HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 12-11 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
REGULAR SESSION
j DECEMBER 11, 1975
CITY HALL
Call to Order The Planning Commission met in regular session and
was called to order at 8 °00 p.m. by Chairman Carl
Gross .
Roll Call Chairman Gross, Commissioners Foreman, Engdahl,
Horan, Pierce and Jacobson . Also present were
Director of Public Works James Merila and Director
of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere .
Application No. 75044 Following the Chairman ' s explanation, the first
(Dr. G. Swenson) item of business was consideration of Planning
Commission Application No. 75044 ?emitted by
Dr. Gregory Swenson . The item was introduced by
the Secretary who stated thE. ,,pplicant proposes
to rezone , from R-5 to C-1, the approximate
56, 000 square foot property located at 6417
Brooklyn Blvd. He explained the applicant is
one of the owner ' s of the Brook Park Dental
Clinic located northerly of the subject property
at 65th and Brooklyn Blvd.
He stated the ultimate intent of the action is
to provide additional off-site parking for the
dental clinic . He commented that off-site
accessory parking requires the same (C-1) or
higher zoning .
The Secretary stated the applicant had submitted
a letter of intent to remove the existing dwelling
and detached garage no later than June 1, 1976.
Chairman Gross recognized Dr. Swenson and a
discussion ensued as to the parking needs of the
dental clinic. He stated the additional parking
off-site would be primarily for employees so that
more spaces on the clinic site would be available
to patients . He stated that the increase in
business , as well as an anticipated increase in
the number of dentists , generated the need for
additional parking. Dr. Swenson also commented
that there were no immediate plans for develop-
ment on the subject property bes-'.des the parking.
Chairman Gross commented that while the intent
might be for additional parking, it should be
recognized that, once property is rezoned, it is
subject to any of the permitted uses in that
particular district.. He asked the Secretary to
review the various permitted uses and the Secretary
emphasized that the C-1 district was service/office
in nature and did not include retail uses .
Chairman Gross announced that a public hearing
had been scheduled and recognized the residents
of 6325 and 6341 Halifax Drive . Both residents
stated their concern with the possible ramification
upon the neighboring residential properties should
a proposed development on the subject property
result in fencing which would orient pedestrian
traffic through the area, possibly across their
yards . They commented that there is pedestrian
traffic from the Marlin Park area on Indiana Avenue
through the subject property to Brooklyn Blvd.
The Secretary briefly reviewed the ordinance require-
ments for screening and fencing and stated that those
specific matters could be reviewed in detail at the
special use permit hearing . He suggested that
perhaps pedestrian traffic could be greatly reduced,
if not completely stopped, by effectively fencing
the various yards along Halifax Drive .
Following further discussion, Chairman Gross noted
that none of the other notified property owners
were present.
Motion by Commissioner Foreman and seconded by Com- Close Hearing
missioner Pierce to close the public hearing . The
motion passed unanimously.
The Secretary read a letter submitted by the District
5 Office of the State Highway Department and submitted
it to the file . The letter stated the general concern
of the Highway Department that, in recognition of the
high intensity traffic and arterial character of
Brooklyn Blvd. , the City should give d1117e considera-
tion to restricting, as much as possible, high
intensity uses with access directly onto Brooklyn Blvd.
The Director of Public Works commented as to the High-
way Department concerns and stated that it could be
estimated C-1 type traffic be approximately 10% to
15% higher than R-5 which was the zoning of the
subject property, but he emphasized that C-2 zoning
would be approximately 75% higher than the R-5.
He noted that the State Highway Department, as well
as the City staff, traditionally look at the traffic
generation and potential conflicts with respect to
optimum possible development of parcels such as this .
Chairman Gross reviewed the letter in the file sub-
mitted by the applicant as to the removal of the
house and garage and inquired as to the timing of
the parking lot installation . The applicant
responded that he hoped to have the parking lot
installed as soon as weather would permit in the
spring, and that the improvement might precede the
removal of the structures by a month or two. The
Secretary noted the house had suffered minor fire
damage and was not occupied.
