HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC81067 - 11/19/81 - 5700 Block of Colfax AvePLANNING COMIVIISSION FILE CHECKLIST
FILE INFORMATION File Purge Date: 12�3/95
Planning Commission Application No. 81of,,7
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 `� att'achecct iz zon►i-'q appl►c0c+1dn
• 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
Minutes: City Council
Resolutions: Planning Commission
Resolutions: City Council
Ordinances: City Council
►►/I9 f 81 tabled,
I z/10I81
12/zl/al
City Vault
City Vault
City Vault
City Vault
City Vault
Historical Photographs: Planning Commission City Archieve
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
PLANNING C01"MISSION APPLICATION
Application No.
81067
Please Print Clearly or Type
Street Location of Property 5700 block of Colfax Ave. N_
Legal Description of Property Lots 1 through 7, Block 1. Belinda Additinn
.(formerly Lots 16, 17, 18, Block 1- Goods gdditinn
Owner David Brandvold
Address 6006 Colfax Ave. N.
Applicant -same
Phone No. 560-8263
Address Phone No.
Type of Request: Rezoning
Variance
x Subdivision Approval
6 Site & Bldg. Plan Approval
Special Use Permit Other:
Description of Request: To subdivide the property into 7 lots.
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 $ 85.00
Receipt No.
56952
Date: October 15, 1981
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Dates of P.C. Consideration:
Approved Denied .,this day of 192.1
subject to the
following conditions: ' -9 f
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Dates of Council Consideration:
a-1-1 it
Approved Denied this day ofI ice:. 19 with the following
amendment:
v
tier
P/I Form No. 18 (over please)
'Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81067
Applicant: David Brandvold
Location: 5700 block of Colfax Avenue North
Request: Preliminary Plat
The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create four new
lots in the 5700 block of Colfax Avenue North from excess land in
three lots between the NSP power line easement and 58th Avenue North.
The four new lots will have access off a cul-de-sac extending north
of the NSP easement on Colfax. The land in question is presently
described as Lots 16, 17 and 18, Gould's Riverview Addition. The
proposed legal description is Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, Belinda
Addition. In addition to the four new lots, the remainders of the
three existing lots are also included in the plat. The entire sub-
division is contained in the R1 zone.
All of the lots in the subdivision exceed the area requirement for
single family lots. The four new lots have areas as follows:
Lot
1
11,298
sq.
ft.
Lot
2
10,834
sq.
ft.
Lot
6
11,426
sq.
ft.
Lot
7
12,334
sq.
ft.
Lots 3, 4 and 5 are all about 20,725 sq. ft. and have dwellings and
garages already in place on them.
The dimensions of the cul-de-sac meet ordinance requirements of a
100' diameter paved area and 120' diameter right-of-way. An ease-
ment for street purposes will be obtained from NSP to extend Colfax
north to serve the four new lots. Water and sanitary sewer service
will be gained from utility lines running through the NSP easement.
The proposed subdivision meets ordinance requirements in all respects
except that it does not indicate curb and gutter around the cul-de-sac
which is required by Section 15-108 (d) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff recommend that the Commission recommend inclusion of curb and
gutter as a condition of plat approval. A memo from the City Engineer
regarding the policy of requiring curb and gutter is being prepared
for the Commission's review at Thursday night's meeting.
Approval of the preliminary plat is recommended subject to at least
the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by
the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of
Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.
3. The subdivider/developer shall enter into a Sub-
division Agreement with the City and submit a
financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined
by the City Manager) insuring the completion of all
ordinance required improvements, including install-
ation of curb and gutter.
12-10-81
12 5 i go 5 v 5 LA K 4�L1V 12L. 5 03o ZcBo
J5 Z Q 1 5.04 005 09 135.09 a -- --
134 � _ i 34.7_ - -- - - -
- II 6 6
6 76 r 6 =r -; ! M N %, 61.01
71 34 1 ' ; 1351E 1 .IZ 35.:2
d
P, I • 4 0 7 o a
n 10 �n 7 m 7' v 7 r 0 r�,N8921E rr 7
w r 14.12 134.12 t 53 0 36 aJ _ I .! 135.I4 e
' r 130 14o > ; � •', o
,'1 8 v ,� 8 vi b Q Q R aro Q 9 8 8 ,e•
(, 0 :34.14 M 134.74 135 r 134.3 r I 8 140 135 1 135.11
- - -
-- ----- -- - ----- - - --- >�V�-, - --- -- f-,4755 N885i45E
4.65 o
34.65 N
16
1
134. 6r.
