Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 02-21 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP FEBRUARY 21, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting began at approximately 7:35 p.m. with an explanation from Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren regarding the purpose of the meeting - to consider a City - initiated rezoning of land at the southwest corner of I -94 and Brooklyn Boulevard from R5 to Cl. ROLL CALL Walt Orgas, serving as chairman of the neighborhood advisory group, Patricia Weitzel and Mary Jo Danielson. Also present were Molly Malecki, Planning Commission liaison to the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. REVIEW OF REZONING PROPOSAL Mr. Warren then reviewed with the people present the rezoning proposal for the area at the southwest corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and I694. He explained that it included the 4.5 acre vacant parcel at the intersection and five nonconforming single - family homes to the south along Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that the proposal is to rezone the land from R5 to C1. He further explained that the C1 zoning district is alimited commerce or service /office zoning district. He stated that the purpose of the rezoning was to eliminate multiple - family housing as an option for this area. He explained that there is no formal development proposal accompanying the rezoning, but that a rezoning to C1 would make the zoning consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which recommends either mid - density residential or service /office use in this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Warren went on to review briefly two past proposals for the large vacant parcel at the intersection, including an office condominium proposal by Larry Cramer in 1983 and a proposal for a church by Foundation Stone Ministries in 1985. He explained that there was a proposal to rezone the land to C1 with the church proposal, but that the City Council decided to amend the Zoning Ordinance rather than to rezone the property. Mr. Warren went on to explain that there are soil problems on the large vacant parcel and that it has very limited access to Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that the City has opposed, and still is opposed to, allowing access to the large vacant parcel through the residential neighborhood to the west. Mr. Warren explained that the rezoning is to be evaluated in light of the Guidelines for Evaluating Rezonings from the Zoning Ordinance and referred the neighborhood advisory group to those guidelines. Mr. Warren concluded by explaining that Public Storage has indicated an interest in the property and has a development concept for the large vacant parcel. He emphasized that the City is not in favor of the proposed Public Storage use. He stated that representatives from Public Storage may want the City to amend its ordinance to allow mini - storage in the C1 zoning district, but he added that staff is opposed to such an ordinance amendment. He explained that a mini - warehouse proposal was rejected for the C2 zoning district in 1973• PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Orgas invited owners of the subject property to comment on the proposed rezoning. Mr. Jim Pearson, owner of the large vacant parcel, explained that the 2 -21 -89 -1- past proposals did not go forward because they could not get financing. He stated that he thought Public Storage has a good proposal for the property. Mr. Orgas then asked whether any one of the owners of the single - family homes was present to speak. Mr. Dave Paulat, of 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, expressed concern that he would be unable to expand his residence if the property were rezoned to C1. Mr. Warren explained that the homes in this block of Brooklyn Boulevard are presently nonconforming and could not be rebuilt if they were destroyed. He explained, however, that they could be expanded under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance under the R5 zoning, but would not be able to expand under the C1 zoning. Mr. Paulat stated that he leaned toward opposing the rezoning as long as there was no development proposal because of the impact the rezoning would have on his ability to expand the house. Mr. Orgas stated that he foresaw a problem if the houses were not acquired altogether at one time. Mr. Warren stated that the same problem would exist under the R5 zoning as well as the Cl zoning. He stated that the City could conceivably step in and purchase the properties, but that the City Council decided not to last summer. He stated that the City Council decided to trust market forces in redeveloping the property for the time being. He stated that the City Council discussed the inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the preference for C1 zoning in the area. He explained that, under the R5 zoning, the City could grant a special use permit for office development, but also could not deny a multiple- family development if it were proposed, which would be inconsistent with the recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. He again stated that the rezoning proposal is not to acknowledge the Public Storage proposal. In response to a question from Pat Weitzel regarding the homes on the other side of Brooklyn Boulevard, Mr. Warren explained that they are presently zoned C1 and are nonconforming. He stated that the office building at 65th and Brooklyn Boulevard is the only conforming use in that area. He stated that Brooklyn Boulevard carries a lot of traffic and that this area is not appropriate for single- family use. