Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 10-05 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota October 5, 1972 The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:05 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Scott and Gross. Also present were Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere and Director of Public Works James Merila. Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Gross, to approve the minutes of the September 21, 1972, meeting as submitted. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Grosshans arrived at 8:10 P.M. The first item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72073 submitted by Consolidated Financial Corporation (B.C.I.P.) . The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was seeking rezoning from I-1 to C-2 of a parcel adjacent to one recently recommended for similar action, in the area bounded by I-94 on the south an8 Shingle Creek Greenstrip on the northeast. He stated the subject parcel consists of 19.27 acres. The Secretary further explained that the Council had tabled the previous rezoning request to permit renewed consideration of a "free- way zone" which would comprehend a mixture of industrial and commercial freeway oriented uses. He stated that the action by the Council was taken to prevent circumstances which might complicate or adversely affect- the possible establishment of a freeway zone in that area. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Steven Krogness, a represent- ative of the applicant, who stated the proposed rezoning would assist in a pending re-financing of the industrial park property. He stated that he would prefer the Commission to take final action in recommvend- ing the rezoning to the Council rather than tabling the application pending further review of the freeway zone concept. Chairman Jensen briefly reviewed past efforts by the Commission and Council to develop a freeway zone and Mr. Krogness stated that it had seemed that the City preferred to have land such as the subject parcel rezoned on an individual basis; thus, requests had not been submitted previously for rezoning of larger areas until a prospective use had been determined for them. Commissioner Bogucki responded that the City had not promoted the concept of spot zoning in the area but rather the Commission and Council had been concerned with the many ramifications of a freeway zone proposal such as signery and the orderly development of the area abutting the freeway. He further stated that the Commission should be assured that roads and utilities would be adequately provided for the subject area. The Secretary commented briefly as to the Council action relative to the prior rezoning request, and the reasons for deferral. An extensive discussion ensued as to what action should be taken with the application, and Commissioner Gross stated that the Commission should recommend rezoning and send it on to the Council, thus exemplifying the immediate need to develop a freeway zone proposal. 1 1 1 -2- Chairman Jensen stated that the Council had suggested a joint meeting with the Commission relative to the development of a freeway zone concept and asked that the staff coordinate the timing :of such a meeting. Relative to a comment by Commissioner Gross that the application should be passed on to the Council, the Secretary explained that the staff had not fully analyzed the application, assuming that it would be deferred as the previous application. He stated that the staff was unable to make a recommendation at this time based upon the merits of the application, but that in any case, the desire to re-finance the land was not substantial grounds for rezoning. He stated further that the application should be deferred by the Planning Commission rather than the City Council so that if a freeway zone were not established, the Staff and Commission could renew consideration of the application based on its own merits. A discussion then ensued relative to the various aspects which would be considered relative to the development of a freeway zone and Chairman Jensen commented that it would seem the primary use would be commercial. The Secretary noted that concern had been voiced at the Council meeting to the effect that a freeway zone with controlled development was preferable to standard commercial zoning because of the ramifi- cations that possible indiscriminate commercial development could have upon other commercial areas throughout the City. Commissioner Gross inquired relative to the development of the p-Lf,)v<1sed Freeway Boulevard and the Director of Public Works responded that the developer had requested such an extension which had been considered by the City council. He said at the present time it was not intended to extend 65th Avenue in the 1972 construction season. He stated that the staff and City Council had carefully considered the various assessment risks involved in fully developing utilities north of the freeway before the improved areas south of the freeway were developed. Following ftrther discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to table Planning Commission Application No. 72073 for further discussion, pending the development of a freeway zone concept. Motion passed unanimously.' The next item of business was Planning Commission Application No. 72075 submitted by Brooklyn Center Development Corporation. The item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was s6eking site and building plan approval for a warehouse on a parcel easterly of the municipal garage on 69th Avenue North. He stated the size of the proposed building was approximately 113,412 square feet and the site area was approximately 9 acres. He stated that this would be the fourth such warehouse and that the plans indicate 10,400 square feet would initially be utilized for office space. He stated however that based upon the 309 parking spaces actually provided, the staff had determined that potentially over 45,000 square feet could go to office use. Commissioner Gross noted that the applicant had apparently indi- cated on the plans submitted an access to the site from 69th Avenue. He