Following further discussion, there was a motion Table Application
by Commissioner Foreman and seconded by Commis- No. 75044 and Refer
sioner Jacobson to table Planning Commission to Neighborhood
Application No. 75044 and to refer the matter to Advisory Group
the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group :r
k � ~w and input, preferably at a January meeting.
The motion passed unanimously.
12-11-75 -2-
Recess The meeting recessed at 9:15 p.m. and resumed at
9 :30 p.m.
Application No. 75045 The next item of business was Planning Commission
(B.C.I .P. , Inc. ) Application No. 75045 submitted by Brooklyn Center
Industrial Park, Inc. The item was introduced by
the Secretary who stated the applicant is requesting
rezoning, from I-1 to C-2, of the approximate 30
acre vacant (except for farm buildings) property
generally described as follows : south of I-94;
north of Summit Drive ; West of Earle Brown Drive ;
and east of Shingle Creek Parkway.
He stated the development intent is a retail center
on a portion of the land and the ultimate develop-
ment of a commercial agri-business center for which
master planning is currently under way.
He said that concerns include future design of
Earle Brown Drive ; the design impact of and upon
the proposed FAI-94 realignment project; and the
planned development or redevelopment of the existing
farm parcel.
Extensive discussion ensued as to the intent of
the original I-1 zoning. The Director of Public
Works and Secretary responded the zoning of the
Comprehensive Plan for the "Urban Community" was
oriented toward varied land uses with an emphases
on industrial type buildings buffering and com-
plementing commercial development to the south.
Also discussed were concerns voiced over past
years regarding the development of a "freeway
zone and the ultimate amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance to provide certain special commercial
uses in the I-1 district. The Secretary stated
C-2 zoning was requested to provide for the
proposed retail uses, which are not now compre-
hended as special commercial uses in the Industrial
Park.
Further discussion ensued as to the proposed
freeway realignment project as well as to the
possible amount of land which would be taken on
the north and the east. Specific discussion
was oriented towards the eventual access points
as well as the capacity of the Shingle Creek
Parkway on-and-off ramps at the frc.eway.
There was substantial discussion regarding the
proposed commercial development with respect to
the future of existing farm buildings .
Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Blumentals and
Mr. Hensinger who represented the applicant and
who presented conceptual design layouts of a
proposed commercial center. Mr. Hensinger
explained the types of shops which would be
included and stated that generally they would
be small, not exceeding appro��-imately 200
square feet, and would be oriented towards
crafts and arts . He stated that the farm theme
would be retained and that development was
proposed in the next construction season .
-3- 12-11-75
Extensive discussion ensued as to the limits of the
proposed rezoning with respect to two areas : that
land east of Shingle Creek Parkway and west of
proposed Earle Brown Drive ; and theland between
FAI-94 and proposed Earle Brown Drive . There was
discussion as to the need for rezoning the land
containing the present farm buildings .
Chairman Gross explained that a public hearing had
been scheduled and that none of the notified property
owners was present.
The Secretary stated the State Highway Department
District Office had called and had referred to
earlier communications with the City when the sub-
ject area was platted. He said the concerns were
primarily the potential increased traffic generation
by zoning changes in the B.C.I .P. , as well as the
impact upon the FAI-94 realignment.
The Director of Public Works said that he recognized
the C-2 zoning could afford the developer more
flexibility in attracting uses to the area, although
there exists a substantial amount of vacant C-2
zoned land. He stated that the developer' s position
was persuasive in that the retail development such
as that proposed could help retain the character of
the farm and no doubt would be compatible with it.
He emphasized, however, that the proposal merited
careful study so that a proper balance of land uses
could be assured now and in the future with respect
to the location and capacity of available facilities
to bear the additional traffic generated by these
uses .
In that regard the Director of Public Works suggested
that, if rezoning wcine deemed appropriate , perhaps
only a portion of the subject property be rezoned to
C-2, to allow for the proposed development in its
initial stage, and leave the perimeter areas zoned
I-1 . He stated that this would allow time to
evaluate the development and its effect upon the
supporting street and freeway systems on a staged
basis .
