Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 05-16 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL/STUDY SESSION CITY HALL MAY 16, 1974 Call to Order The Planning Commission met in special/study session and was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Chairman pro tem Robert Grosshans . Roll Call Chairman pro tem Grosshans , Commissioners Scott, Horan, Pierce, and Engdahl. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila and Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Com- 5-2-74 missioner Horan to approve the minutes of the May 2, 1974 meeting as submitted. voting in favor were: Commissioners Scott, "oran, Pierce, and Engdahl. Not voting: Chairman Pro tem Grosshans who explained he was not present at the May 2, 1974 meeting. Application No. 74026 The first item of business was consideration of (John Armstrong) Planning Commission Application No. 74026 sub- mitted by John Armstrong, 5338 Logan Avenue North. The Secretary introduced the item and explained that it was tabled at the May 2, 1974 meeting to permit the applicant an opportunity to secure a certified survey of boundaries and existing structures on his property. He explained that the applicant seeks permission to construct an addition to his existing home which has a front yard setback of 24. 5 feet vs . the now required 35 feet. He noted that there was sufficient land area to accom- modate the structure with the addition in all respects except for the front yard setback. The Secretary further explained the applicant had secured and submitted a certified survey and that it confirmed that the yard requirements , while deficient from present ordinance standards , meet the 70 per cent area provision of Section 35-500, relative to existing substandard lots . He noted that the parcel was held in single ownership of record on April 4, 1940, wizen the first Village Zoning_ Ordinance was adopted . He further stated the proposed addition represents an upgrading of the area by an existing property owner through the use of the combined vacant sub- standard parcel and the improvement of the existing dwelling which must be brought into compliance with applicable codes due to the size of the proposed expansion. Chairman pro tem Grosshans recognized the applicant and a brief discussion ensued relative to the policy of granting warranted variances relative to yard -1- 5/16/74 setback and area requirements in the southeast section of the City. it was noted that the applicant ' s front yard setback is consistent the setbacks of neighboring dwell ings . The Secretary also commented as to the recom:-nendation for a 7 foot easement at the east end of the applicant ' s property for alley way, purposes, and he noted that this won1d bP consistent with the easement granted in the early 1950 ' s for street- purposes at the west- end of the property', He stated the right of way was granted through easement since this parcel alone in she entire area had been un- platted- He commented that there was no apparent need If"or tormal platting since the legal description of the parcel was quite basic and the applicant had provided a certified survey showing the dimensions of the property, E'ollowing further discussion there was a motion Action Recommending by Commissioner Engdahl. seconded by Commissioner Approval of Scott to recommend approval of Planning Com- Application No.74026 mission Application No. 74026 to permit con- str Action of a dwelling addition with a setback less than the required 35 feet subject to the fc-11lo-wing conditions : The proposed addition shall conform, with all yard requirements with the ex- ception of the front yard setbac'-, which may be less than 35 feet but not 'Less than that of the existing dwelling, 1 -he applicant shall provide the City with an easement across EI)e easterly 7 feet of the north 75 feet of his property fo-- alley way purposes as approved by t-Ile city Engi.neer, I C 19 In favor were: Scott, r 1lierr:e and Engda?,,I, Not -,-/oting: Chairman ,, c _,, fans ans who explained he wa s not present 1974 meeting. The mction passed. i,r-m of business was consideration of Application No. 74025 C mmi_s s icon, Application No. /"'4,025 which City of Brooklyn Center introduced by the, Secretar,' who explained the ite,}r, -n in, iati-� d by the clity and was for re- k-,O R-3 of twNo parcels approxi- 1_ 3 acres in size at 67th Avenue North on nf -n-merson Avenue, ;� aine i r�xpl, _d that a proposed and denied 1973 :Partment, Protect indicated that smaller parcels s-,jch as these are not highly suited to development at existing maximum R-5 densities, He stated that the current moratorium on multi- residential construction was initiated on the basis of this realization. The Secretary also commented that neighboring -2- 5/16/74 property owners had submitted a petition dated July 7, 1973, requesting rezoning to a district of lesser density which would be more compatible with area development (R-5 on the west; C-2 to the northwest; and R-1 on the north and east) , The Secretary stated that analysis of the Com- prehensive plan, the development in the area and the size of the parcels indicated that R-3 would be the highest and best use for the sites . He commented that townhouses were a permitted use in the R-5 zone and that the developer of the previously proposed apartments had indicated a