134_66
'^ 15
_ -
M
- 134 66
134.66 r
14
3
134.67
134.6, -
-
13/--
4
`�34_6$_
134.68i
12 5 Q,
134.69 0134 69
11 Q6
134.1 134.7
In In
10
�
7 M
134.11 r
13411;
9 I
134. Z
13
30 to"
J
11014
1(04.16
02
34 -
Q
NO 4
-
„(9200)
�2Z I �
163.04
Q1,o_19
r (8410)
�
M
�
"4J 3 ^
CO(8420)
_
1:1 04
165.32
sal'""
(3070)
36
- -
(8400)
(3060)
i65.6 _
-
J88 22)
(3010)
65.88
Z1
.38
(802 0)
.s
3 (8010)
Z1o.49_
M
h
2 (76-00) .o
-
to(7800)
(7410)
1 (1401)
q (7210)
0(i810) .;
t10
93
e(6 d00)
TIRO) w
2
C. q4
60
KA-- - ;3d.1 ...1nn ----------------- --. ..
- ------------'- o-- - --AVE.- -- -- 6d2 - -
- - I Wesf M -
134.15
134.13
6
�2
1
'34.74
34.74.
7 Qr
2 -b-
•D134.11
13411
Q6
n
I 3
a134.18r
+� 134.18
^J 5
0
4
0
134.8
14.
Co. 589,58 E
134.93
0 134 93
c
Q_ 6
r
1
134.14
Ln
- 2
r 5
;34 9G
r-
134 96
4
r 3
134. 8
134.98
W.pp
o,o
M 1--
b 0
a�
Ii8.1
13
13Z
(3816)
09)
0
)
(3807)
(4613) '
19 r'
0
7 I15
M
(3600)
(4620)
040 0)
138.45
13
132
A t
a
(�'0)
21 •
N "'
30 3o
1
M 2
(64 00 )
ZO M
N
W 2.X'I
Q
N v
N
o
(482D)
a
-
Q
3 m
4
(60 20)
38.2
d
_^
IZ7
30 3o
115 r
65.64
131
.......... 2640. l9 des. -- . --...
u
9....
3030
132
(3010)
(2610)
i�
(2410)
t21o)
(22D)
"
•�
iRoro)�
a
(3020�
•n
Q.
LL
245o
a.
�,.
M 0)
(145
13
0
M
R
�
�
I
(3200) (26b0) �
132
�
II
10
;r32_ -
12
(2d60)
--.r...
o Opened
1.6
per.
58
Al. S. P.
-
N
25
(6630) o
26
,
^
M
(7(e00)
•
M
O
28 "^
29
410)
(742
(7430)
%.
(6610)
300
(?p20)
M
13 Z
13 Z
����t'C-Qt C7�l
5,6 4
PSY0
v Q
,✓tee ��e :sa~� qve. �.a 396, o0
A _
JJb•w -- b.. �
3ew.s.-
,01,ao
p4j
F
h
N
M
8eo%
Cherrier Winter & Assoc
I
bO
I Registered Professional Land S
I I
,
306 • VOl ioe No th Protp%slonal Bldg • :%t o Unity Avrnue Nrr th ■
r
TO: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works
Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
FROM: Jim Grub, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: December 19, 1983
RE: Revised Plat of Belinda Addition
Attached is a schematic which shows the proposed subdivision of the three long
residential lots which abut 58th Avenue North and the N.S.P. easement at Colfax
Avenue North. Dave Brandvold has contacted me regarding the difficulty he
has encountered purchasing the rear yard of the most easterly lot (subdivided
into lots 1 and 2). As a result of his difficulties, he has two major questions:
1. Can subdivision of the other two parcels take place without the third?
Answer: Any platting should have a provision that will allow for the
subdivision of the easterly lot in an orderly fashion. Street
right of way could be acquired from the easterly lot by
dedication, easement (or deed) or condemnation. Dedication is
most desireable, condemnation is least.