A brief discussion ensued between Commissioner Pierce
and she Director of Public Works relative to the
level of traffic and access in the area . Commis-
sioner Engdahl stated that he was concerned as to
the configuration of Earle Brown Drive, and the
Director of Public Works explained it would be the
same, essentially, as shown regardless of the zoning.
He stated his main concern was with the des .gn of the
freeway and, in that context, he noted the Engineering
Department would be undertaking an analysis of pro-
jected traffic demands and needs in this immediate
area .
In response to a question by Commissioner Foreman,
the Director of Public Works and Secretary explained
the site for the first phase of the proposed com-
mercial development was somewhat less than that of
the K-Mart property, but the total rezoning area
compared to Brookdale .
12-11-75 -4-
Close Hearing Motion by Commissioner Jacobson and seconded by
Commissioner Horan to close the public hearing.
The motion passed unan.',mously.
Table Application Following further discussion, there was a motion
No. 75045 by Commissioner Foreman and seconded by Commis-
(B.C.I .P. , Inc. ) sioner Jacobson to table Planning Commission
Application No. 75045 to enable the staff to
develop additional data and recommendations as
to the extent of the proposed rezoning, in can -
sideration of the traffic intensity and the
design and capacity of existing and proposed
public utilities in the area ; and as to campre-
hensive planning of the area. The motion passed
unanimously.
Application No. 75046 The next item of business was Planning Commission
(G.A.F. Corp. ) Application No. 75046 submitted by G.A.F. Corpora-
tion, which was introduced by the Secretary. He
stated the applicant proposes to lease part of
the Speculative Building No. 6 at 6800 Shingle
Creek .Parkway for warehousing and storage which
are comprehended as special uses in the I-1
district. He stated the request was similar to
that approved under Application No. 74051 which
involved space in the same bui' ding (that the
tenant has since vacated) .
The Secretary explained the proposed use would
include storage of asphalt felt, coated and
granial surface roll products, and asphalt
shingles .
Chairman Gross recognized Mr. Walter Becker
representing the applicant and a brief discussion
ensued.
Close Hearing Chairman Gross noted that a public hearing had
been scheduled and that none of the notified
propE '_y owners was present. Motion by Commis-
sioner Fngdahl and seconded by Commissioner
Pierce to close the hearing. The motion passed
unanimously.
In further discussion Mr. Becker was asked to
describe the nature of the operation and he
explained the facility was ideal since it was
close to the factory in North Minneapolis . He
stated that at maximum there would be three
people on the premises during the workday but
there would be no office facilities maintained
on the premises . He commented that it was
primarily a storage and `. :tribution facility
and that there would be no truck storage on the
site .
Recommend Approval Following further discussion there was a motion
of Application No. by Commissioner Foreman and seconded by Commis-
75046 sioner Jacobson to recommend approval of Planning
(G.A.F. Corp. ) Commission Application No. 75046 submitted by
G.A.F. Corporation subject to the following
conditions
-5- 12-11-75
as The permit is for a single tenancy as
represented by the applicant, as verified
by the Building Official, and is non-
transferable .
b. Issuance of the permit is contingent upon
the review of appropriate building plans
and certification of occupancy by the
Building Official.
C. The special use is subject to all appli-
cable codes and ordinance requirements and
violation thereof shall be grounds for
revocation.
d. There shall be no outside storage as pro-
vided in the Zoning Ordinance .
The motion passed unanimously.
In other business a brief discussion ensued relative Other Business :
to the status of the Riverbrook Townhouses which had Status of Riverbrooke
been approved under Planning Commission Application Townhouses
No. 72084 and which were located on 66th Avenue
North at Camden Drive . The Secretary introduced
Mr. Dennis Klohs who represented IDS Corporation
which, the Secretary explained, had foreclosed
on the property and was now in the process of
finalizing plans for completion of at least the
initial phase of the project.