desire to construct a townhouse project. He ex- plained that examination of preliminary conceptual plans for such a development confirmed that R-3 density was well suited for the property. The Secretary commented that the owner of the land agreed with this concept and supported the application. Chairman pro tem Grosshans opened the public hear- ing and recognized five of the thirty-three notified property owners . The residents of 6743, 6731, 6719, and 6713 Dupont Avenue North stated their preference for rezoning to R-1 and inquired why this was not recommended. The Secretary responded that the recommended rezoning was consistent with the Com- prehensive plan which, called for multi-residential housing and ,=,pecifically walk-up apartments as per- mitted in the R-5 district. He also noted that the R-3 proposed zoning recog- nized provisions in the Zoning Ordinance which re- quired substantial open green area in a townhouse project, and thus , it was the City's position that a well designed R-3 development would serve as an excellent intermediate land use between the single- family residences and the existing multi-family residences. The Secretary further commented that the proposed rezoning recognized the concerns and interests of the single family residential homeowners, as well as the rights and interest of the owner of the sub- ject land. In response to a question regarding the potential height of townhouse structures, the Secretary stated that while the height was a function of the particular design and could be similar to single family construction, namely one and one-half to two stories in maximum height, the living units were horizontally rather than vertically attached as in apartments. He also noted that the density of the R-3 district was fifty (50) per cent of the maximum permitted in the R-5 district. In response to another question regarding the potential number of units, the Secretary stated that depending on design, potentially a total of 28 units would be possible on the two sites together. -3- 5/16/74 Chairman pro tem Grosshans also recognized the resident of 6733 Emerson who stated his concern as to whether the proposed units would be rented or owned, noting the vacancy rate in the adjacent apartment complex and he also stated his concern as to the aesthetics of such a project. The Secretary responded that the R-3 zoning would permit a great deal more flexibility in providing for aesthetics and open space on the subject parcels than would R-5 zoned apartments. He stated that the matter of whether the units would be rented or sold was at the discretion of the developer in the same fashion that single family homes could be rented or sold. A brief discussion ensued and the Secretary reviewed a possible conceptual plan showing the layout of townhouse units on the two sites at the maximum permitted density and responded to questions relative to parking and screening provisions . Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Close Public Hearing Commissioner Engdahl to close the public hear- ing. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Action Tabling Applica- Commissioner Horan to table Planning Com- tion No. 74025 mission Application No. 74025 and direct the petition to the Northeast Neighborhood Study Group for input to be provided at the next regular meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting recessed at 9:25 p.m. and resumed Recess at 9:45 p.m. The next item of business was consideration of Application No. 74023 Planning commission Application No. 74023 sub- (Richard Whitley) mitted by Richard Whitley, The item was intro- duced by the Secretary who explained the appli- cant was seeking approval for a special use permit and for site and building plans for a roller skating rink on a site located at 5921 John Martin Drive, westerly of the Uncle John' s Restaurant. The Secretary stated one of the primary concerns regarding this application was the amount of park- ing needed to support the proposed facility which had a gross floor area of approximately 24,000 square feet. He explained the ordinance does not specifically comprehend this type of use and leaves it up to the discretion of the Council to determine the number of spaces for the most similar use. He stated the staff had researched the requirements of other communities which have specific ordinance requirements (but which do not necessarily all have roller rinks) , and the most common criteria was similar to Brooklyn center' s "Other Commercial" (non-retail) provision of one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, plus a certain number of spaces for employees. -4- 5/16/74 He stated the submitted plans show provision for 135 spaces which includes 22 spaces on the adja- cent theater site available to this use by an existing easement agreement . He stated that, sub- ject to certain recommendations by the Director of Public Works , there would be a grand total of 133 spaces which exceeded the "Other Retail" parking requirements by 13 spaces, and thus, the proposed parking was consistent with formulae used in other communities for roller skating facilities . He emphasized, however, that there was not enough parking to support a future possible retail use of the proposed structure which would require approximately 177 spaces . He explained that if the additional spaces for a