2. If improvements are installed to provide for development, can the
easterly lot be assessed?
Answer: It is conceivable, since the City Ordinances make provisions for
such an action. If the property is to be assessed, the City
would contract the work and follow Chapter 429 proceedings. If
the developer does the work, he pays the cost, and no -assess-
ments are levied.
Comment: 1. The schematic appears to meet the minimum criteria of right of way
diameter of 60 feet, lot area, and lot width at setback.
2. I do not know if N.S.P. has reacted to the proposal for additional
street easement through its property.
3. I do not consider the "forced" acquisition.of right of way from
the easterly lot to be acceptable.
4. Please note the penciled outline of a cul-de-sac. This is the
minimum right of way per our ordinances and closely resembles the
original proposal. Conceivably, a variation of this layout could
be acceptable, but the reimbursement of improvement cost is
questionable.
Please comment on the new proposal by Brandvold.
JNG:jn
CITY
OF
n001CI A.1
IT
i
December. 27, 1983
Mr. David Brandvold
6006 Colfax Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
RE: Belinda Addition
Brooklyn Center, MN
Dear_ Dave:
,FlU ��
6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
TELEPHONE 561-5440
EMERGENCY -POLICE -FIRE
911
The staff has reviewed your revised proposal for the final plat of Belinda
Addition and offers the following comments:
1. Regarding the non -conventional geometrics of the cul-de-sac
"bulb", the staff sees no advantage to the layout and would
recommend against its platting as proposed. Also, the staff
questions whether Northern States Powex Company is willing
to grant an easement for such purposes.
2. Regarding acquisition of right of way from the easterly lot
for the purpose of the cul-de-sac layout as proposed, the staff
would recommend to the City Council that it not pursue the
acquisition of the property through easement, condemnation, or
platting.
3. Regarding assessment of benefitted properties for utility and
street improvements, the City cannot assess the properties if
your firm does the improvements. The staff is reluctant to
recommend the City Council direct the improvements be completed
under City contract and special assessments be levied, given the
condition that the revised development proposal is not acceptable
to all property owners.
In summary, the staff does not consider the revised proposal to be acceptable.
The staff recommends you devise a layout that could be constructed without the
owner of the easterly lot, keeping in mind the potential for subdivision of the
lot in some orderly manner that results in the establishment of one or two lots
along the cul-de-sac. In so doing, you could construct the improvements and
deal with the owner at the time he wishes to subdivide his property.
Mr. David Brandvold
Iicr���rr7t�cr 27, 19f33
ia<�c 'I ao
Please contact our office if you have any questions in regard to this matter.
Sincerely,
.9z, -- jt"4'
Jim Grube
Assistant City Engineer
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
JG/ps
cc:!'Ron.Warren, Director of Planning and Inspection
Belinda Addition Preliminary Plat
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
DECEMBER 10, 1981
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to
order by Chairman William Hawes at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman William Hawes, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis,
Nancy Manson, George Lucht, Mary Simmons and Lowell Ainas. Mso
present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren,
Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Clary
Shallcross.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 19, 1981
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to
approve the minutes of the November 19, 1981 Planning Commission
meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commis-
sioners Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against:
none. Not voting: Commissioner Manson, as she was not at that
meeting. The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 81067 (David Brandvold)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the
first item of business, a request for preliminary plat approval to
subdivide land between 57th and 58th Avenues North in the Colfax
^` Avenue corridor by creating a cul-de-sac. The Secretary reviewed
the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Infor-
mation Sheet for Application No. 81067 attached). The Assistant
City Engineer referred the Commission to a memo he had submitted
to the Secretary and to the Director of Public Works regarding
the proposed subdivision. He pointed out that Section 15-108 of
the subdivision ordinance requires curb and gutter as one of the
public improvements in a residential subdivision. He also noted
that no storm sewer had been proposed for the project, since there
is none within 400 ft. of the cul-de-sac. He stated that the
developer would grade the site so that overland flow would direct
drainage either toward 58th or along the pavement to 57th Avenue
North. He pointed out that since the grade of the street would
not be steep, curb and gutter would help the drainage to flow
toward 57th. As far as terminating the curb and gutter, the
Assistant City Engineer recommended that as.a minimum, the developer
be required to install curb and gutter within the subdivision itself.
