HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971 01-21 PCP CITY OF BROOKlYiN CENTER
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Study Meeting
January 21, 1971
1. call 'toOrder: 8.-00 P.M.
2. Zoll Wit
3. hp Minutes: December 22. 1970
january 7, 1971
4. Chairman's Enlanation: The Planning Commissiol-I 'J.
s an advisory
body. One of the Commission' s
functions is to hold Public Hearings.
In the matters concerned in these
hearings, -,-Ile Commission makes
recommendations to the city Council.
The city council makes all final
decisions on these matters.
Application No.
5. old Busineso ,
a. Ernst, Lane & Ernst for White Castle 70060
Rezoning
Site and Buildiag Plan 10061
b. Standard Solvents
Variance and site and building
plan approval 70045
6. Staf f convuunications
7. Adiournment
h
•
PUtF3.►aI G COWUSSIO INFORM- ATION SIOET
Application Igo. 70060 and 70061
• Applicant: Ernst, Lane & Ernst (White Castle)
Description of Request: Rezoning from R1 to C2 and site
and building plan approval.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
matter on December 30 1970.
Commission disposition .of the matter at that time was to
table the applications to allow further analysis and
request the City Manager to initiate a traffic survey on
June Avenue between 69th and 70th Avenue North to determine:
1) Existing traffic conditions in the area;
2) What effect two driveway openings would have on
the character of June Avenue; and
3) if the traffic congestion caused by St. Alphonsus
Church could be reduced.
ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
in view of the request by the commissions a traffic study
was conducted by the Engineering Department, and the
following recommendations have been made:
1) That because of existing traffic conditions in the area,
June Avenue should be utilized as an aid in reducing
traffic congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th
Avenue north.
2) That the placement of two one way driveways on June
Avenue would be appropriate to relieve anticipated
traffic congestion caused by the subject sate, and
further, that the character of June Avenue would not
be changed because its existing function is not that
of a purely residential street.
3) That a traffic routing pattern is being developed for
St. Alphonsus Church to relieve traffic congestion
problems in the area.
•
i
r
0
Page
Applications 70060 and 70061
it would appear that in light of the City Engineer' s
recommendations in regard to traffic patterns and flow,
that those problems can be resolved; however, there are
a number of problems yet to be resolved relative to a
new site plan that has been submitted for approval.
The major changes to the plan are as follows:
l) Placement of driving and parking areas in front
of the proposed structure at the intersection of
69th and Brooklyn Boulevard.
The Commission may recall that the original proposal indicated
that the area in front of the building at the intersections
of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard was to be utilized as a land-
scape green strip approximately 50 feet in width.
It would appear that elimination of the original green
strip, would serve as a detriment to the aesthetics of
the area and the development as a whole. it is suggested
that the absence of a large green strip at this point
• changes the character of the proposal to such an extent
that it would be worthwhile to determine if the re-developmer..t
of the property would be any more desirable than the
existing situation. Additionally, it should be noted that
the intersection of 69th: and Brooklyn Boulevard has a very
minimum boulevard width (plus or minus 4 feet) . The proposal
submitted by White Castle indicates that vehicles would be
parked adjacent to a 15 foot green strip at the intersection,
thus, the distance from the parking area to the curb line
on Brooklyn Boulevard would be only 19 feet.
It is suggested that a distance of 19 feet at the inter-
section of 69th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard is
insufficient because it restricts the sight distance needed
to safely traverse the intersection.
M) The redwood fence as proscribed on the original site
plan as been changed to one consisting of .'crick columns
augmented with redwood fencing.
The character of the fence is very siMilaz to the one
existing at klo7.th Star Dodge and it is recommend as an
acceptable substiflute.
Page 3
Applications 70060 and 70061
•
In summery, the staff would recommend denial of the site
and building plans as presently submitted. However, if
the applicant were to modify the present plan and utilize
the landscape plan as originally submitted for the area
at the intersection or 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, approva .
is recommended providing usual conditions and the following
special conditions are adhered to:
1) That the north curb cut on June Avenue be designated
as entrance only.
2) That the south curb cut on June Avenue be designated
as exit only.
3) That the curb cut on Brooklyn Boulevard be designated
as right turn only for exiting vehicles.
4) That final approval for lighting of the driving and
parking areas be withheld until completion of
construction and adjustments.
• 5) That the applicant be encouraged to operate at less
than a 24 hour operation.
6) That specifications for restaurant equipment be sub-
mitted to the Health Sanitarian for approval prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
•
i
M
Spa!
s.
..:... .,.. ..' ..�. .. ;..°... .:.... a .;.. .. .,..� . .. •.:._'.. /',. .. ,. .,�
, ... ...," _ .. � ,-w..i.i r�.,Y�..4... ., a •: "-'. .. ..... . ... ..
.,.,. ._.._. t 1 too 17
A _
PLANNING COMISSI((N INFORMATIMT SHEET
Application No. 70045
Applicant: Standard Solvents
4906 France Avenue Forth
Description of Request: 6ideyard setback variance
BACKGRC3UM a
The Planning Commission approved a "A" sideyard setback
related to this Application on August 6, 1970.
