Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC68002 - Cty Rd. 10, Major AvePLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST File Purge Date: I f12a%5 FILE INFORMATION Planning Commission Application Number: G8002. 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: -attached to zor�,ing c�.pp I �Cct_-l-ioh 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 Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Document Type Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council City Vault City Vault Number Location City Vault City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Zoning Application App. No. 68002 Street Location of Property Generally bounded by cty.Rd. #$10; Major Avenue extended; Kylawn Park, and the west city limits. Legal Description of Property Lot 1, Block 1, Twin Lake North Addition. Owner: Name Darrel Farr Address Route 3, Osseo, Minn. Telephol4@5-2909 Applicant: Same Address Telephone Type of Request: Rezoning Special Use Permit Variance Subdivision Approval X Other Plan approval Description of Request Approval of site and building plans of an apartment development. Reason for Request Fee $ -0- Receipt No. Applicant January 12, 1968 Date Dates of P.C. Consideration Dates of Council Consideration February 1, 1968 February 19, 1968 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION On the `� day of LI-10d4Y the request represented by this petition was pprdisapproved subject to the following conditionsov d - circle one) Chairman COUNCIL ACTION Approved Denied this "L day of Approved with the following amendment 19� PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET MI Application No. Applicant-. Description of Request - Property 68002 "Revised" Darrel Farr Approval of site and building plans for recreation building. Twin Lake North Apartment Project located between Major Avenue North extended, and the west. City limits and north of County Road 10. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Department of Planning and inspection September, 1973 FILE: M&MORAIDUM Regarding Application Numbers 67026, 67027, 67054 68002, 70012, 73030, and 73031 Subject: Chronology of the development of the area known as Twin Lake North Addition. The development of this area, which today comprises the sites of the Twin Lake North Apartments and the Shores Townhouses (the second phase of which is proposed in the current Planning Commission Applica- tion No. 73031) officially dates back to May 1, 1967, when Mr. Darrel Farr submitted applications for rezoning and preliminary plat approval. Applications 67026 and 67027 were first considered together on May 18, 1967 and received extensive review by the Manning Commission and City Council. The items were tabled for further advisement, "with the proviso that notification of the Commission's recommendation on the applications and the date of the Council's hearing of the matter be mailed to the persons notified" of that evening's hearing. On May 25, 1967 the applications weco reconsidered and recommen- dation was made for approval of the preI plat application (No. 67026) . There was also a recommendation that the rezoning application (No. 67027) be approved as requested with the we,,terly portion of the property being zoned R-5 and the easterly portion being zoned R-3. In further discussion, the then City Engineer Mr. VanEecWhout, discussed "a possible sidewalk installation program". The minutes also indicate that "Chairman Jensen received a letter of protest to the Farr applications, acted upon previously in the evening from a Mrs. Braun of 5825 June Avenue North for placement in the files. The Commission discussed its actions on the applications with Mrs. Braun". The City Council considered the two applications on June 12, 1967. The minutes of that meeting indicated that the Mayor "called upon interested parties in attendance for comment. After lengthy discussion on all points presented and after providing an opportunity for all persons interested to offer their comments, the public hearing was closed". Those minutes also indicate there was a lengthy delibera- tion of the information presented and there was a unanimous motion to table the applications "thus providing an opportunity for the Council and staff to review and develop necessary information and providing for an on site inspection of the subject property". File Memorandum page 2 On July 10, 1967, the matters were reconsidered. There is in- _ dication that a "lengthy discussion ensued betwen the Council, the applicant, and interested parties in attendance, including represen- tation from the upper Twin Lake Association". The minutes state that "the consensus of the Council was that, due to the numerous factors involved in the development of this property, further time for study would be necessary". The matters were then retabled. At the August 14th Council meeting, a Mr. Dolan, representing Darrel Farr discussed the proposed Twin Lake North Addition develop- ment, and the matters were then retabled until the next meeting to allow for adequate review of what was termed the "Samsted Report" (the reference is to a report which was filed by Mr. Lawrence Samsted, a civil engineer working for Itasca Engineering, entitled "Report on the Feasibility of a proposed Lake 4n Twin Lake North Addition, and A Channel Connection to Twin Lake" which was prepared for Darrel Farr) . On August 28, 1967 a public hearing was reopened, and the minutes indicate that the Mayor reviewed the history of the request before the Commission and the Council. He introduced Mr. Samsted, who explained the results of his study and ar.3wered questions from the Council and other persons in atteruarce at the meeting. At the Mayor's request, Mr. Farr a.