the project as a whole seemed to be a quality proposal and concept. He then polled the Commission and Commissioner Engdahl stated that other than his basic concern with the status of the Home Owner's Association and the financial obligations upon the members of any given phase, he felt the development was well planned. Commissioner Gross stated his appreciation for the evident planning effort involved in the project and stated that it was a good lay-out. Commissioner Scott agreed, and noted the extensive provision for park and open space within the project. Commissioner Foreman stated that the project appeared to be a quality proposed addition to the City. Commissioner Grosshans agreed and stated that the plan appeared to represent a quality concept. Commissioner Bogucki stated that there was obviously substantial effort in the conceptual planning, and he was in favor of proceeding with more detailed planning. The Director of Public Works commented relative to the need for drainage and noted that the type of drainage proposed differs from the conventional closed-system utilized in Brooklyn Centers. He noted the applicant proposes an open drainage system, and that if this were approved, it should be maintained as an open channel. He further commented that concept approval was basic for further staff effort regarding the detailed development of the project. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to table Planning Commission Application No. 72045 submitted by Fox Run, Inc. until the next regular meeting. The motion carried unanimously. 1 1 1 __6_ The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72052 submitted by McCarthy Construction Company. The Secretary introduced the item and stated the applicant was requesting approval of preliminary Registered Land Survey comprising six tracts in the 1600 block between 73rd Avenue North and Woodbine Lane. He noted that proposed Tract "A" and "F" were previously reviewed and approved by the Commission and Council as a part of variance Application No. 72017. He noted that since the approval of that request, the applicant had acquired the two parcels to the west. He further stated the parcels were to be developed with single family dwellings. After a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Gross and seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72052 submitted by McCarthy Construction subject to the requirements of the platting ordinance, the approval of the City Engineer, and the submission of documents conveying appropriate utility and drainage easements. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 72054 submitted by John Williams. The Secretary introduced the application and stated the applicant's request is for a variance from the five foot garage site rear yard setback requirement to permit construction of a new structure abutting the property line to the rear of 5409 Girard Avenue North. The Secretary stated that the applicant had recently demolished his aged garage, which was in the approximate location of the pro- posed structure, but which had encroached several feet into the 14 foot alleyway. He stated a number of neighboring garages also encorach upon the alleyway and the use of the alley has apparently deviated from a "straight" course over the full width of the alley through the years. He explained that as a result of staff investigation it appeared that the property owners presumed (incorrectly) that a number of utility poles along the alley designated property lines. The Secretary further noted the applicant was informed of the setback requirements from his actual property lines, as defined by himself, and he maintained a hardship would be realized due to the size of the proposed structure, the location of a tree in his back yard (easterly of the proposed structure) and the access to the garage from the alley. He further commented that the applicant owns the parcel to the south, which is currently undeveloped, but that the applicant has indicated that he would prefer not to build on it. It was noted as well that no certified survey of the site had been submitted by the applicant, but rather the applicant had obtained the site data independently. The Director of Public Works commented upon a survey analysis conducted by the Engineering Department of the subject property. He stated the basic concern of the staff was with the proposed location of the garage and noted that the City was required to mainta.1 the alley, particularly in the winter, up to the property line. He stated that without the setback, there would be no storage space for snow, and that winter alley maintenance was a continuing source of complaints from property owners to the street department. -7-- Chairman Jensen noted that none of the notified property owners was present for the hearing before the Commission sitting as a Board of Adjustments and Appeals. He then recognized the applicant who stated that he perceived a hardship due to the location of a tree in his back yard as well as his need for a big garage for parking of cars and for storage. Responding to a question as to whether he had considered other locations for the garage such as the southerly parcel, Mr. Williams commented that the present telephone poles would be in the way of the access to the garage and that he did not intend to use the south lot himself since he was concerned with the desires of future owners who might consider development of the parcel. The Director of Public Works also commented that should other property owners secure registered land surveys, due possibly to the construction of garages, difficulties could arise, once true boundaries were established. He stated the primary concern with this application was the ramifications over the long run. He commente also that the survey team and the staff had not been able to determine correct property corners. A discussion ensued relative to the width of the alleys in the City and the effect on the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Bogucki stated that- recognizing the difficulties faced by the applicant, as well as the potential problems for the neighborhood, the applicant should secure a survey of the property. The applicant responded that he had friends who were surveyors by profession who had done the work for him which he felt they had done what he considered an accurate survey. The Director of Public Works emphasized that the City crew had not intended to set property lines but had proceeded to just determine the allay centerline and the existing situation in the area from that point. The Secretary further commented that certified survey data should be secured if the variance matter was to be considered further. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 72054 submitted by John Williams, noting the lack of a certified survev needed to determine the actual boundary of the property, as well as the apparent lack of a hardship as grounds for granting a variance. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72055 submitted by Vanman Construction Company. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for a church school addition to the Northbrook Alliance Church west of the existing structure. Fie further noted that the staff had been in consultation with the applicant relative to the need for further data regarding elevations, drainage and landscaping and stated that the applicant had submitted some additional data to the Director of Public Works. The Secretary noted the staff was especially concerned with the possible ramifications of the imminent highway development and upgrading of F.I . 94. He stated such plans could affect the design of the proposed structure as well as the alignment of the internal roadway. He further stated that consideration had been given the current efforts of the Neighborhood Highvay Development Group and that it did not seem desirable to impose unnecessary constraint upon that group. 1 li it -6- Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant as well as officials of the Northbrook Alliance Church who explained the site and building plans and urged preliminary approval of the plans, due to what was termed a great need for the Sunday School addition. Commissioner Bogucki inquired whether the applicant and the church officials were fully aware of the possible ramifications of the development of the interstate or of the preliminary plans them- selves. The response was in the negative. The applicant further noted budget difficulties and coordination problems between the church and the construction company, which were responsible for the delay in the submission of certain data with the plans. He further emphasized the time factor involved, in that costs were increasing and that if it were necessary to enter into the winter construction season, the costs would be substantially higher. Chairman Jensen offered comments relative to the work of the Citizen's Advisory Group on the highway development and noted that one of the recommendations of the group to the Highway Department was that a 100 foot setback be required along the residential areas of the freeway due to the incompatibility between residential uses and highway uses. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the possible affect of the highway development and the Director of Public Works commented that within a mcnth, the advisory group should have some response from the Highway Department as to their recommendation. The applicant stated that neither he nor the church officials would appreciate the seeming delays in the processing of the appli- cation, due to rising costs. A. brief discussion ensued relative to the timing of action on the application. The Secretary emphasized the concern of the staff regarding the issuance of a permit for a project which could be adversely affected by an imminent development of the highway. lie noted the concern also that approval of the present application under the current circumstances might, in effect, negate previous Commission concern and policy relative to construction near freeways. He also reiterated the concern over posing unnecessary constraints upon the highway development Citizen's Advisory Group. Commissioner Bogucki commented that he was not yet assured that the applicant was fully aware of the possible ramifications upon the church property by the impending highway upgrading. Chairman Jensen stated that due to the facts before the Commission, as well as the ongoing work of the Advisory Group, it seemed unwise to give final recommendation for approval of the appli- cation at this time, particularly considering that more data was needed relative to the site plan itself. He also amplified the Secretary's remarks regarding the matter of planning principles and the Commission's concern regarding construction near freeway uses. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to table Planning Commissic Application No. 72055 until the August 3rd meeting to permit the appli- cant the opportunity to submit revised landscaping and drainage plans to the staff for review. Motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72056 submitted by Mr. John Akers. �2he Secretary introduced the application and stated the applicant was seeking approval of 1 1 11 -9- site and building plan revision of a convenience center, previously approved via Application No. 72029 which comprehends the sub- stitution of a Dairy Queen Restaurant for two of the previously approved retail units. He further noted that for this a special use permit was requested. The Secretary stated the amended plan indicates that the approved structure includes one retail unit and the restaurant and that additional parking was also indicated east of the building. He emphasized that the application represented an amendment to the approved plans, and it was accordingly subject to the conditions of the approval of Application No. 72029. Chairman Jensen noted that none of the notified property owners was present for the hearing before the Commission sitting as a Board of Adjustments and Appeals. Following a brief discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Engdahl, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72056 subject to the conditions of approval for Planning Commission Application No. 72029 and the following conditions: 1. All parking and driving areas will be curbed utilizing B-612 type curbing; 2. A special use permit shall be subject to review on an annual basis commencing with the date of issue; 3. Approval of the application is exclusive of all signery. Motion passed unanimously. In other business, it was the consensus of the Commission to tentatively set a special meeting of the Commission for August 6, 1972 Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Gross to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 1 o' clock A 1. Chairma 1 I 1 1 1