inquired why that area was not clearly delineated on the land- scaping plan. The Secretary and the Director of Public Works responded 1 1 1 -3- that, in consultation with the applicant, it had been the determination that an established access point on to 69th Avenue was not desirable for a variety of regsotisy In further discussion, Mr. Krogness, who represented the appli- cant, responded to Commissioner Gross stating that the applicant had initially proposed the access since the roadway through the industrial park area was not complete. He said the applicant still maintained that a temporary access should be authorized and requested that the Commission recommend such authorization. He stated that the temporary access would be used initially by the construction vehicles and until such time as a bridge was completed over Shingle Creek. The Secretary stated that while the indicated point off of 69th Avenue North might indeed be used by construction vehicles, there were certain serious ramifications as to designating the area for temporary access purposes. He recalled the experience with the Super Valu Store and the approved "temporary" access which opened on to Xerxes Avenue. The Secretary further stated there were several other reasons why such access was not recommended. He noted that the long range developmental plans for the industrial park comprehended an internal roadway access system, with the traffic generated by the various commercial and industrial uses being focused upon it, not upon peripheral roads. The Director of Public Works amplified the Secretary's remarks, noting the status of the roadway system in the industrial park area, as well as the possible ramifications of a direct access from an industrial use upon County Road 130. Mr. Krogness stated that heavy vehicle access on to 69th Avenue from the proposed warehouse was similar to that of the heavy truck traffic generated from the municipal garage. Commissioner Gross agreed, stating that many utility and heavy duty vehicles left and returned to the municipal garage daily. Commissioner Bogucki responded that the relationship between a private industrial use and a public utility maintenance garage was not similar, and that it appeared sufficient access was provided within the farm development area and would be substantially upgraded in the future. He noted that an access opening on to 69th Avenue would probably develop into a "short-cut" thoroughfare for ingress and egress from the entire industrial park area. An extensive discussion ensued and Commissioner Jensen stated that he was apprehensive about the applicant's proposal for even a temporary access because of undesirable ramifications of establishing a precedent for similar uses in the area. The Director of Public Works commented that the two-inch ash trees indicated were relatively small, given the large size of the building and the site. He suggested that the Commission consider requiring 3h to 4 inch trees instead. Chairman Jensen agreed stating that the concern was most warrented given the residential uses across the street. Consideration was directed to the proposed parking and the type of use proposed for the building. Commissioner Grosshans stated that the Commission and Council should consider establishing a single parking requirement for the I-1 district, which would comprehend the various potential uses such as office and warehouse which now have separate ordinance treatment. 1 1 1 -4- It was noted further that the pending consideration of a freeway zone might provide flexibility by including commercial uses as well as office and industrial uses through the creation of an effective parking capacity formula. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72075 submitted by Brooklyn Center Development Corporation subject to the following conditions; I. The applicant shall specify on the final plans the exterior finish of the proposed structure; 2. The ash and sugar maple plantings along the 69th Avenue side of the site should be at least 3h inches in diameter; 3. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building Inspector with respect to applicable building codes; 4. Utility and drainage plans including berming specifications are subject to approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 5. A performance bond and performance agreement (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 designated on the approved plans; 6. There shall be no access point on to 69th Avenue North. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 70012 submitted by the Darrel A. Farr Development Corp. (formerly Viewcon, Inc.) . The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant had submitted new conceptual plans for the townhouse project on 58th Avenue North (formerly Chessman Townhouses) which indicated site modifications, another building and a reduction of the total number of dwelling units from 44 to 40. He explained that the applicant was seeking amendment of the previously approved site and building plans. He noted that while the staff had reviewed the submitted plans and had determined that they were satisfactory for conceptual review, there was notably lacking from the new drawings a landscaping plan. He stated that since no such plan had been submitted it was difficult to surmise the intended placement of new trees and the disposition of existing trees since a comparison of the new site plan with the former landscaping plan indicated entire groups of trees (existing and intended) being replaced by buildings. He further noted that there had been some alteration of the proposed berming and that the installation of swales for drainage purposes was indicated on the new plans. He further noted the staff opinion that the conceptual plans represented a major amendment to the original plan and thus merited full review by the Commission and Council. Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Mclnerny and Mr. Maertens, representatives of the applicant. Mr. Maertens briefly explained that the original project had been deemed unmarketable, and thus the site and buildings had been re-designed in a fashion considered more palatable to current buyers. He stated that it was the appli- 1 1 1 -5- cant's desire to secure approval of the amended plans and to proceed immediately with various site improvements and installation of footings before winter. He said that complete revised plans would be submitted within 30 days. In response to questions by the Commission, the Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed drainage and site plans and stated that the basic drainage plan was similar to the original, although some contour lines were not indicated on the new plans. He further discussed the new proposed berming and swale installation and emphasized the prior concern of the Commission and Council with effective screening to be provided along the east property line. Mr. Maertens stated that it was the applicant 's intent to con- struct the effective screening and that it could be accomplished this fall. Chairman Jensen then reviewed the previous conditions of approval and noted the neighborhood concern over appropriate berming. He further stated that such effective screening, including installatiop of snow fencing and the actual berming were to be constructed during the initial stages of the project. Commissioner Gross read the minutes reflecting the conditions of approval and specifically the requirement for appropriate fencing along the east property line. He noted a letter dated July 5th from Mr. Tremere to the applicant stating that it had been brought to the City's attention that the fencing and other effective screening had not been provided; he further noted a responding letter dated July 7, 1972, from Mr. Van- F.eckhout, representing the applicant, who stated a fence had been originally installed but that several, residents had indicated they would prefer the fence removed. Mr. VanFeckhout had further stated that the neighborhood along June Avenue had been canvassed by a Viewcon, Inc. employee who was able to contact all but two of the residents and that 100% of those contacted indicated they would prefer to have the fence taken down, this being done on approximately June 10, 1972. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Floyd Buehler, 5537 June Avenue North, who stated that his wife had been one of those polled by the applicant, and that both he and his wife were opposed to the removal of the fence. Mr. Buehler further stated his concern with the present status of the construction site which lacked fencing and effective screening, and noted that footings had been set for another building and that the open basement represented a serious hazard for the neighborhood. Chairman Jensen noted that several residents of the area were present and he requested the applicant and the Director of Public Works to review for the residents the proposed changes. Mr. Maertens discussed the intent of the proposed amendments noting the proposed berming, the change in location of the buildings and the number of units and the general site development. Mr. Maertens further noted the new exterior design of the buildings. The Director of Public Works then commented relative to the proposed changes in the site and drainage and reiterated that no landscaping was indicated on the new plans. Commissioner Gross inquired relative to the drainage between the houses on June Avenue and the construction site. Several of the residents indicated that the water was collecting in their back yards due to the incomplete drainage construction of the townhouse project. 1 1 1 -6- Chairman Jensen again recognized Mr. Buehler who stated his concern with the sight effects of the proposed straight line design. He stated that there was no variation and that this was not aesthe- tically desirable. Mr. Maertens responded that the site in general was still open and that the total number of living units had been reduced. Mr. Almen of 5925 June Avenue North inquired relative to the price range of the houses and Mr. Maertens responded that the units would be individually owned and would be roughly in the range of $30,000 to $35,000 apiece. An extensive discussion ensued and Mr. Maertens re-emphasized that the applicants desire to proceed before winter with the various site improvements, including utility installation and the construction of footings. He stated this would be done with the assurance that the Building Inspection Department would be given complete revised plans in the near future. The Secretary commented that the Building Inspector had indicated the submitted building plans were not comprehensive and that to permit the installation of footings would be to implicitly approve the finished building. He stated the Building Inspector could not issue permits based upon the available data. The Secretary further stated that the applicant had further indicated to the staff on several occasions that the plans were conceptual in nature and thus since they represented major changes in the site and building development they merited full review. chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Buehler who stated his concern with the continuous development of the project and commented that the Council had assured the residents of the neighborhood that they would have the opportunity for full review of submitted plans. Chairman Jensen agreed, stating that it was not consistent commission policy to approve site and building plans without more substantial plans than those submitted by the applicant. Commissioner Gross stated that the basic issue was the lack of landscaping plans which were essential for a project of this size. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Henry of 5819 June Avenue North, who noted many of the residents along June Avenue had felt a degree of deception regarding the prior plans submitted, particu- larly in light of the stated value of the units. He further commented that it appeared the City staff as well as the neighborhood had spent substantial time reviewing the original plans and that not much has been accomplished in a year. Commissioner Gross and Chairman Jensen further explained the relationship of approved conceptual plans versus a final recommend- ation based upon review of complete site and building plans. Chairman Jensen polled the Commission regarding the concept represented by the plans submitted and it was the consensus of the Commission that the conceptual plans were acceptable, but that more detailed data was required relative to landscaping, building design and screening. In further discussion the Secretary and Director of public works commented that it appeared that basic utility and roadway changes were merely modifications of the already approved plans and that upon review by the Engineer (per the standard conditions of approval) work could proceed with that site development. 