--d (. 141r. Herbert Baldwin, the landscape architect on the proposed project, presented five various development proposals for the property which had been prepared. The "development alternatives" were displayed and a discussion ensued. The August 28, 1967 meeting minutes then indicate that action was taken directing the City Manager and City Attorney "to assemble the facts ascertained by the Council with relation to the app]ina- tions No. 67026 and No. 67027, and to prepare a proper resolution approving the request contained in those applications; including in the resolution, various findings of the: Council". There was also action directing the City Attorney to prepare a report ,to the effect that the installation and maintenance of the proposed landscape area along the east side of the townhouse/inultiple-residence project can be guaranteed through either deed covenants or by a performance agree- ment and performance bond of approximately five years duration". On September 11, 1967, the Council adopted Resolution 67-287, "A Resolution Approving Applications No. 67026 and 67027 Submitted by Mr. Darrel Farr". The resolution noted, among other things, that the Planning Commission had reviewed the request contained within the two applica- tions at public hearings following published and mailed notice, and had considered factors relating to the request, especially with re- lation to their affect on overall planning for fiche City which _ File Memorandum Page 3 resulted in the Commission's recommendation for approval. The resolution also indicates that the City Council had reviewed the recommendation of the Commission and in gathering further infor- mation, had made the following findings: 1. The development proposed by Mr. Farr, that of townhouses on the east portion of the property and multiple residences on the west portion of the property "is not in disagreement with the general goal" described in the Comprehensive Plan; 2. The transitional device, proposed by the developer in his "Plan C" along the east side of the development, consisting of a landscaped berm, will provide proper transition between the development and the single family homes abutting it to the east"; 3. The lake which the developer proposes to dredge on the property has been shown to be a feasible concept through a hydraulic study commissioned by the developer, and also is in accord with long range plans of the City with regard to maintenance of the water levels of �-aterways throughout the watershed to insure perpetual use of this proposed lake as t- a means to water level stabilizat_.3n, however, "the City will expect easements for drainage over the proposed lake area and damming facilities". Substantial documentation is contained in the two above mention- ed files including copies of the City Manager's report to the City Council on the feasibility of development of this area, the Samsted Hydraulic Report, and a copy of the "Development Alternative C" which was approved by the City. it is noteworthy that two points of concern at that time, were the screening of the transitional or buffer area between the now Shores Townhouse site and the single family dwellings along June Avenue; as well as the involvement of the City relative to easements in the lagoon or ponding area. in October, 1967, an application was received from Mr. Dariwal Farr requesting approval of site and building plans for a townhouse and apartment development. The Commission reviewed those plans on November 2, 1967 and recommended approval to the City Council. In- cluded in the recommendation were the standard conditions of approval as well as certain stipulations including: that a walkway easement across the northeast corner of the property between 59'h Avenue and Kyle Avenue with the walkway to be constructed by the developer. Application No. 67054 was "dropped by the applicant prior to its submission to the City Council". The plan had comprehended a planned File Memorandum Page 4 unit type of development for the entire 35 acres now zoned R-3 and R- 5 . Included in this file (No. 67054), is a copy of a memo from Director of Parks and Recreation Mr. Gene Hagel to the then City Engineer, Mr. Chuck VanEeckhout. It is dated November 2, 1967 and it relates to the portion of the proposed development which encom- passes the site of the Shores Townhouse development, particularly the now proposed Phase Ii. Mr. Hagel noted the following: 1. "Pedestrian access to the park from June Avenue at 59'h Avenue is absolutely essential. Children (and adults) will come from this direction and will not walk the extra block north and again one block south to get to the center of the activities in the park, namely the park building, skating rink and apparatus area. It has been demonstrated time and again that where no path or access is provided, the children will make one. This will be done regardless of the annoyance and complaints received from residents in the Farr Development; 2. "Again, I want to reiterate my prc.