retail use were not pro- vided on the subject site, the structure would be restricted as to its future uses unless additional parking could be obtained through joint parking agreement with neighboring establishments which included the Cinema I , II, III Theater, Northwestern Bell Telephone, and some other future use on the adjacent site to the west. The Secretary commented that another concern relative to the application was the proposed management of the public recreational facility which was largely youth-oriented. He stated the experience of other communities with roller skat- ing rinks was that the activity level was of high intensity, and thus, effective and consistent management was a key not only in providing a quality recreational facility but also to minimiz- ing potential problems with this type of activity. He noted the applicant had submitted for the file, a copy of a proposed management statement pre- pared by a professional consultant, and the Secretary recommended that such statement of management be incorporated into the special use approval for the facility. The Secretary cited another concern being the traffic flow in and out of the facility and noted' the proposed one-way ingress off of John Martin Drive and the intended joint egress point shared by Uncle John ' s and the theater. The Secretary commented that given the "drop-off-pick-up" nature of traffic for this type of facility, the proposed traffic pattern should work quite well. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the site plan and the Director of Public Works recommended certain changes relative to parking lot delineation and traffic flow. Particular con- cern was noted regarding the need for additional landscaping in the required green areas on the east and west side of the building. Chairman pro tem Grosshans recognized Mr. Jean- Paul Budinger, the architect for the project, and the applicant. Further discussion ensued as to -5- 5/16/74 the need for additional plantings and certain adjustments in the design of the berm on John Martin Drive. Relative to the proposed operation, Commissioner Scott noted a desirability for babysitting facilities, since roller skating facilities often attracted housewives with children during the day. Commissioner Engdahl also stated that provision should be made for persor.r.el who are trained in the delivery of first ;i-L'.d since given t'ne nature of the activity, :' nj­!vies -tµ,ere possible and first-aid coiild be a cricial -factor. The applicant responded t"­­t be taken into consideration. Following further discussio.-II there was a Action Recommending motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Approval of Applica- Commissioner Engdahl to recommend approval of tion No. 74023 Planning Commission Application No. 74023 sub- (Richard Whitley) mitted by Richard Whitic--,,r sub;ect to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review by the Building official, with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of a permit , 2 . Grading, drainage, utility, and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the permit. 3 . A performance agreement and financial. guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved improve- ments . 4. Use of adjacent za-z'Ki'-_'- I ilities, with I -, -��wL-_' � the exception of tli- aces, tndicated on approved plans, slintall be sibipct to the provisions of the zcning ordinance rela- tive to joint parking facilities. S . The operation be lin conformance with the management policy as approved by council and provision shall be made for availability of employees properl-'I trained in the delivery of first- aid. Substantial changes in said policy shall be submitted to the city for review and approval. 6. The special use permit shall be issued to the applicant as the operator of the facility and said permit shall be non- transferable. 7 . Site and landscaping plans shall be re- vised according to approved changes -6- 5/16/74 �Gec ha L � Irh ra -R7,r oil — vt-d the for-rci nhy w — nca yntualjy dissolved n-en es- ot 1he I, n.: and has in- an no-rt - v rrn-, "n : or even; nal con-- _a , ; r.t y wPpr requia- :P tvied Ube submiti-K "WY wall for a re- ""— Ir , - F ' i - bwijo " �� v , vyi"r, reraving, curb toj a"&�cqrinq including 1-7 , nd h -71 5r - ' ; �vlwn of existing 0 -a; ai Ya ion oew punn islands ncoanized Mr. Ray -W t and a review of s-d site renova- -nt-d that the � Irn was a1su the joA a,: •ent to the t e6 a ; eater indica� Znr j- ; r� Pvc-qn between the service o Or - 1 - 17q entaniishment to a-, qqn a 17 _ �e dry cleaners . in n ? , - . :emry 2ia � ed the owner hau �i indicated o- shed in CLn- - z - -, he of the service station 1 ! Q . -nn� jar, noted "f proposed B-61; a-! on-t-r around the perimeter of the driving Qv� oarkinj areas ar-� nn�ee Lhe pjpvision for dard widtn areenstrips , including those tc, MaLcry up with those tc be installed by American �aznr; nq an part a! their, site work . He als'- n• tni tnat the area to the rear "f the subject nrianqwlar shaped parcel was proposed to be seeded and naintained with viable tuif, since it was not 5/16/74 only an isolated area but could perhaps eventually serve as expansion of parking. r" brief discussion ensued and concern was noted as to the landscape treatment near the dry cleaning establishment, and the Director of Public Works commented that