HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 12-14 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Planning Commission of the City of
Brooklyn Center in the County of
Hennepin and State of Minnesota
December 14, 1972
The Planning Commission met in special session and was called to
order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:00 P.M.
Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans,
Scott, Foreman, Gross and Engdahl. Also present were Director of
Public Works James Merila and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere.
Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by Commissioner Scott
to approve the minutes of the December 7, 1972 meeting as submitted.
Motion passed unanimously.
The first item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 72077 submitted by B.C.I.P. , Inc. The
Secretary introduced the item stating that the Commission had
recommended approval of the application for site and building plan
approval for a 40,000 square foot addition to the Arctic Metals
Manufacturing facility on November 2, 1972. He stated that a stand-
by liquified petroleum tank had been indicated on the submitted plans
at that time and the determination had been made in discussion with
the applicant, that there should be no above ground storage of
auxiliary or production fuels and that the applicanrt had further
agreed that the tank would be buried.
The Secretary coma-m-nted that since then, the applicant had in-
dicated a desire for an above grovxtid facsi I.i.ty since he had 13cLOX'Mjp,"
the standby facility could be used to refuel tanks for fork-lifts
and other factory vehicles and had been informed that an above grade
holding tank would be necessary to perform this function. The
Secretary noted that the staff had thus informed the applicant that
Commission review of such an amendment would be required. He noted
that substantial research had been conducted regarding the location _,
and design of standby gas facilities.
The Secretary explained that fire officials, planning and
building officials, as well as representatives of various gas
suppliers had been contacted relative to their opinions and exper-
iences with standby gas facilities.
He recalled that the recommendation originally had been to in-
corporate the standby gas tank with a berm, thus providing effective
screening of the tank itself as well as screening from a truck
maneuvering area. He stated that as a result of the research, it
had been determined another acceptable alternative for this par-
ticular site was the location of the standby gas tank in the area
indicated, to include the following design features:
An opaque wall constructed of material similar or compatible
in nature to those used for the main building would completely
surround the tank providing complete visual screenings and
the area around the structure would be curbed with a greenstrip
between the curbing and the edge of the structure. He noted
that fire officials had suggested the possibility of providing
several courses of a ventilated block near the bottom of the
structure to permit the diffusion of the heavier-than-air
liquified petroleum, should a leak develop.
Chairman Jensen recognized Mr. Ed Nordquist who represented the
applicant and an extensive discussion ensued regarding the visual
impact of the proposed structure. A sketch of such a structure ,Whs
-2-
reviewed and Commissioner Grosm commented that possibly the' west wall
of the screening structure might be extended to provide visual screen-
ing from the truck maneuvering area.
Following further discussion regarding the security of the
ot_ructure as well as accessibility for emergency purposes, there was
a motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Commissioner Foreman to
recontmetad appx-oval of planning Commission Application No. 72077
submitted by B. C:'I.p. , as amended, subject to the following
conditions;
1. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building
Inspector with respect to applicable building codes;
2. Utility drainage and elevation plans are subject to the
approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the
building permit;
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 site improvements designated on the
approved site plans;
4. Provision shall be made in constructing the building to
insure compliance with the ordinance special requirements
for the I-2 district with particular regard for limitations
on sound, vibration and outdoor storage;
6. Concrete parking lot delineators shall be installed in the
automobile parking area as indicated on the approved plans;
6. The proposed standby gas facility shall be located in the
area indicated on the approved plans subject to the
following:
a) The storage tank shall be enclosed on all sides so
to provide complete visual screening;
b) The enclosure shall be constructed of materials
which are structurally similar and aesthetically
compatible with those of the main building;
c) The west wall of the structure shall be extended
to the north and south so to provide effective
visual screening from the truck maneuvering area
as indicated on the approved plans;
d) B-612 type curbing shall be provided around the
perimeter of the structure allowing for a three
foot greenstrip between the curb and the walls
with the exception of the access area on the
easterly side of the structure;
e) A ventilated concrete block may be used on the
lower courses of the walls so to provide effective
ventilation of the holding tank.