�z:_��aa stand regarding the lack of a physical separation between she park and the �- dwellings of the Farr Plat. T.i +..r, esti-xiation, and based upon past experience, which belars out inevitable conflict where private and public use are in close proximity, I can only emphasize the importance of providing the separation". It is interesting to note that the plat submitted by Mr. Darrel Farr indicated, for planning purposes, a 15 foot wide corridor. (pathway) connecting 59'h Avenue with Kvla.,an Park. The next stage of the development of t1,i.s area occurred when, on January 12, 1968, Mr. Darrel Farr submitted application No. 68002 proposing site and building plans for a large apartment complex on the westerly portion of the property which is zoned R-5. The item was considered by the Planning Commission on February 1, 1968 and an extensive discussion ensued following a presentation by Mr. Farr and a Mr. Ralph Wagner of Dolan Engineering. During staff discussion, certain minor engineering details were pointed out relating to access to County Road 10. The Commission recommended approval of Application No. 68002 subject to the standard conditions and other stipulations including: �. "the lot line between the future lots 1 and 2 of Twin Lake North Addition shall be revised to provide a minimum of a 10 foot setback for the apartment buildings from the future lot line". File Memorandum Page 5 All of the Commissioners voted in favor with the exception of �. Mr. Ausen, who stated "he objected to the provision of access from the property only toward County Road 10, rather favoring a combina- tion of accesses from this apartment development and the.future town- house development to the east, both to County Road 10 and additional access to 59'h Avenue North, or streets to the :crth of Kylawn Park". The Council considered the application on February 19th and the minutes state, "the Council, developer and several area residents discussed the project at length". There was ther. action to approve the application subject to the standard ccnditions and the Stipula- tions including that one noted above. On March 9, 1969 the Planning Commission was presented with a petition revising Application No. 68002. it consisted of a .request for approval of site and building plans for a recreation ]wilding to be located on the property known as vutlot A within the Twill Lake North Apartment project. The recommendation was for approval and the item was considered by the City Council_ on March 24, 1969. Applica- tion No. 68002 (revised) was unanimously approved by the City council. on November 26, 1969 a representative of Viewcon, Inc. submitted an application for site and building r►.a n approval for a 102 unit townhouse development on the land zoned Rt 3. The planning Commission considered the application on April 2, r-c vhich time the recom- mendation for conceptual approval of the site plan was made to the City council. The Council initially reviewed the plans at its April 13, 1970 meeting. During the discussion, the City Manager indicated that existing o-r4jajdnocs and plan approval proeedur a d1 not adequately .LN(,n,1AUze this type of townhouse development, particularly with re- spect to setback requirements and the usual procedlAral sequences. Former City Engineer Mr. Vanneckhout, who was now employed by Viewcon, Inc., spoke in behalf of the application. The minutes of the April 13, 1970 council meeting indicate "dis- cussion of the application with Mr. VanEeckhout, the Council, staff and interested property owners centered on: 1. Landscape and berm treatment and extent of the open space between the townhouse development and the rear yards of neighboring property owners with the possibility that this work would be done as the first prase of the project development; 2. The makeup of a homeowner's association development corpora- tion or condominium agreements, which would provide for File Memorandum Page 6 maintenance of the common land areFs associated with this \.. type of townhouse development; 3. The probability of platting the development after it is completed rather than before, which is the usual require- ment; 4. The possible installation of an interim period snowfence on the development to inhibit the blowing of dirt and debris onto neighboring residences. The action taken by the Council at that meeting was to approve the site and building plan concept and to direct the Manager to develop and recommend methods of resolving inconsistencies and con- flicts between the subject proposal and the ordinance structure. The Application was next considered by the Council at :its May 24, 1971 meeting and action was taken to remand it to the Planning Commission for further review and recommendation. The Planning Commission again considered the proposal on June 3, 1971. The Secretary explained that the 102 tovinhous: units were to be developed in two phases, the first :ionsi:;ting of a 4-unit clustered model to be located on the st,iith porc:ion of tze property adjacent to County Road 10, and the 40 re.a­tiraing units, tennis court:, pool, basketball court, shuffle board court, and tot lot were to be constructed when the units were presold. It was also stated that it was the understanding that when phase one was completed, each unit would be surveyed and a plat: sub- mitted for approval. Mr. VanEeckhout was recognized and he noted that it was the in- tent of his company to construct a 4--unit cluster for model purposes and that upon presale of 80/ of phase one of the development, they would begin construction. He further stated that it "is intended that the swimming pool will not be constructed