The Secretary added that curb and gutter is an ordinance requirement
which has generally been waived in the past in the case of resi-
dential subdivisions. He pointed out, however, that it has not
always been waived. He cited the DeVries subdivision off Xerxes
Avenue North, south of the freeway. The Secretary also pointed
out that there may be a need for a utility easement between Lots 1
and 2 and between Lots 6 and 7, because of the location of power
poles in the vicinity of property lines.
12 10-81 -1-
There followed a lengthy discussion regarding the requirement for
curb and gutter. Commissioner Simmons asked whether a row of
bituminous curb would be installed through the NSP easement. The
Secretary answered that staff would recommend that curb and gutter
be carried through the easement. The Assistant City Engineer stated
that the City would try to assess NSP for the curb and gutter, but
admitted that he was unsure whether benefit could be proven. Com-
missioner Lucht asked what the minimum gradelis for street drainage.
The Assistant City Engineer answered that the minimum grade is
roughly one-half of one percent, or a one-half foot rise in 100
feet. He stated that the Belinda Addition is proposed at approxi-
mately a one percent grade, but that this could be flatter with
the curb and gutter installed.
In answer to a question from Commissioner Manson, the Assistant
City Engineer explained that the greatest drainage problem would
occur at the point where the curb and gutter ceases along Colfax
Avenue North. Chairman Hawes asked a question regarding the
assessment for the street improvements. The Assistant City Engi-
neer answered that the improvements could either be installed by
the City and assessed against abutting properties or could be in-
stalled by the developer with the cost paid by the developer. He
reiterated that the City would try to assess NSP for any improve-
ments abutting its property, but added that it was unlikely that
any benefit could be shown to Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5, which have access
onto 58th Avenue North. Commissioner Simmons agreed that lots
abutting 58th should not be assessed for the cul-de-sac.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Hawes opened the public hearing and called on the applicant
to speak. Mr. David Brandvold, the developer for the project,
pointed out that there is no curb and gutter along Colfax Avenue
North between 53rd Avenue North and the freeway. He stated that
he felt the installation of curb and gutter should be foregone
until the rest of the street is so improved. He stated that in-
stallation of curb and gutter would raise the price of the houses
he plans to build and make them more difficult to sell. He also
noted that the City Council did not require curb and gutter on the
cul-de-sac in the Jody Addition. Chairman Hawes commented that
the City is considering a neighborhood street improvement program;
which would include installing curb and gutter throughout the City
within a few years.
Mr. Brandvold stated that he would oppose curb and gutter on his
own strbet and stated that the rolled bituminous curbs on most
streets in the City have held up well. Commissioner Lucht pointed
out that if the street improvements were a City project, all the
cost would be assessed against the abutting properties. He also
pointed out that curb and gutter may be installed within the next
few years anyway under the program mentioned by the Chairman. In
answer to Commissioner Lucht, the Assistant City Engineer stated
that the assessment rate for curb and gutter is approximately
$10.00 per lineal foot, which includes the cost of the curb and
gutter and administrative overhead. Commissioner Simmons inquired
as to the rate for rolled bituminous curbing. The Assistant City
Engineer answered that there is no separate assessment for bitum-
inous curbing, but that it is included with the cost of the street.
The Secretary stated that the City Council would hold an assessment
hearing to determine benefit if the street improvements were in-
stalled by the City. He stated that it is a policy decision as to
K
whether to require curb and gutter, though he added it seems silly
to put in the street without curb and gutter and then tear it up
later on to add the curb and gutter as part of a potential up-
coming city-wide program.
-^ Mr. Brandvold stated that special assessment hearings would
.. probably be held for any improvement projects in the future and
that he would oppose curb and gutter on his own street at such
a hearing. He also pointed out that if the project were con-
structed by the City, he would still be liable for paying assess-
ments before selling the houses. Therefore, the cost of the im-
provement would be included in the price of the houses, no matter
who installed the street and the curbs.