The motion passed unanimously.
The next item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 72003 submitted by B.C.I.P. , Inc. The
item was introduced by the Secretary who stated the applicant was
seeking approval of site and building plans for a thirteen storey
122-unit apartment building which had been authorized under the
FHA "236" housing program. He, stated the proposed site was a 4. 36
-3-
acre tract located in the R-7 District south of the City Hall.
The Secretary further commented the participation in the
housing program, which includes subsidization through tax credits
and low cost financing was authorized by the City Council earlier
in the year. He stated the project was intended to provide housing
for persons with low to moderate income.
The Secretary further noted that several discussions had been
held with the applicant and the architect regarding such factors as
fire safety, site layout, aesthetics of the development and the
quality of the living environment and amenities to the project.
He further noted that correspondence was on file from the
developer indicating that a cost analysis of a fire sprinkling
system for the structure was underway, and he noted that this data
and consequent determinations were not yet available. He noted that
thetAcveloper had ,indicated an intent to install such a system
should it prove to be economically feasible, but that if the cost .
were prohibitive and no recourse were found, the project probably
would be withdrawn.
Chairman Jensen then recognized Mr. Paul Pink, Mr. Janis
Blumentals and Mr. Harold Feuerhelm who represented the applicant.
Mr. Pink presented slides and explained the proposed project. He
noted in particular that approximately half of the required parking
spaces would be initially provided with the area for the balance of
the spaces being utilized as a recreational and green area until
such time additional parking was required.
He further noted the provision of units for the handicapped,
He also commented as to the interior and exterior finish of the
building stating the exterior would be compatible with the Civic
Center complex. in response to Commissioner Bogucki who noted that
asphalt tile was proposed throiighout the apartment units in lieu of
any carpeting, Mr. Pink stated this was due to budgeting considera-
tions.
Commissioner Bogucki also inquired as to whether central air
conditioning was provided and the response was in the negative.
Commissioner Engdahl inquired as to the type of heating system and
Mr. Pink responded that a central hot water baseboard system would
be installed. He commented that the rent included all utilities
with the exception of telephone charges.
An extensive discussion ensued relative to the determination of
rental policies for the project. Mr. Pink responded to a question
by Commissioner Bogucki that the guidelines and definitions for low
to moderate income classes were defined by federal regulations. He
further explained that the FHA established essentially three rental
categories; (1) The "market" rental value which was determined by
prevailing rental rates in a given community; (2) the "basic" rental
category established by the FHA; and, (3) the "supplemental" rental
category which was also established by the FHA. Mr. Feuerhelyd ex-
plained that the intent of the housing program was to provide living
units at the basic rental rate and at the supplemental rate which
was subsidized by the federal government.
He explained that ten per cent of the living units were to be
reserved for persons in the low income category who qualified for
the supplemental rent and that the remainder of the units were in-
tended to be provided at the basic rental level. He noted that any
units rented at the prevailing market rate would not be credited to
the developer in terms of certain subsidy provisions.
-4-
Mr. Pink explained further that experience with such housing
indicated that all the units would be occupied by those who qualified
either for the supplemental or basic rents.
Chairman Jensen inquired what the ramifications would be if the
Project were disassociated with the FHA 11236" housing program. Mr.
Feuerhelm responded that it was difficult to make a determination
now in that it would be a long time before the rents could be raised
to such a level so that the low interest FHA loan could be entirely
paid off.
The Director of Public Works commented that the concession to
the developer of initially permitting only partial provision for the
required parking spaces was based upon the assump .ion that while a
set percentage of the units were intended for the low or supple-
mental income category, the balance would be rented to those of
moderate income. He stated that consequently it had been determined
that there would be one vehicle or less per unit. Chairman Jensen
responded -that it did not appear one could equate the number of cars
to income, in that cheap cars occupy the same amount of space as
more expensive cars. Commissioner Bogucki stated that parking
problems may be realized immediately, and Commissioner Foreman noted
that even if all the required parking spaces were provided, there
would be approximately one stall per unit and virtually no parking
for guests.