as part of Phase One of the development". He stated that relative to Phase Two, the re- maining units would be developed in a similar fashion to Please one, with the exception being that construction would commence coincident: with a lower presale ratio. it should be injected here, that Ft the present time none of the units in Phase One has been sold. Chairman Jensen recognized several neighboring property owners and the minutes indicate that discussion ensued, during which the allegation was made "that the buildings being proposed resembled File Memorandum Page 7 eastern row houses. It was further commented to the effect that the property owners felt they had been misled at the rezoning hearing in which the developer proposed a much more desirable townhouse develop- ment". Chairman Jensen commented, according to the minutes, that upon consideration of the rezoning application, the Commission had con- sidered the land use and not necessarily a specific proposal being proposed by any particular developer. The minutes of that meeting also indicate that "further dis- cussion ensued relative to the possibility of the developer con- structing the berms and providing the landscaping as shown on the plans prior to the commencement of construction, and the feasibility of providing a walkway through the property to allow pedestrian traffic to get to Kylawn Park from June Avenue There was then action taken to recommend approval of the Application, No. 70012 subject to the standard conditions and these stipulations: 1. That the site plan be approved with the provision that Phase Two be reviewed by the Planning Commission upon com- pletion of Phase One to determine if •::here are any necessary adjustments to the tot -a?. develonm1ent plan prior to entering into Phase Two; 2. That a model 4-unit cluster he allowed to commence prior to the construction of the 40 remaining units in Phase One of the development; 3. That a snowfence or other effective screening device be erected to prohibit blowing of debris and earth materials onto the properties along June Avenue during the construc- tion period. 4. That additional berms be provided in areas adjacent to single family residences where ;germs were not indicated on the site plan; 5. That the homeowner association agreement is consistent with state and/or local laws governing such agreements. On June 14, 1971 the City Council reconsidered Application No. 70012. Administrative Assistant Tom Loucks explained the site plans to the neighborhood residents who stated they had not seen �-- them previously. Councilman Willard asked Mr. Loucks if there were any substantial differences in the present plan with ,Previous ones File Memorandum Page 8 which had been shown to the Planning Commission. Tir.. Loucks replied that the basic layout was the same and he showed the Council and some of the residents the originz2l plan and explained it. The Mayor opened the discussion to the audience. The minutes indicate "the first resident was Mr. Floyd Buhler, 5837 June Avenue North. Mr. Buhler said he felt the neighborhood residents had been deceived and that the renderings of plans shown for the housing units by the developer at the rezoning hearing indicated much more sub- stantial, expensive and attractive units than those which were now being presented for approval by the Council. He also noted that he was opposed to having a snowfence constructed on his lot line for the duration of the construction of the project;. He stated that he felt the developer should construct various berms first and not after the development had been underway". Mr. Victor Henry of 5819 June Avenue North noted that there had been substantial natural drainage in the area bor:4ering the June Avenue properties and said this drainage use to go into the peat area which the developer was now digging out. He inquired as to who would be responsible for the drainage once the area was altered, noting his concern over the possible flooding of basements and yards of the neighborhood residen:::i. The City Engineer responded that ,,as some drainage pro- vided in the plans and that in the approval resolution it was noted that proper drainage must be provided". The Engineer also noted that the City was "responsible for the approval of the elevation specifications in the plans". Also recognized was Mr. Almen, of 5925 June Av .rue Liorth who inquired as to the possible use 592 Avc-Ai e a iy kinfl of: an access area to the development. The minutes indicate "the City Managar replied that there would he no access from 59)1 Avenue since it was not on the plans. He recalled an earlier proposal that 592 Avenua, easement might be reserved for access by City and emergency vehicles, but that ther_P was no recommendation by the City for its use as an access road at this time". After the public hearing was closed, the Mayor recognized Mr. Farr and Mr. VanEeckhout and an extensive discussion ensued. 