Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC82026 - 6/17/82 - 1300 Block on South Side of 69th AvePLANNING COMNIISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application No. PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book Minutes: Planning Commission OW City Vault Minutes: City Council ���g,� City Vault Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION Application No. 82026 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 1300 Block on South Side of 69th Avenue North Legal Description of Property That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Hi Crest Square Addition lying east of Reqistered Land Survev No. 1312. Owner Bergstrom Realtv Co. Address 3401 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Phone No. 425-5554 Applicant Kenneth L. Bergstrom, President, Bergstrom Realty Co. Address 3401 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Phone No. 425-5554 Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval X Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: Variance from Zoning Ordinance Section 35-410, Subd. 3, which would allow reduction of green strip adjacent to City of Brooklyn Center Pump House site from 15 feet to 3 feet to permit a more preferable driveway intersection location at 69th Avenue North. The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Fee $ 50.00 Receipt No. M-01 Date: June 9, 1982 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: cant, Si Si q ature 4 ti Z.-L Approved 7< Denied this i I day of �.,% wA 49-- 19 $Z, subject to the following conditions: Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denied amendment: CITY COUNCIL ACTION this day of rman 19 002 ,with the following 1 Clerk P/I Form No. 18 (over please) CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway 55430 PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR FILING APPLICATION FOR SITE AND BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL rior to submission of an application for plan review and approval, prospective t_,plicants should arrange an informational meeting with the Planning Staff to iscuss preliminary plans and to become familiarized with applicable ordinance nd policy provisions. hree (3) copies of the.following documents and information shall be submitted, t least 14 days prior to the date of the regular' Commission meeting, concurrent' .1th filing the application (required documents must be consistent with ordi- ance and policy provisions before an application may be accepted): A certified site survey drawing by a registered engineer or land surveyor showing pertinent existing condition, accurately dimensioned. .* An accurately scaled and dimensioned site plan indicating: a) parking layouts including access provisions; b) 'designations and locations of accessory buildings; c) fences, walls or other screening, including heights and type of material; d) outside lighting provisions, type and location; e) curbing. .* A landscape plan showing areas to be sodded or seeded; location, size and species of trees and shrubbery. r .* Building floor plans, elevations, sections and specifications, including materials proposed. y * Existing and proposed land elevations, drainage provisions, and utility provisions. Additional drawings, plans or information deemed necessary by the Secretary. *Must be prepared by a registered architect or person registered with the Stat, ,oard of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors, and said rawings/plans shall be so certified& :OTE: Upon approval of plans by the Council and prior to issuance of permits, Performance Agreement as to approved site improvements and a supporting finan ial guarantee, in an amount to be determined by the City, are required. Accept bIc financial instruments include cash escrow; certificate of deposit; and rformance bond. 'opies of the Zoning Ordinance may be obtained from the Administrative Office. >uestions should be directed to the Planning and Inspection Department. /I Form No. 19 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 82026 Applicant: Bergstrom Realty Co. Location: 1300 block of 69th Ave. North Request: Variance The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-410 Subdivision 3 to allow only a 3' greenstrip adjacent to the City pump house at 1207 - 69th Avenue North rather than the ordinance required buffer of 15' when R3, R4 or R5 uses abut R1 or R2 uses at a property line. The townhouse project is, of course, zoned R3; the pump house is zoned R1. The purpose of the variance is to allow a better location of the main driveway serving the proposed townhouse development so as not to crowd the townhouses to the west into a smaller area. The applicant has submitted no letter addressing the standards for a variance as set forth in Section 35-240. Variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Ordinance may be granted in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance may be granted after demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: (a) Because of the particular physical surround-i.ngs, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific parcels of land in- volved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. (b) The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. (c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. (d) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. It