The City Council has subsequently tabled action or the
matter and remanded it to the Commission to review
setbacks as it related to this application and future
applications.
The applicant has submitted a letter to the Commission
and Council indicating a time schedule for completion of
all phases of construction for the site and further
requested that their original site plan be approved.
ANALYSIS AND RECOM MATION
It is recognized by the staff that a precedent has been
set in the 50th and prance Avenue area because of the
existance of a number of minimum sideyard setbacks.
However, the type of operation on this site is very
hazardous because of the use of volitale liquids and
given this cirmmistance, setback is of considerable importance
to provide room for fire fighting purposes and separation
from existing structures in the area.
It is reasonable to assume that the applicant is submitting
a request to satisfy an immediate need, but within
5 years (according to the time table submitted) the existing
buildings will be removed and a totally new facility will
have been completed.
Consequently, the Commission is viewing a totally new
development rather than a simple addition to be utilizer
as a stop gap measure. Given this circumstance„ the
Coriunission should use the same standards as if it were an
undeveloped property.
•
Page 2
Application No. 70045
It should also be noted that there are deficiencies on the
site plan as submitted in regards to delineation of
par'k
,.ing stalls, surfacing of parking and driveway areas
and the green strip requirement.
The Zoning ordinance promulgates that no site plan shall
be approved urO-ess section 35-230 (Paving and Parking
Requirements) is adhered to, and further, there is a
requirement for a 15 foot green strip in the I. district.
Therefore, it is recommended that the side yard variance
be denied because the applicant has failed to show hardship
other than indicating that the situation exists with other
businesses in the area; and because it will be a new
development within five years and i-*#-- is, in the opinion
of the staff, unwise to further extend the precedent of
allowing '1011 side yard setbacks; and because of the type
of operation (volitale liquids) , it would - - be unreasonable
to further endanger the safety and welfare of persons and
businesses in the area.
It is further r eco mmerded that the site plan be denied
• because it is not in conformance with the existing ordinance
requirements.
..
•
I
s
PL.ANNING COMMISSION INFORKATION SIMET
Application No. 70066 and 70067 amended
Applicant-. Village Builders
Description of Request.- Rezoning from R-1 to R-4 of the
east 390 feet of Lot 21, Audito-'s
Subdivision No. 218, connaonly
described as being located at
the northwest corner of 53r6 and
Russell Avenues North.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January
7, 1971, to consider rezoning of Lot 21, Auditor's Sub-
division No. 218, from R-1 to R-5 and site and building
plan approval.
it was determined at that time to defer action on the
request to * allow further analysis for a decision to be
reached on February 4, 1971.
• Since the action of *January 7th, the applicant has
amended the original proposal and is now requesting R-4
zoning for the east 390 feet of the parcel in question
and site and building plan approval for a 36 unit
apartment complex.
ANALYSIS AND RECOUKENDATIONs.
71) ezoni.ng
It appears that there are a number of fac!t(.,)rs that
give merit, for the consideration of th_-Ts parcel being
an R-4 multiple use.
The parcel is located adjacent to R-2 zoning on 0he east,
open space on the north and west in Brooklyn Center, ard
Minneapolis Par,;: Board open space on the south.
Tt is significant to note that the Commission and City
Council has recognized R-4 multiple as both an adequate
buffer and a com-pat-J.-ble use wit-h R-1 and R-2 developmerts.
Specifically, those other areas arez
�1) Southwest neighborhood east of Twin Lake
�.'21 73rd and Lyndale Avenues North
N
"3) 69th and Dupont Avenues North
Page 2
Application No. 70066 and 70067 Amended
• Continued
Otf?.er factors to be considered iri this request are
building bulk, traffic, and the desire by the City to
retain the parcel for open space.
Building bulk in an R-4 zoning district is somewhat
negligible because of the low profile (2 stories maximum) .
Given this consideration and the fact that existing
double bungalows in the area are of the l� and 2 story
variety, it appears that the height of an R-4 development
would not serve as a detriment to the neighbor_-hood .
The irapact of additional traffic in the area -is a
potential problem that should be considered. A 36 unit
complex such as is being proposed would generate approxi.-
mately 216 trips in a 24 hour period.
Two hundred and sixteen trips is a very m_-Lnimum volv.me
for a local residential street, and given the fact that
the site is located within two blocks of 53rd and Penn,
which is the beginning of a series of collector streets,
it is very difficult to suggest. that -traffic flow and
• distribution would be a problem with this site.
Retention of this site for City open space to be
cormbined with tlie existing Lion's Park is a matter that
t7-ie Connission addressed itself to at the -oublic hearinS--
on Janua.ry 7th.
it should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan designates
this parcel as open space, but it was not rezoned to 0-1
in conjunction with rezonings resulting from the adoption
of the Comprehensive Plan. it appears that lack of
action in regard to this site would ind)'.cate eithIP-r ,an
oversight -Ir a recognition that t1here were no ir-mmediate
plans to impleptent an expanded park- program in this area.