13ub- stantial deliberation occurred concerning the construction of a berm along the easterly property line during the initial phase of the excavation and construction of the bermz, and it was noted by Councilman Heck that once the berms were built the fence should be set back to the construction site where it could better retain the debris .from construction. File Memorandum page 9 The minutes indicate that Mr. VanEeckhout, :Lepresentng the developer, "noted that this was a good idea from a safety sense in that contractors have problems with small children getting into the construction site while heavy equipment is working". There was also some discussion as to the nature of the home- owners association and the association agreement and the Mayor com- mented "that he foresaw few problems as long as the association was an active entity, but he wondered what the affect would be if the homeowners association went bankrupt or became defunct". He noted that "the City has no ordinances at this time which govern con- dominiums". There was then a discussion concerning the need for and the provision for variances and easements of the property. There was concern "that approving the entire site plan would apparently entail giving the developer blanket variances". The minutes indicate that "the City Manager suggested that the Council might just approve the plans for the 4-unit model cluster only since no variances were involved. The Council then could have specific approval of the other phases at a later time". Action was then taken to direct tie Manager to prepare a `- resolution approving Application No. 700,1_1 noting the following: 1. That a model 4-unit cluster would be allowed to commence prior to the construction of the remaining units in phase one of the development; 2. That the master site plan be approved with the provision that the balance of Phase one and Phase Two be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council upon completion of the 4-unit model cluster to determine if there are any necessary adjustmenL-s to the total development plan prior to entering into the balance of Phase One and Phase Two; 3. That additional berms beyond those indicated on the site plan be provided adjacent to the single family residences along June Avenue; further, that such berms be constructed as early as possible and that such work be prosecuted in a reasonably continuous fashion subject to the influences and constraints of accepted construction practices; 4. That a snowfence or other affective device be erected on �. the east property line and maintained during the con- struction of the berms and subsequent thereto, that such File Memorandum page 10 device be relocated on the westerly siele of :such berms to contain construction debris on t3ae construction site and to inhibit childre-0a access to the construction site. Another condition of approval was "that the platting require- ment be waived because of the uniqueness and pecularities of the condominium development until such time as a given phase of the development is completed". On December 13, 1971, the City Council again was petitioned to consider Application No. 70012. The city Manager reviewed the conditions of approval and he stated "that the applicant had com- menced construction of the 4-unit model cluster and that he de- sired to proceed concurrently with the construction of the remain- ing 58 units in phase one". The Manager further noted that special attention was given on June 14, 1971 to the homeowners agreement and that it was the Council's intent to permit the applicant to proceed with the model until such time the homeowners agreement document had been refined and that the .final approval "of the en -- tire project rested upon this". He stated tIxat the applicant had placed on file, a copy of the final homeowners association docu- ments on October 19th. The Mayor recognized Mr. VanFeckh.nut, who commented as to the homeowner agreement documents and also; s`r.:;;;cd that "the applicant would like to immediately proceed with the total development, getting at least 20 units under construction this season". The Council then took final action, in effect, reaffirming their approval of Application No. 70012 subject to the standard conditions as well as the following: 1. That the master site plan be approved with a provision that Phase Two be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council upon completion of Phase One to determine if there are any necessary adjustments to the total develop- ment plan prior to entering into the construction of Phase Two; 2. That additional berms beyond those indicated on the site plans be provided adjacent to the single family residences along June Avenue and further, that such berms be con- structed as early as possible and that such work be pro- secuted in a reasonably continuous fashion subject to the influences and constraints of accepted construction practices; File Memorandum Page 11 3. That a snowfence or other effective device be erected on the east property line and ;maintained during the con- struction of the berms and subsequent thereto that such device be relocated on the westerly side of such berms to contain construction debris on tine construction site and to inhibit children's access to the construction site. The developer then proceeded with the construction of the Phase One of the project then known as the "Chessman Townhouses". Apparently, due to nonacceptance in the market place, construction came to a halt and the project sat dormant for several months during 1972. On October 5, 1972, the Planning Commission reviewed a pro- posed amendment to Application No. 70012 now submitted by Darrel A. Farr Development Corp. (formerly Viewcon, Inc.), The Secretary stated that "the applicant had submitted new conceptual plans for the townhouse project . . . which indicated site modifications, another building and a reduction of the total number of dwelling units from 44 to 40". The Secretary also noted that