Mr. Feuerhelm responded that experience with such projects in-
dicated a large number of elderly occupants did not own cars and Mr.
Pink responded that based upon observation of similar devvelopment-s,.
such as the" high rise 6ubsidized 'project in Hopkins, a one- to—cyne
parking ratio was more than ample. He stated that plans were now
being made to eliminate some of the parking area of that development
to return it to open space use.
Mr. Trucker who represented the contractor responded that his
experience had also shown that a one--to-one parking ratio was more
than ample and that much of the parking areas were not used at all
since many occupants did not have automobiles.
.Chairman Jensen inquired as to how the determination could be
made that the units would be rented entirely to the elderly and the
response was that, while discriminating restrictions could not be
established, allowing rental only by elderly persons, the management
could exercise a certain amount of screening of applicants.
Chairman Jensen then inquired as to the status of the proposed
installation of a fire sprinkler system. Mr. Feuerhelm responded
that the applicant had been in communication with the City Manager
and that the understanding was that any approval by the Commission
or City Council would be qualified to the extent that it was the
applicant's intent to install a fire sprinkler system should it
prove to be economically feasible. He said that if the determination
were made that such a system could not be provided at this time, the
project application would be withdrawn.
He stated that it was the applicant's intent to proceed with
the review and approval process at this time so that if the question
of the fire sprinkler system was resolved in the affirmative, build-
ing permits could be secured prior to the end of the year.
An expensive discussion ensued relative to the provision of
fire sprinkler systems in high rise residential buildings. Mr. Pink
stated that his firm had designed over 15,000 living units and that
none had been provided with sprinklers. He stated that basically
it was a matter of economics, and they were not required by the
Uniform Building Code. He said however, that he could not argue
with the enhancement of life safety provided by such a system. He
stated the question was particularly crucial with subsidized housing
since the developer was faced with a difficult economic situation.
Chairman Jensen then responded that the City too faced such -an
economic situation in that if sprinklers wexe not installed in the
building, there would be an obligation on the part of the community
to provide fire protection for the building at a substantial cost.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that in terms of economics, there was a
substantial difference between the cost of the sprinkler system and
the investment in the accruisition and maintenance of fire fighting
equipment as well as the training and recruitment of adequate
personnel.
Further discussion ensued regarding the provisions of the pro-
posed ordinance amendment providing that fire sprinkler systems be
installed in all residential structures exceeding three stories in
height, and the possible ramifications for the present application.
The Secretary explained that the primary basis for considering a
fire sprinkling system in the present project was the communication
between the applicant and the City including the statement of intent
to provide such a system. He noted that the ordinance, if adopted,
would not become effective until January 6, 1973, and that the
applicant desired to secure building permits if possible prior to
the end of this year in light of the increased sewer access charges.
Commissioner Foreman incuired as to the effect of the structure
upon the City's communication system and the Secretary replied that
it was likely the mass of the high rise building ww lrl rarti_ally
inhibit the City' s broadcasting r-apaiili.ti.es. He noted the recom-
mendation that an easement similar to a utility easement be col,vol.o]
to provide access by the City to the building for purposes of in-
stalling and maintaining such enuipment that might be recruired to
supplement the municipal communication system.
Extensive discussion ensued relative to the Commission's con-
cern that there be assurance an effective fire sprinkling system
be provided in the proposed structure. Commissioner Gross inquired
whether the pending ordinance amendment recTuiring sprinkling systems
in high rise buildings, or the increased sewer access charge after
the first of the year could be used to persuade federal officials
to increase the funding to provide for a sprinkler system.
Mr. Trucker responded that it was not likely that the FHA
would provide extra funds on that basis. He stated that it was
unlikely additional FHA funding would be made available and that the
primary resource was an increase in the rents.