The Secretary stated the purpose of Mr. Klohs '
meeting with the Commission was to better determine
the concerns of the community relative to the
project whose progress had been less than desirable .
Mr. Klohs stated that the intent of the owner was to
submit a new application for site and building plan
approval of essentially the same plans which had been
approved earlier. He commented that this would
permit the applicant to proceed with the completion
and occupancy of those units already erected.
Secondly, he stated that the applicant intended to
submit amended design and layouts relative to the
balance of the project and particularly those units
for which foundations had been set. He estimated
that this would occur later in the spring of 1976.
Finally, he noted the owner was having a certified
lot survey made of the property which would serve
as an as-built representation for the Commission
and Council
The Secretary stated that the staff had worked
closely with the owner in the past several months
relative to securing the site and removing debris
and partially built hazardous structures .
In other business the Commission proceeded with Approval of Minutes
approval of minutes of previous meetings :
Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by 10-23-75
Commissioner Pierce to approve the minutes of the
October 23, 1975 meeting as submitted. The motion
passed unanimously.
12-11-75 -6-
10-30-75 Motion by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by
Commissioner Engdahl to approve the minutes of
the October 30, 1975 meeting as submitted. Voting
in favor were : Chairman Gross, Commissioners
Engdahl, Jacobson, Horan, and Pierce . Not voting :
Commissioner Foreman who explained he was not
present at that meeting. The motion passed.
11-13-75 Motion by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by
Commissioner Horan to approve the minutes of the
November 13 , 1975 meeting as submitted. Voting
in favor were : Commissioners Foreman, Jacobson
and Horan . Not voting: Chairman Gross, Commis-
sioners Pierce and Engdahl who explained they
were not present at that meeting. The motion
passed.
12-4-75 Motion by Commissioner Foreman, seconded by
Commissioner P_ -rce to approve the minutes of the
December 4, 1975 meeting as submitted. Voting in
favor werE! ! Chairman Gross, Commissioners Foreman,
Pierce and Horan. Not voting : Commissioners
' -�,bson ard Engdahl who explained they were not
present at that meeting . The motion passed.
Inquiry as to Zoning In other business a brief discussion ensued as to
of Property on the inquiry of the property owner of the parcel at
Brooklyn Blvd. Near the southwest quadrant of County Road 10 and
County Road 10 Brooklyn Blvd. The Secretary explained the corner
property was vacant and zoned R-4 and that the
owner also had an interest in the neighboring
property to the south which was R-1 and contained
a single family dwelling. He stated the owner
had asked for input as to the feasibility of
securing a commercial zoning, not only on the
corner but in, the general area; or, in lieu of
that, arlrl � ticnal R-4 zoning to the south of the
present vacant property for purposes of erecting
apartments .
Following a brief discussion it was the consensus
of the Commission that proper zoning of the area
was definitely residential and that there would
be little merit in reviewing a request to com-
mercial zoning, at least until such time that the
possible development of a regional county library
or service center is commenced. With respect to
possible additional R-4 zoning, it was the con-
sensus of the Commission that there would be
possible merit in such a proposal if a single
developer were able to assemble contiguous
properties and propose a unified development.
tems Remanded In other business the Secretary outlined for the
y Council Commission the concerns the City Council had
voiced earlier that week when they had given
further deliberation to Planning Commission
Application No. 75035 submitted by Mr. Jack
Welsh regarding a variance request for a sideyard
setback. He stated the application had been
tabled to permit the Planning commission time
to relate to the City Council a scheduled for
determining community attitudes towards tl-,e
set- -k standard and to suggest means by which
-7- 12-11-75
that attitude could be adequately measured. He
stated the Council had suggested a joint meeting in
January to discuss the matter as well as the issues
relative to waterfront properties and substandard
lots in the southeast neighborhood,
Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Com- Adjournment
missioner Horan to adjourn the meeting . The motion
passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting
adjourned at 11 :45 p.m.
Chairman
1211-75 -8-