there was "raotably lacking from `- the new drawings, a landscaping plan". ne: fn?rther noted "that there had been some alteration of the proposed berming and that the installation of swales for drainage purposes was indicated on the new plans". Chairman Jensen then recognized a Mr. Mcinerny and a Mr. Maertens representing the applicant, and who explained that the original project was unmarketable and thus the site and buildings "had been redesigned in a fashion considered more palatable to current buyers". The minutes indicate that "in response to questions by the Commission, the Director of Public Works reviewed the proposed drainage and site plans and stated that the basic drainage plan was similar to the original, although some contour lines were not indicated on the new plans. He also emphasized the prior concern of she Commission and Council with affective screening to be pro- vided along the east property line". The minutes indicate "Mr. Maertens stated that it was the applicant's intent to construct the affective screening and that it could be accomplished that fall". File Memorandum Page 12 The October 5, 1972 Planning Commission minutes also indicate some concern as to the applicant's failure to provide the required fencing and other affective screening. The Secretary noted correspondence which had transpired between the City and Mr. VanEeckhout who "stated a fence had been originally installed but that several residents had indicated they would prefer the fence removed. Mr. VanEeckhout further stated "that the neighborhood along June Avenue had been canvassed by a Viewcon, Inc. employee, who was able to contact most of the residents and that they would prefer to have the fence taken down". The Chairman then recognized several of the neighboring property owners, including Mr. Buhler, who noted their concern with the slow progress of the development as well as the concern as to safety of small children in the area. Several of the residents indicated that the water was collecting in their back- yards, due to the incomplete drainage construction of the town- house project. Mr. Maertens emphasized that the applicant desired to proceed before the onset of winter with various site improvements includ- ing utility installation and construction of footings. He stated "this would be done with the assurance that the Building Inspection Department would be given complete revised plans in the near future". The Secretary responded to this and stated that the Building Inspector could not issue permits based upon available data. He also noted that the applicant had indicated to the staff on several occasions that the plans were conceptual.. One of the neighboring property owners, Mr. Buhler stated his concern "with the continuous development of the project and commented that the Council had assured the residents of the neighborhood that they would have the opportunity for full review of submitted plans". It was the consensus of the Commission that "the conceptual plans were acceptable, but that more detailed data was required relative to landscaping, building design and screening". In further discussion it was noted that since certain utility in- stallation and street constructions plans had been previously ap- proved and were not to be changed, that perhaps work could pro- ceed in that respect. It was also noted that since the berming along the east property line had been a condition of prior approval, work could proceed also in that area. Several residents commented that they desired an assurance from the City that the earlier ap- proved berming along the property line would be done as soon as `' possible. file Memorandum Page 13 Action was then taken to table the application to permit the applicant the opportunity to develop more complete revised plans with regard to building design and landscaping. On October 19, 1972 the Planning Commission reconsidered the application and the Chairman recognized Mr. Mclnerny, Mr. Maertens, and a Mr.pEb.1,8 an architect who represented the applicant. Chairman Jensen also recognized several of the residents who lived on June Avenue North. An extensive discussion ensued relative to the proposed screening along the easterly property line of the project including protective fencing during the construction period. The minutes indicate the applicant stated that a protective fence could and would be installed "preferably after sod was placed and the bermed area was landscaped". After further discussion, the Director of Public Works suggested that a meeting with the applicant and with the neighbors along June Avenue be arranged in the hopes of developing a common awareness and agreement as to the landscaping and development along the common property line. Mr. Maertens stated the applicant was willing to put in additional shrubbery but felt the need to con- sult with a professional landscape architect. He stated the intent was to actually "install more lan.dsce,.Ang around the site than was indicated on the plan". In further discussion it was determined that the applicant, a professional landscape architect, members of the City staff, and neighboring property owners meet on the site to discuss the land- scaping of the berms and screening along --he property line. It was also determined that this meeting should occur prior to the upcoming November 2nd regular Planning Commission meeting so that the entire package of amended site and buildiing plans could be submitted