Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 08-03 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota August 3, 1972 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8 o'clock P.M. Roil Call: Chairmen Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Scott, Gross-- hans and Foreman. Also present were: 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. 72064 sub- mitted by C. A. Olson, Jr. on behalf of the Northbrook Alliance Church. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated that the applicant seeks preliminary subdivision approval of the parcel lying between the Northbrook Alliance Church property and Bryant Avenue North south of the freeway. He explained that the general situation of this application was similar to that of Application No. 72055 which was tabled by the Commission on July 13th, in that there is a distinct possibility that the property would be affected by the planned upgrading of the freeway. He noted the highway development Citizen's Advisory Group was to meet with the highway officials on August 9th and that action now on this application, as with No. 72055, could represent an unnecessary constraint upon the advisory group. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who stated that he had been in consultation with various Highway Department officials and he requested that the Commission approve the application as sub- mitted, contingent upon the reaction of the Highway Department to the recommendations of the Citizen's Advisory Group. Commissioner Gross arrived at 8:10 P.M. Chairman Jensen briefly commented upon the recommendations of the Citizen's Advisory Group and noted their concern with noise abatement and the provision for adequate open space. He noted that many of the property owners along the freeway were gravely concerned with the possible effects of the highway upgrading, and were striving for an assurance that the incompatibility of residential use and highway use was fully analyzed and considered particularly by the highway officials. The applicant stated that it seemed to him that if the Highway Department or the City did not actually take property such as his for open space or other purposes, and the City refused to grant sub- division or building approval for that property, it would be tanta- mount to condemning the property without due process of law. Commissioner Bogucki responded that the matter was not as simple as the applicant indicated, in that highway construction of the type proposed had broad planning ramifications. He stated that it was not the policy of the City to be forced into hasty decisions, particularly by Highway Department decision or indecision. He further noted that the extistence of residential zones near existing freeways was of prime concern to the Planning Commission. -2- Chairman Jensen then explained the need to postpone a final decision on the application at least until the Citizen's Advisory Group has received reaction from the highway officials as to their recommendations. The applicant stated his concern with the seeming delay of processing the application and inquired as to what time frame the Commission was working within, since not to allow any construction on a property was to render that property useless. Chairman Jensen stated that the Commission would be better able to determine the time frame after the August 9th meeting with the highway officials. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to table Planning Commission Application No. 72064. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Engdahl arrived at 8:45 P.M. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72062 submitted by Mrs. Lahti. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained that the applicant owns a parcel of land located at 5326 Knox Avenue North, which, according to the data of record as indicated on the section map, is substandard. He noted that, while Section 35-500 provides that substandard lots may be built upon if the area, width or other open space is within 70% of the requirements for them under the terms of the ordinance, the subject property is approximately three feet less than the 70% width requirement. He explained that the applicant's property was approximately 49 feet wide and that the ordinance requirement was for a 75 foot width or 52'h feet using - the 70% formula. He stated that the appli- cant was thus requesting a variance from Section 35-500 to permit the property to be subdivided and sold. The Secretary further commented that the applicant had not submitted certified survey data and that the dimensions of the subject property as well as the proximity of neighboring parcels and buildings were only estimates. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who stated she was requesting the variance in order to make the lot buildable so that it could be sold. She noted that the taxes were relatively high and thus she wanted to dispose of it. Commissioner Gross inquired whether she intended to build on the lot and the applicant responded in the negative. Commissioner Bogucki commented on the need for a survey of the property, particularly in light of the fact that it is to be sold. The applicant responded that she did not see the need for a survey at this time and that it seemed to be an unnecessary expense. She commented also that a survey had been made earlier for a property to the south which included several lots which might include the sub- ject property. She stated that survey should be on file with the City. The Secretary explained that there was not a survey of the sub- ject property on file and he reiterated the need for such data to accuratelydetermine the dimensions of the property. He noted that in any case, the recorded data taken from the section map indicated that a variance would be required. 1 1 1 -3-- It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant should further consult with the staff relative to the determination of the size and layout of the property at 5326 Knox Avenue North before further consideration of the variance request. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioned`"" Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to table Planning Commission'` Application No. 72062 to permit the applicant the opportunity to acquire the necessary data. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72061 submitted by McCarthy Construction Company. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant seeks preliminary subdivision approval for purposes of developing the property located between Knox Avenue and Logan Avenue North south of 73rd Avenue North. He noted that several revisions had been made to the initial proposed surveys submitted by the applicant and that revised drawings reflecting those changes have not been submitted. He stated the main concern of the staff had been that the existing roadways, namely Knox, Logan and 73rd Avenues North be indicated as tracts. He also noted the substandard size of the northeast and southeast tracts ("C" and "H") on the initial survey. He stated that revision discussed with the applicant left only the southeast tract as substandard, and unbuildable until such time that it might be combined with Tract "D" of Registered Land Survey No. 1328. Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who explained that his surveyor intended to include the revisions discussed with the staff when the final survey was prepared. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Gross to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72061 submitted by McCarthy Construction Company subject to the following conditions 1. The final plat shall be subject to the requirements of the Platting Ordinance (including the bonding requirements of Section 15-109) ; 2. The final plat shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 3. The substandard tract northerly and adjacent to Tract D of R.L.S. #1328 shall be unbuildable until such time as it is combined and developed with said Tract D. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:20 P.M. and resumed at 9:35 P.M. The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72050 submitted by B.C.I.P., Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for a 36 unit condominium townhouse project to be constructed on the 4.45 acre parcel south of 69th Avenue North and westerly of Shingle Creek Parkway. He explained that the project is to be phased, with at least one building to serve as a model structure through the completion of the project. 1 1 1 -4- He stated staff had been concerned with factors such as screening, landscaping, internal roadways and access, and he further noted that the staff had been in consultation with the applicant. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Johnson, representing the applicant, who further explained the detailed planning of the project. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the site layout including the internal roadway network, the provisions for resident parking, and the provision for emergency vehicle access. The Secretary noted the staff recommendation that written pro- vision should be made for access easements to the parcel lying easterly of the subject property, and noted that the primary emer- gency vehicle access would be at the northeast corner of the property approximately where vacated Xerxes Avenue abuts the parcel. Further discussion ensued relative to the type of structures proposed and it was noted that the units are intended to be sold. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Scott to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72050 submitted by B.C.I.P., Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. Drainage and utility provisions are subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 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 installation of site improvements as indicated on the approved plans; 4. Written provision shall be made for access easements to the parcel lying easterly of the subject property; 5. Homeowner Association agreements and by-laws shall be subject to review by the City Attorney. Motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72058 submitted by B.C.I.P.,*nc. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking approval of a preliminary registered land survey for the area generally described as the northeast quadrant of Trunk Highway 100 and Summit Drive. He stated the legal description of the area is "Outlot B, B.C.I.P. Plat One and Lot 1, Block 2, Twin Cities interchange Park Addition and vacated Earle Brown Drive". Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Steven Krogness who represented the applicant and a brief discussion ensued wherein the Director of Public works suggested that documentation should be required formally conveying Tract D as a City street. The Secretary noted the staff recommendation that, in conjunctio: with this application, the Commission should recommend a separate vacating action for that part of Earle Brown Drive lying within the Twin Cities Interchange Plat. 1 1 1 Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Foreman, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72058 submitted by B.C.I.P., Inc. subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval shall be subject to the requirements of the Platting Ordinance; 2. Final survey shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer; 3. Documentation shall be submitted formally conveying Tract D as a City street (Earle Brown Drive) . Motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Applications No. 72021 and 72022 submitted by Swanson Homes. The Secretary introduced Application No. 72021 explaining that the applicant seeks approval of a preliminary plat to permit the development of 11 townhouse condominium units on a parcel west of Lyndale Avenue North between 72nd and 73rd Avenues North. He noted that a portion of the subject property had recently been rezoned to R4. He noted the basic staff reservations regarding the layout. He stated that it appeared the land indicated for open space does not functionally or aesthetically serve the entire development as it might with other possible designs. He also noted that there was concern over the possible ramifications upon the entire area, especially with regard to future uses of the neighboring parcels. The Secretary also introduced Application No. 72022 explaining that the applicant was seeking site and building plan approval for the 11 unit townhouse condominium project. He stated the staff reservations concerning the access and open space layout, namely, the position of the buildings relative to the side yard view of future developments on adjacent lots. He stated that it seemed that other possible designs could better comprehend a planned utilization of open space and access areas more amenable to a small neighborhood, rather than the standard "row house" concept that is indicated. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the provision for resident parking and concern over the type of vehicles that might be parked in the limited amount of space available. Chairman Jensen recognized the applicant, Mr. Harold Swanson, who stated that he had two alternates regarding additional parking for the project. The Director of Public Works commented that there was no effective provision for guest parking. Commissioner Grosshans agreed and noted th„t while there was a need, the basic question was where the additional parking could be placed. Mr. Swanson presented his alternates which indicated extra parking at either end of the development. Commissioner Gross voiced his concern with the effect of the extra parking stalls upon the aesthetics of the development and stated that it appeared that four additional spaces at the easterly end of the project appeared to be the most desirable. i 1 -6- The Director of Public Works reiterated the staff concern relative to the size of the neighboring lots, particularly those to the north, and he noted that they were rendered practically impossible to develop with their zoned use due to their small size and the setback requirements. Extensive discussion ensued and the applicant noted that some attempt had been made to acquire the property but that the price of the land was prohibitive. Commissioner Engdahl stated that it seemed there should be a requirement that there be provisions in the by-laws as to what could be parked on the site, with the intent of prohibiting junk vehicles and recreational vehicles. He said this was vital due to the fact that the storage space of the units was at a premium since there were no basements and that only minimal parking provisions had been made. Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 72021 in that the subject property was unable to adequately support the project such as that proposed, and that the proposed development could have a deleterious effect on the surrounding area. The motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72021 noting that the proposed platting seems to be feasible given the size of the parcel and the nature of the proposed development, and further, the approval is subject to the requirements of the Platting Ordinance. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Gross, Foreman, Scott and Engdahl. Voting against: Commissioner Bogucki. The motion passed. Motion by Commissioner Bogucki to recommend denial of Planning Commission Application No. 72022 noting that the development proposed was too large for the subject parcel; that there appeared to be inadequate parking, landscaping and provision for open space; and that the development as proposed could have a deleterious affect on the surrounding area. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72022 subject to the following conditions: 1. Utility and drainage plans are subject to the approval of the City Engineer; 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 installation of the site improvements as indicated on the approved plans; 4. Homeowner Association agreements and bylaws are subject to review by the City Attorney; -7- S. Four additional parking spaces located at the easterly end of the proposed development shall be provided and shall be adequately screened with berming or fencing, and trees. Voting in favor were: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Gross, Foreman, Scott and Engdahl. Voting against: Commissioner Bogucki. The motion passed. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 72057 and the item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the application was initiated by the City upon the direction of the Council and entailed the rezoning of 7231 and 7211 Lyndale Avenue North and 407 - 73rd Avenue North from Rl to R4. He stated that on June 26, 1972, the City Council had reviewed and approved a rezoning application submitted by Swanson Homes, Inc. , seeking rezoning from R1 to R4 (Application No. 72020) , He stated concern had been stated over the remaining R1 parcels and the City had then initiated the rezoning proceedings. He further noted the property owners involved had been notified and informed of the rationale behind the action and the affected neighboring property owners had also been notified. Chairman Jensen noted that none of the notified property owners was present. A brief discussion ensued relative to the minimum size require- ments for townhouse developments. Concern was also voiced over the result of such a rezoning, in that the existing R1 parcels would become non-conforming uses if the rezoning to R4 were approved, and thus it would be in violation of the ordinance for the existing property owners to substantially improve or otherwise alter their existing homes for R1 uses. Extensive discussion ensued and it was the consensus of the Commission that the Council should be informed of the Commission's concern for the non-conforming use factor, noting that this concern was also evident when the neighboring Thomas Construction property was rezoned to R4. Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Gross to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72057. Motion passed unanimously. In other business, an extensive discussion ensued relative to the proposed Planned Residential Development ordinance amendment. Concern included the recommended three story maximum size of the building; the provision for commercial establishments within the special use; why such commercial establishments could not be permitted in the R4 and R5 districts; the concern with the maximum number of retail units which could be permitted in a given building, in that the number could be excessive and there would be pcssible ramificiations regarding traffic, pedestrian safetX and security. 1 1 1 Chairman Jensen commented that the two basic issued were the maximum height of the buildings and the provision for commercial establishments within the multi-residential buildings. it was the concensus of the Commission that the recommended maximum height of three stories should be retained in the draft ordinance, but that further restrictions or controls should be provided relative to the provision for commercial uses. Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:335 A.M. t' Chairm n 1 1 1