Mr. Pink commented that since the basic rent structure ceiling
was determined in part by the prevailing market rental value, a
sprinkler system probably could be afforded if the proposed develop-
ment were located in Edina for example, since the market value was
higher there, and thus there would be more latitude for raising the
rent. He stated that given the lower market rental rate in Brooklyn
Center, there was very little margin to work with.
Following further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner
Gross seconded by Commissioner Engdahl to recommend approval of
Planning Commission Application No. 72083 submitted by B.C.I.P. ,Inc.
subject to the following conditions;
1. Utility, site and grading plans are subject to approval by
the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits;
-6-
2. Complete building plans, including a fire sprinkling
system as per the December 11, 1972 letter of intent
submitted by the applicant, are subject to review and
approval by the Building Inspector prior to the issuance
of building permits;
3. A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an
amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to assure approved site improvements;
4. A portion of the required parking as indicated on approved
plans may be deferred until such time as;
a. It is deemed necessary by the City
b. The development is disassociated from the subsidized
housing program under which construction was
authorized.
5. Sidewalk in the immediate vicinity of the building shall
be concrete including all entrances;
6. Documentation conveying an easement providing for access
by the City to the top of the structure, and for the in-
stallation and maintenance of necessary communication
ecruipment by the City shall be submitted and approved
prior to the issuance of building permits.
The motion passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed at 10:40 P.M. and resumed at 10:55 P.M.
The neat item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 72004 submitted by Henry Stencruist. The__.._
item was introduced by the Secretary who explained the application
had been reviewed in a conceptual context at the December 7, 1972
meeting and had been tabled to permit the applicant the opportunity
to submit complete plans.
He explained that the applicant was proposing construction of a
42-unit townhouse project on an "L" shaped R-3 parcel which abuts
the C-2 tract at the northwest intersection of 66th and Lyndale
Avenues North. He stated that the applicant had applied the density
credit permitted by ordinance by providing parking spaces beneath
the structures, and he noted that without such credit, the ordinance
would allow for approximately 37 units.
He reviewed the concerns of the Commission over the relatively
high density of the buildings on the site, which was acknowledged as
being difficult to develop; and the concern for the provision for
two 2-unit structures which were not comprehended by the ordinance
definition o_` 'townhouses.
Commissioner Foreman inquired as to the status of the easement
which extended through a portion of the site from that point of the
northerly boundary abutting Fifth Street North. The Director of
Public Works responded that the sixty foot easement was for utility
purposes and that the applicant had indicated a desire to reduce
that easement, He stated that while the City had no particular
objection to reducing the width of the easement to approximately
twenty feet as proposed, that action would have to be initiated by
the applicant through appropriate legal channels.
Chairman Jensen then recognized the applicant who presented
renderings of the proposed site and buildings. Mr. Stenquis-t. _com-
mented that several alternatives had been considered in designing
the project and, with specific reference to the two 2-unit structures,
-T-
he stated that they were as townhouses in that they were an integral
part of the overall project. A discussion ensued between the
applicant and Commissioner Foreman who inquired relative to removing
the two unit structures to provide for green area, noting that the
ordinance required that townhouse developments have a large identi-
fiable open space.
Commissioner Gross initiated an extensive discussion regarding
the possibility of trading off a portion of the R-3 zoned land with
a portion of the parcels zoned C-2, since there was common owner-
ship of the parcels. The applicant stated that consideration had
been given this possibility but, in light of the pending increase
of the sewer access charge, as well as the desire of the applicant
to proceed with the project as soon as possible, that alternative
was not now being pursued.
A brief discussion ensued relative to the possible development
of the C-2 land and the applicant stated that consideration was
being given to providing uses which would serve the townhouse de-
velopment such as a fast food operation and possibly some profession-
al offices or recreational facilities.
The Director of public Works commented that the Commission had
been consistently concerned with the possible upgrading of trunk
highway 169 and the ramifications upon abutting property. He stated
that consideration might be given to a slight re-alignment of the
units at the easterly end of the proposed project increasing the
setback from the minimum 50 feet. He said this should provide
adecruate driveway area if a substantial portion of the setback were
taken for right-of-way. The applicant stated that this would be
indicated on the final plans.