1 1 1 -7- It was noted that since the berming along the east property line was also a condition of the original approval, work could proceed in that respect. Several residents commented that they desired an assurance from the City that the earlier approved berming along the property line would be done as soon as possible. Commissioner Scott inquired as to the tot lot which had been indicated on the original plans but was not on the revised site plan. Mr. Maertens stated that the tot lot would be installed as originally intended. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Scott to table further consideration of Planning Commission Application No. 70012 to permit the applicant the opportunity to develop more complete revised plans with regard to building design and landscaping. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 10:55 P.M. and resumed at 11:12 P.M. Chairman Jensen left the table at 11:13 P.M. The next item of business was consideration of Planning Commissio. Application No. 72076 submitted by Mr. Gene Kasmar. The item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the applicant requested variances from Section 35-311 (accessory building in R2 districts) and Section 35-400 (setback requirements) to permit construction of a 484 square foot addition to an existing 484 square foot garage on his property at 5559 Lyndale Avenue North. He stated the applicant had indicated his desire to double the size of the present garage to permit the pursuit of a year round hc�l�1}y �l♦: YF,st �r:ir.c� vi.aacq.i n automobiles. He further explained the present garago had a si.deyard setback of 7'h feet and the ordinance requires 25 feet. He stated the 17.5 foot variance existed as a non-conforming use, and the proposal represented a major addition to that use. He noted the applicant contended that the garage was structurally sound and useable for its current purpose of parking the family automobile, and that to move or relocate the structure would be a physical and unncessary hardship. The Secretary further commented that in this regard the proxi- mity of proposed I-94 and the planned termination of 56th Avenue near the property were noted, in that there would be no apparent detrimental effect upon the traffic on that street or upon the residential uses on the adjacent property. The Secretary further explained that in addition, the applicant sought a variance from the ordinance provision requiring that the ground coverage area of an accessory building shall not exceed 75% of the ground coverage area of the dwelling building or 1,000 square feet, whichever is lesser. He noted that 75/ of the ground coverage area of the 1,097 square foot house was 823 square feet, and that the size of the proposed garage with the addition was 1,068 square feet; thus, the variance was for 265 square feet. . In this regard he noted the applicant contended that the large lot size, the design of the proposed addition and the fact that the adjacent property has been acquired by the freeway right-of-way made the property unique. The applicant noted that a hardship was 1 1 1 realized regarding the capability to providing adequate enclosed space for the pursuit of his hobby, providing a noise and sight buffer from the freeway, and providing an aesthetic improvement of an older property. The applicant also discussed his hobby and the need for a minimum amount of working space, represented by the proposed addition. Commissioner Bogucki discussed the variance standards with the applicant, noting the concern of the City with establishing a possibly undesirable precedent. The applicant further discussed his needs for his hobby as well as the unique location of his property. The Secretary noted that the proposal represented an upgrading of the parcel by the owner and occupant for a bonafide use and that given the size of the lot, the affect of an accessory building, 265 square feet in excess of the allowed maximum was not dispro- portionate. Commissioner Grosshans stated that it appeared the significant factors were the location of the property to the proposed freeway, the termination of 56th Avenue near the property and the size of the property. The Director of Public Works commented relative to the screening effect of the proposed building. Chairman Pro-tem Grosshans noted that none of the notified property owners was present. Following further discussion, there .was a motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to recommend approval of Planning Commission Application No. 72076 submitted by Gene Kasmar in that the standards for variance apparently have been met, noting: 1) the location of the property to the proposed freeway; 2) the proposed termination of 56th Avenue; 3) the size of the subject property; 4) the fact that there were no residents adjacent to the proposed addition. The motion passed unanimously. in other business a brief discussion ensued relative to a develop- ment of a freeway zone concept. It was the consensus of the Commission that the staff should develop a package of reference data based upon the provisions for freeway oriented business districts by other suburban communities; and further, that the Secretary should coordinate a joint meeting with the City Council. The Secretary noted that the Council had requested the Commission to review the ordinance provisions for special home occupation permits and to consider possible revisions of those requirements. Motion by Commissioner Gross, seconded by Commissioner Scott, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Chi n 1 1 1