Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC70066 - 1/7/71 - 5301 Russell AvePLANNING COAC IISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: 81O ,7- FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application No. 7V/-/- 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 0 Building Plans 0 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 Twe Date Range Location Agenda Cover Sheet: Planning Commission Agenda Book Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council Ordinances: City Council 1 /7/71, '�H/7/ ff13/7/ -7/- 90 (5-13171) City Vault City Vault City Vault City Vault City Vault Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application Street Location of Property Application No. 70066 5301 Russell Avenue North Legal Description of Property Lot 21, Aud. Sub. 218 Owner John W. Thurn Applicant village Builders Address 5301 Russell Avenue Telephone No. S60—g9si _ Address 3900 - 36th Avenue No. Telephone No. -4685 Type of Request: X Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval Other Description of Request Rezone to- �y to permit construction of 52 unit apartment complex. Reason for Request Fee $ 75.00 Receipt No. Applicant December 21, 1970 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Approved Denied this subject to the o ing conditions COUNCIL ACTION day ofn,19 roved Denied this day of/G 19_„L, with the following amendment ij Clerk n PLANNING CONMISSION INFOMATION SHEET Application No. Applicant Description of Requests BACKGROUND,. 70066 and 70067 amended Village Builders Rezoning from R-1 to R-4 of the east 390 feet of Lot 21, Audito.: ° s Subdivision No. 218, cormzonly. described as being located at the northwest corner of 53.rd and Russell Avenues North. The Planning commission held a public hearing on January 7, 1971, to consider rezoning of Lot 21., Audi-tor's Sub- division No. 218, from RV-1 to R-5 and site and buildinc 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 zoni.na for the east 390 feet of the parcel in question and site ana building plan approval for a 36 un_it apartment. complex. AMLYSIS AM RI ECOMMMATION: 1) Rezoning It appears that there are a :lumber of factors that give merit for the consideration of this parcel being an R-4 multiple use. The parcel is located adjacent: to R.--2 Zoning on the eaet, open space on the north and west in Brooklyn Center, ar.d Minneapolis Rant Board open space on the south. it is significant to note that the c:omrnission and City Council has r-ecogni.zed R-4 multiple as both an adequate buffer and a compatible use with R-1 and R• 2 d irelopmer.ts. specifically, those other areas are: (1) Southwest neighborhood east of Twin. Lake (2) 73rd and Lyndale Avenues Morth (3) 69th and Dupont Avenues North Page 2 Application No. 70066 and 70067 Amended Continued Other factors to be considered in this request are building bulk, traffics and the desire by the City to retain the parcel for open space. Building bully Li an R-4 zoning district is samewhat negligible because of the low profile (2 stor_i.es maximum). Given this consideration and the fact 'chat existing double bungalows in the area are of the 1'j and 2 s'cory variety, it appears that the height of an R-4 development would not serve as a detriment to the neighborhood. The impact 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 minimum volvine .for a local residential street, and given the fact that the site is :located within two blocks "of 53rd and Penn_, Vnich is the beginning of a series of cr)llector streets, it is very difficult to suggest that traffic 'flow and �- distribution would be a problem with th:t.s site. Retention of this site for City open sy.)ace to be coifoined with the existing Lion `s Park, is a mattes that tape Commission addressed itself to at the public hearinc- on January 7th. I t. should be noted that the Comprehensive Plan dasicmatvs this parcel as open space, but it vas not rezoned to 0--1 in conjunction with -r_ezonings resulting from the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. It appears that lack of action in regard to this site would indicate either,an oversight or a recognition_ that there were no immediate plans to implement an expanded paek program in this area. The Planning Commission requested that the Park and Recreation COi1MIssion examine this parcel and inform them of future plans and the desirability of acquiring it and adding it to the existing Lions Park. An excerpt of the Park and Recreation Commiissi.on minutes of January -3, 1971, indicates the following: Page 3 Application Mo. 70066 and 70067 Amended `- Continued "It was noted that the present acreage of Lions Park is approximately 17 acres, it was further noted that Lions park is designated as a .neighbo.rbood playground which has a reccnmended size of from 10 to 15 acres. it was generally agreed by the Park and Recreation Co=r.iss i can that it would be desirable to acquire the subject property to the south thereby providing additional open space and unrestricted access to moth Russell Avenue can the east and 53rd Avenue on the south. The Commission recognized that the possibility of acquiring the property is extremely remote in view of the cost of the land. The 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 Henrietta Anderson and seconded by Ruth Lind to recommend that appropriate action be taken for the City to acquire approximately, 180 feet of the westerly portion of the property for public park purposes. The motion carried unanimovslv." Relative to, but not the result of the Park and Recreation Commission action, it should be noted that. the applicant's amended request provides that the west. 195 feet of Lot. 