Commissioner Theis asked whether there were other streets in the
area that had curb and gutter. The Assistant City Engineer 'stated
that Dupont Avenue has curb and gutter, since it is a Minnesota
State Aid street, but that most of the streets in the area do not.
have curb and gutter.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to
close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 81067
(David Brandvold)
Motion by Commissioner Lucht sec ed By Commissioner Simmons to
recommend approval of Application No. 80167, subject to the follow-
ing conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of
Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.
3. The subdivider/developer shall enter into a Sub-
division Agreement with the City and submit a
financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined
by the City Manager) insuring the completion of all
ordinance required improvements, including install-
ation of curb and gutter.
4. An easement for street purposes shall be obtained
from Northern States Power Company for installation
of street through the power easement prior to
final plat approval.
Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Manson,
Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: Commissioner Theis.
Commissioner Theis explained that he voted against the approval-.
as proposed because he is concerned about requiring curb and gutter
on a cul-de-sac, but not continuing it on the rest of Colfax Avenue
North. fie stated that the curb and gutter should be continued all
the way down to 57th.
APPLICATION NO. 61069 (C & G Transcontinental Developers)
The Secretary introduced the next item o usiness, a request for
preliminary plat approval to subdivide into three lots the land at
the northeast corner of County Road 10 and Brooklyn Boulevard, the
12-10-81 -3-
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 19, 1981
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairman William Hawes at 7:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman William Hawes, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Richard Theis,
George Lucht, Mary Simmons and Lowell Ainas. Also present were
Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City
Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The
Secretary mentioned that Commissioner Manson had called a week
prior to the meeting to say she would be unable to attend and was
excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 5, 1981
Chairman Hawes briefly asked for clarification of the off -site
accessory parking ordinance amendment on page 5 and 6 of the
November 5 minutes. Following an explanation by the Secretary
regarding parking allowed between zones, there was a motion by
Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the
minutes of the November 5, 1981 meeting as submitted. The motion
passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 81067 (David Brandvold)
Following the Chairman's explanation, Chairman Hawes explained
that certain revisions had to be made to the preliminary plat
proposed by Mr. Brandvold involving land at the end of Colfax
Avenue North, north of 57th Avenue North. He stated that the
application would not be considered until the December 10 meeting,
at the earliest.
MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NO. 81067 (David Brandvold)
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to
table Application No. 81067 until the December 10, 1981 meeting,
or until the applicant has prepared a satisfactory plat of the
land in question. Voting in favor: Chairman Hawes, Commissioners
Malecki, Theis, Lucht, Simmons and Ainas. Voting against: none.
The motion passed.
APPLICATION NO. 81070 (Summit Mortgage Corporation)
The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for
site and building plan approval by Summit Mortgage Corporation to
add a year-round porch to the west side of the main house on the
Earle Brown Farm at 6150 Summit Drive. He reviewed the contents
of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet
for Application No. 81070 attached). •.
Commissioner Theis asked whether the garage from the north portion
of the Farm site would be linked to the main house. The Secretary
answered that the relocated garage would not share a common wall
with the existing main house and garage, but would have an enclosed
walkway linking the two.
11-19-81 '1'
The motion.for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-264
Member Tony Kuefler introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS
FOR FURNISHING AND DELIVERING ONE 1500 GPM PUMPER
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
member Bill Fignar, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in
favor thereof: Dean Nyquist, Tony Kuefler, Bill Fignar, and Gene Lhotka; and
the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 81067 SUBMITTED BY DAVID BRANDVOLD FOR PRELIMINARY
PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE INTO SEVEN LOTS THE LAND PRESENTLY LOCATED ON THE LOTS
ADDRESSED 909, 921, AND 1009 - 58TH AVENUE NORTH
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 1 through 3 of the December 10, 1981 Planning Commission minutes and also
the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 81067. He
explained the four new lots will gain access off a cul-de-sac to be installed in
the 5700 block of Colfax Avenue North.