to the Council for review at its November 6th meeting. Action was taken to recommend approval of the amended site and building plans for application No. 70012 subject to all pre- vious conditions of approval as adopted by the City Council on December 13, 1971, excepting the landscape plans which were subject to further review. On November 2nd, the Commission was informal that the onsite meeting had been held and the Director of Public Worl%z nmmented upon the results of the meeting and explained the proposed treat- ment of the berms. Mr. VanEeekhout and Mr. Maertens were recog- nized as well as several of the June Avenue residents. A review then ensued of the proposed plan and it was noted that the specific types of plantings along the berm area were not File Memoramdum page 14 indicated on the submitted plan. Mr. VanEeckhout responded "that upon approval of the Commission the applicant intended to get together again with the landscaper and with the residents to deter- mine the specific types of plantings". The minutes indicate that "several of the residents commented that their prime concern was that the intent of the developer be formally indicated on the ap- proved plans as an assurance of what would be done". Following further discussion ensued which centered on the con- cern that specific species of trees and locations and quantities be indicated on a plan to be submitted for Council review. There was action taken to recommend approval of Application No. 70012 as amended subject to all previously approved conditions. On November 6, 1972 the City Council gave final consideration to Application No. 70012. The City Manager and the Director of Public Works reviewed the amendment plans particularly noting the concerns for the landscaping and utility provisions for the projects. The Mayor recognized Mr. Floyd Buhler, 5837 June Avenue North who commented that following the meeting with the applicant since the amended plans were submitted "he and his neighbors were basically in agreement with the plans as presented tj �:e Council". Mr. Buhler further noted "the long standing, concern of the neighborhood `- with the berm and stated that the residents were weary of contin- ually striving for something better and realizing that the applicant had done little to develop what had been approved on the original plans". In further discussion of the required protective fencing ensued. and the Mayor noted a number of complaints he had received relative to the development of the project and he also noted his concern "that the fence was required as a matter of condition of approval for the application and that a formal amendment to those approved plans was not made regarding the removal of such fence". The Mayor also noted "that it was the intent of the Council to have continuous protective fencing along the easterly property line". Mr. VanEeckhout was recognized and among other things, stated that "as a result of recent meetings with the staff and the people in the neighborhood, it was the applicant's intent to complete the berming, including the landscaping, and to replace a fence along the westerly side of the berm following the curbline on the site. An extensive discussion ensued relative to Councilman Britts �. comment that Planning Commission discussion had noted the submitted File Memorandum Page 15 revised plans were not complete in that the landscaping plan and schedule were lacking. In further discussion the City Manager "commented that the basic issue was a difference of opinion between the staff and the applicant regarding the degree of detail planning required for re- view and approval. He noted that some developers were reluctant to make the effort and realize the expense of preparing and submitting detailed plans, particularly with regard to landscaping. He noted that in this instance, the Director of Public Works had extensive notes regarding the deficiencies in the landscaping which had been verbally resolved between the nearby residents, the applicant, and the staff." There was then a motion by Councilman Leary seconded by Council- man Heck to approve Application No. 70012 subject to all previous conditions of approval as adopted on December 13, 1971; and, the condition that complete landscaping plans be submitted to the City Engineer who will include such plans and the details of the pro- posed berming in a communication to be appenj`d to the amended plans. Councilman Britts stated that he would like to see the com- plete detailed plans prior to approval and suggested that approval be deferred so that such data could be submitted. Councilman Heck noted the importance of permitting the npr,:?irant to proceed with the project so that nearby residents coulu be assured that the site improvements as approved were being provided; and, that the intent of the action was that the staff would work 'with the applicant on the site to assure that the written notes wore actually translated into the intended development. The Mayor called for a vote: Councilmen Leary, Ausen and Heck. Britts. The motion passed. voting in favor were Mayor Cohen, Voting against: Councilman Applications No. 73030 (preliminary plat approval for Phase One of the "Shores Townhouses") and Application No. 73031 (site and building plans for Phase Two of the Shores Townhouses) are currently before the Planning Commission. Moth applications were given pre- liminary review at the September 6, 1973 Planning Commission meeting.