the precise design of the curb and gutter from the curb-cut to the dry cleaning establish- ment structure could be worked oat with the applicant. The Secretary noted that inspection of the site indicated that, portions -,f the sidewalk around the building, particularlYY,' on the north side were :in need ;:,f at-id re- placement and Mr. Jones responded that that was included in the proposed work. Mr. Jones also commented as to the proposed ex- terior remodeling of the huiiding' and dis- cussed the materials which wc�.ald be used. Chairman pro tem Grossflans waived the reading of the names of the notified property owners in that none was present. in further discussion t.,'e Secretary com- mented as to the desirabi-11-ity of the pro- posed improvements in keeping with a general upgrading of area and 'he cited the new American Bakeries constructio, , the development of tl-_e Post office -S i. a.rid the recent' j- apprc^-::.d a,-,d handed site M ; ' uto provements at the Na`Nt, � o aI t� parts Z � -)re to t+,e rr = su -et . E- site. 'O', ! -Owing' furt,",er t,.eye was a m�,,tion by Commissicner d a i seconded by approval '7(:), ' ssioner P _ierce atirt I "lanning Co-mLTP, No. 741J23 tted by MCIKee 0, I jL)'M I EI C,!-- L 0 following CcndI` L�� "_'_'_':'I 'I , % .I'�_vv 1Y f f ressypE,cr apP.I.Lic-3-1-le, C')II!LI'I_I to Th yradlng, g C! e Citv- pr , 0 r L C.) t Le of p 6,rn"" t i the ad- impro,,.,ement�s I I jacent site t^ tl.e _r.,orth, as indicated on approvedg be included with the required improvements approved for the sub ',ect site. 4 . A perfor-ma--ce agreement and financial guarantee in an a-.,Tiount to be determined by t`he City Manager) slam be submitted t,� as;su,_-p ccmpletlon f approved im- S . T'e ope r a t i�r ".,I __ .Iited to the automotive pa'r-17 and acccssori-- , and the vending 7f soft dri-71-,s, cand,,-, cigarettes and ot.1-ler incidertal items for the con- "'-n ' Anse n fE cu-stomers within the principle b,,ilding as p-rc—ided in Section 35-322 of ordi-,arces , e confor'nan- c it'r. 3ectif_n 3S,-4'-- applicable qll�e permit shall he issued to the applicant as the operator �i­ +--',!E, facility and shall ­)ntransrera, TJ e mz�,Cion passed Proposed Amendment reyt Item ^f basj-,-,-s7, ,,vas, discussion of a to Chapter 35 Relative p ^n sd ordinance aml-_ndm,�7,-t to Chapter 35 re- to Sideyard Setbacks gard-inq side yard setback standards . The co-mmented a requested opinion from, City, Attorne-,„ -vet available and s°._,gaested that t`!7.p matter- i-)P, deferred to the m sc'tledliled `-r 23rd. then Business : 1 r ot['�-or b-,s-Lness, 4-_­',.,= SP.(- _,:(-,tary stated that re- lti-reside-tial t.o the m',a ',Iti-res ids r tial development ratorium Study J,oc -=Mnt�,ttee consisting of an,d c r and Commissioners a-,.d I-ad met on May 9th -ic,d cj cc)nsidered i.,-, -,--c,:,,-,n endaticns in the R-4 through ,7.ate(3 that further data and �a ions 7 i7. sed unr),-. L.-icaz review would be - -t the :,e 23rd. 'ni' scussion of -o Cr r)ublic Works ilkway Network e walI�vay net- St a t-3,s C,f or ; pioqram and noted certain areas ­ad -et been cc,_,,sLr-, cted according to voiced by d r�,z, Ad­nt E, n g a rep I e w of --oo—'al '~e a­'red t:. ;e -oTrunissicn for 0 t 4 r-C; -I-,p original alkway !,,ad generated bY, I'le Pian.-Iing Ccmmis.-m1_-,n and had been dcvcloped through par- 4 0.11 b e C­M7 s Ne�ghborhcod Croups . a brief disci I_.... CI-airman pro tem ­'�i a, and Commissioner r o s�­ -'s polled the �_ - _L P"Lerce stated that the vialk-dav network should be finished according to the approved plan. Com- T-,d, ssic,n.e_r Scott stated she agreed and that the war's proceed as approved, but that consid- eration should be given to certain additions -_,I�roughou-_ the City to provide better intercon- nection of the network. Commissioner Horan stated -9- 5/16/74 some concern as to the role the Commission was playing since the City Council was aware of the plan and the value of the walkway network. He stated that if the Council was asking for reaffirmation of the network pro- posal, he would agree that the plan should proceed as approved, but he questioned whether such reaffirmation was needed . Commissioner Engdahl stated that he felt further walkway construction should only be provided where it was actually needed, such as with overpasses and he noted that he was not in favor of a broad walkway network. He stated that he was not a member of the Com- mission at the time the walkway network was proposed and approved, and that if he had been a member at that time, he would not have voted in favor of the walkway network. Chairman pro tem Grosshans commented that the walkway network should be completed as approved according to the established schedule, in- cluding those areas where certain neighborhood objections had been voiced. The Director of Public Works stated that he had presented the matter to the Commission as a matter of providing information and gaining updated input since he was preparing a pre- sentation to the City Council at an upcoming meeting. He noted that it was likely the Council would schedule hearings involving the neighborhoods where some objection has been voiced as to the completion of the walkway network. Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Adjournment Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12 :35 a.m. '0004el L .'�l Chairman. -10- 5/16/74