does not appear that imposition of the normal buffer requirement would cause more than an inconvenience to the property owner since there is ample space on the site to arrange the location of 60 townhouses and necessary roads and buffers. However, there is precedent for reduced buffer strips adjacent to institutional R1 uses. Reduced buffers have,been accepted under Application No. 74044 77052 in the cases of two industrial buildings in the Industrial Park abutting the Berean Evangelical Free Church. Other instances where less than the normally required buffer have been accepted adjacent to institutional R1 uses include: -K-Mart south of Garden City School. -Victoria Townhouses (garages) south of the City water tower at 69th and France. 6-17-82 -1- Application No. 82026 continued -Office Building at 5901 Brooklyn Boulevard, south of the Cross of Glory Lutheran Church. -Apartment uses immediately north of Brooklyn Center Junior -Senior High -School. -Apartment uses east of Willow Lane School and east of Garden City School. There seem to be few, if any, instances where institutional uses have been buffered from multi -family residential uses. It may be appropriate, therefore, to waive the buffer requirement in this instance as well on tre assumption that the pump house will likely continue at the present location for as long as the proposed townhouse development. Such a waiver would be based on considerable precedent and would cause no harm to other residential property if confined to the abut- ment with institutional R1 uses. Based on the foregoing, approval of the variance application as a waiver of the 15' buffer requirement adjacent to the pump house is recommended on the following grounds: 1. The institutional nature of the abutting Rl use. 2. There is considerable precedent for allowing a reduced buffer adjacent to institutional uses. 3. There would be no detrimental effect on other residential property in the area. 6-17-82 -2- 4 +PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PIANNING CnM'4TSST0N APPLICATION 11O. 82023 SUBMITTED BY BERGSTROM REALTY COMPANY FOR AMLI•IDE_D BUTLD_I_c;G PLATI APPROVAL, FOR PHASE I OF THE III CREST SQUARti ESTATES IN THE 1300 PLOC:K ON PILE SOUTH SIDE: OF 6�)Tfl AVLNUE NORTIi The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that this application was approved by the Planning Commission at the July 15, 1982 meeting and that approval of the item was deferred at the July 26, 1982 City Council meeting until the plans were signed by a registered architect. He pointed out that at the July 26 City Council meeting, the Council approved the master site plan, grading, and utility and land- scape plan. He explained tht total project was a 60 unit townhouse project. He explained approval of the two six -unit buildings in the project was deferred on July 26, 1982 until the plans could be certified by a registered architect. He proceeded to review the elevations and exterior construction of the project. He stated he believes the plans as submitted are in order and that he recommends approval for the two six -unit buildings. He stated approval is recommended subject to the 12 conditions set by the Planning Commission at its July 15, 1982 meeting which he reviewed for Council members. Mayor Nyquist inquired whether the certification on the plans submitted this evening is accurate, since the certification states that the plans were prepared by or supervised directly by the architect signing the plans. Mr. Hal Pierce, who ls"fhe architect, whose name appears on the plans, stated that he reviewed the plans but that he did not prepare them or supervise their preparation. Mr. William Clelland, attorney for the applicant, stated that the past practice of the City was not to require certification until the building permits are issued. He stated that requiring approval at this time is a departure from past practices. The Director of Planning & Inspection commented that the plans have been submitted both ways iri the past, and that designers have submitted preliminary plans not signed by a registered architect and that later the. final plans were certified by an architect. Mr. Clelland requested that the literal interpretation of the ordinance not be used in this case since the actual preparation of the plans will be done by Mr. Pierce, a registered architect. Mayor Nyquist noted that this is not what the certification on the plans states. Mr. Clelland suggested that Mr. Pierce be allowed to review the plans and give assurances that he will be involved in the development of the final plans. Councilmember Lhotka inquired as to the time frame for approval. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that the time period is 30 days from the day it is referred from the Planning Commission to the City Council, in this case, July 26 1982. Councilmember Lhotka then inquired whether the applicant could meet with the other party in the dispute. Mr. Clelland stated it is a misconception that the two parties have not met, and he pointed out that he has met with representatives of the applicant and pointed out that the applicant is not present this evening. Mr. James Merila, representing the applicant, requested the on the first reading of the zoning ordinance amendment this no objection to tabling Application No. 82023 for two weeks. 