The Planning Conunission requested that the Park and
Recreation Commission examine this parcel and inform them
of future Plans and the desirability of acquiring it and
adding it to the existing Lion's paf.,r,.
Aa excerpt of the Park and Recreation Commission minutes
of January 1 3, 1971, indicates the followiag-.
Page 3
Application Yo,, 70066 and 70067 Amended
Cont,i.nkJed
"It was noted that the present acreage of Lions Park
is approx.imately 17 acres. It was furZ'her noted that
Lions PaeK is designated as a neighborhood playground
which has a recormended size of from 10 to 15 acres.
X was generally agreed by the Park and Recreation COMWISSIon
4
that it v:ould be desirable to acquire the subject
property to the south thereby providing additional open
space and unrestricted access to both Russell Avenue
on the east and 53rd P.venue on the south. The Commission
recognized that the possibility of accUring the
property is extremely remote in view of the cost of
the land. 'rhe Commission suggests, as an alternative,
that the land to the west of the property and contiguous
to Shingle Creek be retained for public Park purposes.,
After further' discussion, a motion was made by ilenrietta
.Anderson and seconded by Rilth Lind to recommend tbat
appropriate action be taken for the City Co acquire
X mately ISO feet of the wpsterly portiork of the
f
ply:OpertV fOr PUbliC pal7k Purposes. -111he mot-ion carri.Md
• ti 1-1 a n-imou S IV
Relat:-ve to, but not -'Zhe result- O' park and
-L' ssion oction. )8 he
;�C:.�,Cr<eZjt 4on Comm it shou d lie Kicted that t*
appI.icajIj-., S alterlded request prow ages t'nat -"Ane Vie-St 195
feet-, of I,ot 21,, AtAitor' s Subdivisi.Olk -,.qo. 218, is to be
�fhe dedication
dedzlcated t ) ti' -- CitY for park 'PurPO'Bes,
I-C -1 -
adjacent ell.
-z..�ould consist of 1.06 ac..es , to S,,Iijig' e Cre-- '.
It sbiould be recognized thait t"he app'li--ant- , s proposal.
to dedicate property for park purPOS�2se Ms' considerc-,,tion
is 'brought to the
o" the parcel., but
o the _-ezOnIr.1.9 i. -
attention of -th�-_, Cortigiission because of its relationship
J_ -1 as
rh and Creation Commissiol
Lo the desires of the Pa� k
JanvlarY 13, 1971.
a *
suMrjIa-i,-N;,, it is recommended that the amended regaesi-
-or R-4 z-.>n<_61g be approved because it is eons is`tent with
past PIann_J'U,.q Commission actiOns, aonsisteat zoniag
V height:, P because.
bi:k'-'k and h -ig t, r d
V.rFAtKIC KElow resulting from the devrelognien POuld r'O'-
serve as a #:Ietr.,,yrerIt to the area.
Page 4
Planning Commission Application No. 70066 and 70067 Amended
Continued
2.1 Site and Building Plan
Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218, is 2. 97 acres
in size which would allow a maximum density of 36 units,.
Vie zoning request is for the easterly 390 feet of the
parcel with the remainder (1-06 acres) to be dedicated
for park purposes. Therefore, the applicant is requesting
1 density credit (12 units) for the 1.06 acres to be
dedicated in accordance with Section 35-400 (1) (c) of the
Zoning ordinance.
Examination of the site plan, as sulmitted, indicates
4wv 18 unit buildings connected by a concourse with
adequate green space. and parking facilities.
In view of this circumstance, granting of the density
credit in th,is Listance does not have the effect of creating an
over concentration of units on the remainder of the pa?.-cel.
in addition, the site has the amenity of being
adjacent to open space on three sides.
•
Other factors to be considered in examination of the
site plan are access to parking areas, character (--,f the
3
ouildings, building location, and parking lot construction.
The site plan indicates two one-way driveways (Ilentrance
only" on the scrath and "exit only" on the nor-t-h) . it is
suggested that this concept be reversed to ent-rance
only on the north and exit only on the south to eliminate
a cross traffic conflict at the interseation of 53rd and
Russell Avenues North.
The building plan indicates that a flat roof -is to be
utilized on the two 18 unit structures. it is suggested
that a hip roof be utilized to con.-f-orm with the character
of existing structures in the area,
The site plan indicates that the southwest and northwest
corner of the proposed buildings will be located within
-four feet ,.,f the curb line of the driveways. T-t is
suqqested that buildings be located to provide a 10 foot.
separation between the driveway area and building to
acconwaodate additional snow storage capacity and a wider
pedestrian access to the front of the parcel.
• Page 5
Application Leo. 70066 and 70067
Continued
Because of the poor soil conditions, as indicated by
soil borings submitted with this plan, it is suggested t:.hat,
final determination for the method of construction of t?ae
parking area be approved by the City Engineer.
it is recommended that the site and building plans 'De
approved providing usual conditions are adhered to and the
aforementioned special. conditions
•
7
• � Lam,
• pRO.P0s to
Y :+
1.��
rr a•
3
FI
a