Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 10-19 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission in the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota October 19, 1972 The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:05 P.M. by Chairman Robert Jensen. Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Bogucki, Foreman, Scott, Gross and Engdahl. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere. Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by Commissioner Gross to approve the minutes of the October 5, 1972 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were Chairman Jensem Commissioners Grosshans, Bogucki, Scott, and Gross, not voting were Commissioners Foreman and Engdahl who noted they were not present at the October 5th meeting. The first item of business was continued consideration of a proposed amendment to the site and building plans submitted by Darrel Farr Development Corporation (application No. 70012) for a townhouse project located at County Road 10 and Major Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the Commission had reviewed the sub- mitted plans at the October 5th meeting, and had granted conceptual approval, tabling further consideration to permit the applicant the opportunity to develop more complete revised plans relative to building. design and landscaping. Chairman. Jensen then recognized Mr. McInerny, Mr. Maertens, and Mr. Peeps, who represented the applicant. Chairman Jensen also re- cognized several of the residents. who live along June Avenue North and whose properties abut the townhouse projects. An extensive discussion ensued. relative to the proposed screening along the easterly property line of the project, including protective fencing during the construction period and permanent berming. Chairman Jensen noted the original condition of approval stipulating that a snowfence was to be erected along the west side of the proposed berm to keep out construction debris and to act as a safety barrier to small children. The applicants stated that such fence could and would be installed, preferably after sod Was placed and the bermed area was landscaped. The Director of Public Works suggested that a meeting with the applicant and with the neighbors along June Avenue would be desirable in the hopes of developing a common awareness and agreement as to the landscaping and development along the common property line. Mr. Maertens stated that the applicant was willing to put in additional shrubbery, but felt the need to consult with a profession- al landscape architect. He stated the intent was to actually install more landscaping around the site than was indicated on the plan. Several of the neighbors commented that they felt further assurance was needed from the applicant as to his intentions re- garding the landscaping and overall development -of the project. Chairman Jensen stated his concern that the plans submitted re- presented the bare minimum as required by the ordinance. He stated that as a matter of good quality planning, and in light of the applicants stated intent. to provide more landscaping, such pro- visions should be indicated on the site and building plans. 1 1 1 -2- Commissioner Scott commented that possibly the amended site and building plans could be recommended for approval excepting the land- scape plans which would be subject to Commission and Council review. Mr. McInerny responded that the applicant was not sure exactly what the Planning Commission desired in the way of landscaping, beyond the basic ordinance requirements, and that possibly the Commission should direct the applicant as to the exact type of landscaping required. Chairman Jensen responded that it was not the function of the Planning Commission to design a project but rather to review the total concept of the site, a substantial portion of which was the landscaping. Commissioner Scott amplified her previous remarks stating that what had been submitted represented a minimal effort in providing landscaping, and that there was a need for more sub- stantial landscape treatment of the site. Following further dis- cussion relative to the proposed landscaping, the proposed building plans were reviewed by Mr. peeps, the architect for the applicant. Chairman Jensen inquired as to when the Commission could ex- pect ,revised substantial landscaping plans, and Mr. McInerny responded that it seemed a meeting with the neighbors, a landscape architect, and the City staff would be possible prior to the November 6th City Council meeting. Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Grosshans, seconded by Commissioner Bogucki to 'recommend approval of the amsaal&d s,it® aan,& building plans for Planning Commission aPpli.cation 70012, subject to all previous -conditions of approval as adopted by the City Council on Deoember 13, 1971, excepting the landscape plans which wete subject to review by the Commission and approval by the City Council. In further discussion, Commissioner Gross suggested that the applicant make every attempt to meet with the various parties con- cerned relative to the landscaping by the November 2nd regular Planning Commission meeting, so that the entire package of amended ? plans could be submitted to the Council for review at the November 6th meeting. Chairman Jensen then called for a vote; the motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:40 P.M. and resumed at 10:00 p.M. Commissioner Bogucki commented relative to the substantial amount of time devoted at study meetings to regular agenda items. He stated that it was apparent there were a number of study items which needed attention and that it was virtually impossible for the Commission to give them full consideration because of the large number of agenda items which were presented for review. The secretary responded that every effort was made to bring to the study sessions only those agenda items which had been tabled or those which could not possibly be considered at a regular meeting due to a large number of regular items. Following further 4"cussion,, Chairman Jensen noted that it was the consensus of the Commission that the third Thursday meeting of the Planning Commission be reserved solely for study items and that if there were an accural of pending regular agenda items, a special meeting at another time should be arranged. t i -3- The next item of business was consideration of a proposed Freeway Development District. Commissioner Gross offered comments as to the items in the existing commercial zones and industrial zones which should be included in the freeway district, and noted that all uses in a freeway district should be permitted as a special use. Commissioner Gross left the meeting at 10:10 P.M. Extensive discussion then ensued as to the desirability of various commercial uses in a freeway-oriented district. Following the discussion, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the staff should develop a draft ordinance amendment providing for a freeway development district, noting the concerns of the Commission and further, that the staff should arrange a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss the available research material as well as the proposed draft ordinance amendment.- ; Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Foreman to adjourn the meeting, The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 11:25 P.M. Chairma 1 1 1