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218, is to bE dedicated to the City for park purposes. The dedication would consist of 1.06 acres adjacent. to Shingle Creek.. Tt should be recognized that the a,3plicant`s proposal to dedicate property for park purposels, is not a eonsideretion in the rezoning of the parcel, but is brought µto the attention of the commission because or its relationship to the desires of -the Park and Creation Commission as promulgate6 on January 13, 1971.. in summary, it is recommended that the amended req zes; ;for_ R-4 zoning be approved because it is consistent with past Planning Commission actions, consistent with zoning principles of buffering, bulk and height, aid because= traffic flow resulting from the development would no--. serve as a detriment to the area. OR Page 4 Planning Commission Application No. 70066 and 70067 Amended Continued 2) Site and Building Plan Lot 21, Auditor's Subdivision No. 218, is 2.97 acre: in size which would allow a maximum density of 36 units, The 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 request.ng l_ density, credit (1.2 unitsl 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 submitted, indicates .wo 18 unit buildings connected by a concourse with adequate green spare, and parking facilities. in view of this circumstance, granting of the density credit in this List.ance does not have the effect of creating an over concentration of units on the remainder of the,parcel. xn addition, the site has the amenity of being adjacent to open space on three sines. Other factors to be considered in examination of the aite plan are access to parking areas, character of the buildings, building location, and parking lot construct.on. The site plan indicates two one-way driveways ("entrance only" on the south and "exit only" on the north). It is suggested that this concept be reversed to entrance only on the north and exit only on the south to eliminate a cross traffic conflict at the interser_tion of 53rd and Russell ,Avenues North. The building plan indicates that a flat roof is tc lie utilized cn the two 1.8 unit structures. It is suggested that a '.hip roof be utilized to conform with the character of existing structures in the area. The site plan indicates that: the southwest. and northwest cornea of the proposed buildings will be Located within :_our feet of the curb line of the driveways. it is suggested that buildings be located to provide a 10 foot. separation between 'rile driveway area and building to acconunodat;.e additional snow storage capacity and a widen pedestr'Lan access to the front of the parcel_. Page 5 \.. Application No. 70066 and 70067 Continued Because of the poor sail conditions, as indicated by soil borings submitted with this plant it is suggested that. final determination for the method of construction of the parking area be approved by the City Engineer. it: is recommended that the site and building plans be approved providing usual conditions are adhered to and the aforementioned special, conditions. PAkK ®eD 14 ATtioov IVAlo -r:. . i � -Ly®as MARK JMQ ME &TraD CITY of tA%%*mCAW-,&V6 6 HEDLUND ENGINEERING SERVICES Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors PHONE: 888-2080 January 30, 1971 Mr. Edwin Kauffman 3603 France five Into. Mpls 55422 Dear Mr. Kauffman ?fie: ,soil burin gs 53rd and Russell Relative to your questions concerning; the soil condition on the above parcel of land, T would take this means to point out that ;ae have positioned the proposed buildings near the front of the property. Our preliminary soil investigation has shown that we have good bearing; soils in the area where we have positioned the two structures. As we o farther to the west toward Shing le Creek we found that the poor soils of Peat and P%iarl overlay the sandl soils to a considerable depth. While we do not have complete s6il data at this time, we do have sufficient information to feel that the back 2/3 of this property would involve considerable expence to consider usin, it as an area where buildings could be constructed. Boring no's 3 and 5 as shown on the soil report indicate we have soft blue silt and Marl down to a depth of 16 and 13 feet respectively. It is reasonable to assume that the poor soils will extend deeper as we rho farther to the creek in a westerly direction. B oe-Johnson did some soil investigation i_mediately to the west of the creek on the Mpls side for another cliar_t and found poor soils extending down below 25 feet. we feel we have made the best configuration of the proposed layout in View of the conditions as they exist. It is felt that using the back middle portion for a parking area will be possible By doing some surcharging of the earth to get soil stability for that intended purpose. zinc rly, Calvin H. Hedlund, P.E.