The Director of public Works also stated that it would be
advisable that the property owners to the north of the project be
made aware of the proposed plans.
In response to a question by Commissioner Gross, the Director
of public Works stated some further deliberation was necessary with
the applicant regarding certain drainage and grading details for
the site.
Commissioner Gross commented that he did not feel that he could
vote for the proposal as� submitted due to the high density of" the "
units,- the proposed two 2-unit structures which in effect were
duplexes and -not townhouses; and, the lack of a large identifiable
open space for the project. He stated also that he felt the con-
cept of` a rezoning action or trade off presented the po'ssibil`ities
for a more desirable project design, but that further input would
be necessary to properly evaluate the idea.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that he essentially agreed and was
particularly concerned about the seemingly attractive alternative
of utilizing a`"rezoning action or a land trade off between 'the R-3
parcel and the C-2, parcel so to provide a more workable site for a
townhouse development. He stated in regard to the density of the
units that even though the number of units was within the ordinance
renuirements, he did not feel the tight effect was desirable as a
matter of sound 'planning.
Extensive discussion ensued and the applicant noted that more
effective green space' had been provided with the plans under review
than with ati straight,. rowhouse concept which actually consumed more' "'
of the land because of separate garages. The applicant noted that
while he agreed with the basic principle of the possible rezoning
of portions. of the R-3 and C-2 properties to provide for a better-.
land use the ro
p posed plan represented .a development which .met
with ordinance rermirements and which was designed for a parcel
which had been zoned by the City despite its configuration.
Mr. Stenc*uist also inquired about the possibility of securing
approval for the westerly portion of the proposed project so that
construction could begin and thus the issue of realigning the
northerly portion of the project via rezoning action could be
deferred.
Commissioner Engdahl stated that he could not vote for a partial
approval on that basis. Commissioner Bogucki stated however, that
various options comprehending the proposed development could be pre-
sented to the Council for final determination. Commissioner Engdahl
responded that approval of partial plans or concept would be un-
acceptable to the Council in light of their recent comments to the
Commission regarding action on incomplete plans.
Chairman Jensen stated that his prime concern was with the pro-
posed high density and seeming overcrowding of the units. -
Further discussion ensued relative to the layout of the project
and the applicant noted that he had prepared an alternative site
design plan which comprehended the blimination of the two 2-unit
structures, a consequent reduction of the total number of units to
38, and the provision for a identifiable open space in the north-
westerly corner of the project. He stated that the alternative was
workable though not preferred for financial reasons.
He further commented that in addition to the shifting of units
to provide for the open area, the number of swimming pools would be
reduced to six. He emphasized that while tuck-under garages had
been provided, no density credit was utilized with this alternative.
Commissioner Engdahl stated that the Planning Commission was
being cruite flexible in that consideration was being given to the
alternative site design even though the balance of the site and
building plans were not based upon that concept. Chairman Jensen
stated that the alternative presented a much more acceptable design
by providing a density more adaptable to the particular site.
In further discussion the applicant stated than the balance of
the rectuired site and building plans could be revised prior to the
City Council meeting to conform with the alternate site design.
Commissioner Engdahl stated that since the primary concern of
the Commission had been with the number of units on the site and the
lack of a relatively large identifiable open space and since the
applicant's alternate site design reduced the number of units and
provided such an open space area, he felt a recommendation for
approval could be made to the Council, if the applicant could re-
vise the balance of the site and building plans to conform with the
alternate site plans.
After further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner
F;ngdahl seconded by Commissioner Grosshans to recommend approval
of Planning Commission Application No. 72084 noting that the site
and building plans had been reviewed and that approval was for site
and building plans based upon the alternate site design indicated on
sheet 1—D, dated December 13, 1972 and subject to the following
conditions;
1. Drainage, grading and utility plans are subject to approval
by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building
permits.