8-9-82 -13- City Council evening but take action that he has There was a motion by Coixncilmember Lhotka to table consideration of Planning 16 Commission Application No. 82023 for two weeks. Themotion died for lack of a second. Mr. Merila commented that after discussion with legal counsel, he would request that Application Ito. 82023 be approved this evening. Mr. Clelland stated that he believes no purpose would be served to meet with Mr. DeVries and Mr. Beisner, and that the plans the Council has before them this evening were drawn by a firm with no previous affiliation with the Earle Brown farm Estates project. Mr. Mark Hagerty, attorney for DeVries Builders, addressed the Council and stated that the only difference between the plans Mr. DeVries has seen and the ones before the Council this evening is that Mr. Pierce has signed them. Mr. Pierce stated that Mr. Hagerty was correct and that the plans were not changed. Councilmember Theis stated that the two parties appear to be at an impasse and that he is disappointed in the applicant's attorney's response to-Councilmember Lhotka's request. He stated that the integrity of people have been challenged in this situation and he hopes that the clouds over the issue will be cleared up. The City Attorney stated that on site and building plan approvals the City Council does not have much discretion and that the ordinance is very specific. He added that the question is whether the City will be involved in a law suit by not taking action this evening on something they would take action on at the next Council meeting, if the item were tabled. He added that the risk is that if the project fails between now and two weeks the City may be brought into a lawsuit for damages. The City Attorney stated he would advise, if there was no just reason to table the application, the City Council should act on the application this evening. He stated he believes the controversy is totally unrelated to what the City Council has done or not done, or what the staff has done or not done. He stated that the dispute among the two parties belongs in a court room. Mr. Mark Hagerty, attorney for DeVries Builders, stated that the City staff had assured he and Mr. DeVries that a public hearing would be held on the site and building plan application at the last Council meeting. The City Manager questioned Mr. Hagerty's assertion and stated he would take exception to that assertion. Mr. Hagerty stated that he was informed by an individual in the administrative offices that there would be a public hearing on the site and building plan application at the July 26 City Council meeting. The Director of Planning & Inspection stated that neither Mr. Hagerty nor Mr. Beisner have contacted him regarding this matter, and that he would think that if sor..eone were interested in the application process they would contact him, considering his position with the City. Discussion continued briefly regarding the application before the Council. Mayor Nyquist then inquired as to the Council's wishes regarding Application No. 82023.. There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Hawes to approve Application No. 82023 subject to the following conditions: 8-9-82 -14- % I- r 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits; and specifically, should conform to the revisions and requirements set forth in the Assistant City Engineer's memo dated 6-14-82. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improve- ments for the entire development. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 7. All areas regraded, but not developed according to plan shall be seeded to maintain adequate ground cover for dust control. 8. The Assistant City Engineer shall report to the City Council on how the proposed plan compares with other ponds on private developments in the City and on whether the proposed pond will fulfill its function as both a drainage control device and an aesthetic asset to the townhouse develop- ment, with an acceptable safety risk. 9. Plan approval acknowledges the proposed landscape treatment along the east side of the development as acceptable a screening in lieu of the ordinance required 4' high opaque fence. 10. The building plans shall be certified by a registered Minnesota Architect prior to the issuance of building permits if so required by the State Building Codes Division. 11. The site plans shall be amended to incorporate a system to supplement natural ground water inflow into -the proposed pond thus, maintaining a constant water level elevation of 840 feet (U.S.G.S. Datum). 12. The building plan for the.six-unit buildings shall be as set forth in in the plans approved by the City Council on this date. Any departure " from these plans shall be resubmitted to the City Council for approval. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Lhotka, Scott, Hawes, and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. nunTmAwrrc The City Manager introduced An Ordinance Amending Chapter 19 of the City Ordinances Regarding Public Nuisances and An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of the City Ordinances 8-9-82 -15-