The Director of Planning & Inspection reviewed a transparency of the preliminary
plat and pointed out that all lots would be in excess of the 9,000 square feet
required by ordinance. He explained the proposed cul-de-sac would also meet the
ordinance requirements. He added that the applicant has requested a waiver of the
curb and gutter requirement on the proposed new cul-de-sac. He pointed out the
Planning Commission recommended approval of Application No. 81067 contingent on
four conditions which he reviewed for Council members. He noted that the Planning
Commission vote was not unanimous.
The Director of Planning & Inspection stated a public hearing has been scheduled
on Application No. 81067, the proper notices have been sent regarding the notice
of public hearing and the applicant is present this evening.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 81067 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak either
against or for the application. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a
motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to close the public hearing on Application No. 81067. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none. The
motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to approve Application No. 81067 subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
3. The subdivider/developer shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the
City and submit a'financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by
the City Manager) insuring the completion of all ordinance required improve-
ments, including installation of curb and gutter.
4. An easement for street purposes shall be obtained from Northern States'
Power Company for installation of street through the power easement prior
to final plat approval.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 81069 SUBMITTED BY C & G TRANSCONTINENTAL
DEVELOPERS FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE INTO THREE LOTS THE LAND
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD AND COUNTY ROAD 10, THE LOCATION
OF THE BROOKLYN CROSSING OFFICE DEVELOPMENT
The Director of Planning & Inspection presented and reviewed for Council members
pages 3 through 4 of the December 10, 1981 Planning Commission minutes and also
the Planning Commission information sheet prepared for Application No. 81069.
I The Director of Planning & Inspection proceeded to show a transparency of the
location of the subject parcel and pointed out that the major concerns of the
Planning Commission and City staff were whether or not the parking facilities
were adequate. He stated the applicant has submitted a revised site plan showing
that each of the three parking lots has a capacity to support itself individually
with regard to parking. He explained that under the revised site plan the setbacks
for the building would be altered. He pointed out the Planning Commission recommended
approval of Application No. 81069 subject to four conditions which he reviewed for
Council members.
The Director of Planning & Inspection pointed out that the applicant is also seeking
final plat approval this evening and that the staff recommends approval of the
final plat since the preliminary plat conditions have been met. He explained a
public hearing is required for Application No. 81069, that the proper notices have
been sent and that the applicant is present this evening.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for the purpose of a public hearing on Application
No. 81069 and inquired if there was anyone present who wished to speak either
against or for the application. No one appeared to speak and he entertained a
motion to close the public hearing.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember Lhotka
to close the public hearing on Application No. 81069. Voting in favor: Mayor
Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting against: none.
The motion passed.
in_11-01 -n-
•there was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler'and seconded by Councilmember Fignar
to approve Application No. 81069 subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
3. The final plat shall be filed at the County prior to issuance of building
permits for building B or C.
4. Easement documents concerning access to Lot 1 and Lot 3 shall be approved
by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Lhotka and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler to
approve the final plat of Brooklyn Crossing (Planning Commission Application No.
81069) subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City
Ordinances.
3. The final plat shall be filed at the County prior to issuance of building
permits for building B or C.
Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Lhotka. Voting
against: none. The motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARING ON AN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND PROPOSAL FROM RYAN
CONSTRUCTION FOR BROOKDALE CORPORATE CENTER PHASE II
In response to a question from the Council regarding the project, Administrative
Assistant Hoffman pointed out that the total project cost is approximately $9,000,000.
He added that there has been a problem with the publication of the notice for the
public hearing and that he is recommending rescheduling the public hearing to January
25, 1982 and to allow the applicant to present information regarding the project at
this evening's meeting. He pointed out that the information presented this evening
would be identical to that which would be provided at a public hearing.
Mayor Nyquist recognized a representative of the applicant who requested that the
City Council be polled regarding their attitude towards the project due to the
possible change in Industrial Revenue Bond policy by the federal government. The
City Attorney pointed out that an informal polling of the City Council would not
have any bearing on the Council's approval of the project and that it would really
serve no purpose.
Mayor Nyquist inquired as to the time schedule for project construction. Mr. Ryan
pointed out that the project would begin in mid -summer and be completed within
seven to eight months.
12-21-81 -10