-9-
2. Building plans are subject to the approval of the Building
Inspector with respect to applicable building codes prior
to the issuance of building permits; `
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 improve-
ments as shown on the approved plans;
4. All roadways, utilities, and street lighting shall conform
to City standards set forth for public facilities;
5. The ownership, management, and maintenance of all outside
common areas and common facilities including roadways,
utilities and street lighting shall be under the jurisdic-
tion of one Home Owners Association;
6. Home Owners Association agreements and bylaws shall be sub-
mitted to the City; shall be subject to review by the City
Attorney prior to the issuance of building permits; and
shall include;
a. Provisions for the City to provide maintenance and
revitalization of roadways, utilities, and other
common use facilities in the event the City Council
deems such maintenance and revitalization necessary,
with the cost of such expenses that might be in-
curred to be assessed to the property owners;
b. Provision for water and sewer main and fire hydxant-
maintenance and inspection agreements ptarsuant to
Section 35-410 (5) of the Ordinances.
7. Final plans submitted for Council review and approval shall
be based upon the basic site design indicated on sheet 1-D
dated December 13, 1972, comprehending 36 units with a
identifiable open space area in the northwest corner of
the site.
Voting in favor of the motion were: Chairman Jensen,
Commissioners Bogucki, Grosshans, Scott and Engdahl. Voting against
the motion: Commissioners Foreman and Gross. The motion passed.
Commissioner Foreman explained his negative vote stating that
the Commission would not have an opportunity to actually review the
revised site and building plans and he noted the recent Council con-
cern that complete site and building plans be reviewed by the
Commission prior to Council consideration.
Commissioner Gross stated that he had voted in the negative be-
cause the zoning of the area was not desirable and that a remedy
appeared to exist via rezoning action which would consist of re-
arranging the design of the R-3 parcel in relation to the land zoned
C-2. He stated further consideration should be given the application
in this regard.
The next item of business was consideration of a draft resolu-
tion which endorsed and urged the adoption of the pending ordinance
amendment providing for an expansion of the fire prevention provision
of the City Ordinances.
The Secretary stated that the staff had been directed to pre-
pare such a resolution at the November 2nd meeting and noted that the
Council had given first reading to the proposed ordinance amendment
-10-
at the December 4th meeting. He stated the second reading was
scheduled for the Council meeting on December 18th.
Member Robert Foreman introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 72-4
RESOLUTION ENDORSING AND 'URGING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING CHAPTER 5, EXPANDING FIRE PREVENTION PROVISIONS
IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, an ordinance amending Chapter Five of the City
Ordinances expanding fire prevention provisions in residential dis-
tricts was first read by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center on December 4, 1972; and
WHEREAS, the ordinance amendment provides for fire sprinkler
systems to be installed in all residential structures to be built
exceeding three stories in height; and
WHEREAS , said provision would be consistent with the City
policy of stressing fire prevention rather than fire suppression;
and
WHEREAS, such a requirement is an appropriate expression and
implementation of Brooklyn Center's concern for life safety of both
the occupants of high rise residential structures and the members
of the municipal volunteer fire department; and
WHEREAS, a fire- sprinkling_.syst+em is deemed--a- prime' inqredien
in the community's effort to promote and enLanc:e the quality of
life; and
WHEREAS, provision for effective fire prevention including
internal sprinkler systems is considered basic to sound planning
and development;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Brooklyn Center:
The Commission endorses the proposed ordinance
amendment to Chapter 5 of the City ordinances
expanding fire prevention provisions in residential
districts and urges its adoption by the City Council.
Ch?bymember Secretary
The moti the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded Carl Gross, and upon vote being taken thereon,
the following voted in favor thereof: Robert Jensen, Robert Foreman,
Cecelia Scott, Gilbert Engdahl, Henry Bogucki, Robert Grosshans and
Carl Gross. Voting against: none. Whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
Motion by Commissioner Grosshans seconded by Commissioner
Bogucki to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:45 A.M.
Cha ' an