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan recommends either mid - density residential in this area or service /office. Mary Jo Danielson asked what would happen to the homes if they were zoned Cl? Would they have to sell to someone in particular? Mr. Warren answered in the negative. He explained that the homes would be nonconforming and would be allowed to continue, but not expand. He added that they would be allowed to continue as single - family homes unless discontinued for a period of at least two years. Mr. Orgas stated that he understood the reasons for the rezoning to C 1 , but was not sure about how the rezoning would enhance development. He cited a need to acquire the single - family homes to the south to improve the access to the large vacant parcel at the intersection at Brooklyn Boulevard and I694. He expressed concern that a couple of the homes might sell, but that others would be left. He stated that the rezoning would not solve that problem. He added that the residents in the area do not want any access to the large vacant parcel off Indiana Avenue. Mr. Warren stated that the City has also been opposed to any such access. Mr. Lee Evensen, of 4112 65th Avenue North, stated that the City opposed access off Indiana Avenue when the two previous development proposals were put forward. Mr. Warren agreed and stated that the City has the same stance right now. Gary Zimmerman, the owner of the house at 6527 Brooklyn Boulevard, noted the problem with access and agreed that the area is not good for single - family. He stated that 2 -21 -89 -2- he preferred the C1 zoning to the R5 zoning at present. Mr. Paulat, of 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard, agreed that the area is better suited to C1 development than multiple - family. Planning Commissioner Molly Malecki asked what could happen on the single - family lots if only the large vacant parcel were rezoned to C1. Mr. Warren explained that smaller multiple- family developments could be built on the single - family lots. Mr. Arnie Friedl, of 4012 65th Avenue North, stated that he was bordered on two sides by R5 zoned land. He asked what buffer would be provided if the land were rezoned to C1. Mr. Warren explained that a 15' buffer strip is required with a minimum 4' high opaque fence or landscaping, the same as is required in the R5 zone. He stated that such a buffer would be provided when the property was developed. PROPOSAL BY PUBLIC STORAGE Mr. Don Jensen, of Public Storage, then addressed the Neighborhood Advisory Group and those present. He showed the advisory group members a rendering of a development built in Golden Valley. He stated that Public Storage looks for land close to residential zoning districts for convenience. He stated that Public Storage is a low traffic generator, approximately 60 trips per day for a development on the large vacant parcel. He stated that most of the traffic would be on weekends. Mr. Jensen stated that self storage provides a good buffer between the residential neighborhood and the freeway and Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the hours were daytime hours between 7:00 a.m, and 10:00 p.m. Mr. Jensen emphasized that hazardous items would be prohibited from being stored in the warehouses. He also stated that music rehearsals would not be allowed. He stated that Public Storage locates in various zoning districts that provide convenience to potential users. He added that Public Storage would have a substantial landscape budget to provide plantings around the perimeter of the site. He stated that Public Storage is concerned with aesthetics. He noted that Public Storage buildings used to have flat roofs, but that now hip roof design was prevalent. Mr. Jensen went on to state that there would be a resident manager on the property to make sure the operation functions properly. He noted the use of wrought iron fencing with brick columns at other locations to serve as buffers. He showed the advisory group members a development layout for the large vacant parcel with 15' buffers and landscaping around the perimeter. He stated that Public Storage would want to appeal to the freeway interchange. He stated that Public Storage would expect to be at this location for 30 -35 years and noted that the development would be financed by pension funds and insurance companies. He showed the advisory group members building elevations of the buildings that would be part of the complex. He emphasized again that such a use would not be noisy, would be a low traffic generator, and would not need good access. Mr. Tim Malloy, also representing Public Storage, stated that they would use wood fencing with brick pillars every 60' as they have in other locations. He again emphasized that it was a low traffic generator with little noise and a resident manager to supervise the project. He stated that Public Storage is not like an industrial use. Mr. Jensen added that Public Storage could tolerate poor soils more easily than an office development or a multiple - family development. He added that there is no other self storage within three to four miles. There followed an extended discussion of the Public Storage proposal. Mr. Jensen explained during the discussion that Public Storage rents for less than apartment space on a per square foot basis and that it, therefore, pays to store unused items in 2 -21 -89 -3- i a mini - warehouse rather than add on to a home or rent additional apartment space. He stated that the storage bays could be used to store a summer car during the winter or classic cars. He also stated that he expected about 560 units of storage to be built on the vacant parcel . He explained that there would be lease agreements that would control what would be stored in the units. Someone asked how high a fence would be installed. Mr. Jensen responded that it would be a minimum of a 6' fence. Regarding fire - safety, Mr. Jensen stated that a sprinkler system was not usually installed unless required by local ordinance. Mr. Orgas asked whether the complex would be lighted during the evening. Mr. Jensen responded that they would utilize wall pack units, not high lighting fixtures. Mr. Orgas stated that he was familiar with Public Storage and noted that occupants of the units are often businesses. He stated that the storage bays can be used for industrial storage and that trucks do come in and out of such a complex. He noted that it would probably not be semi - trucks, but truck traffic nontheless. Mr. Warren explained that warehousing and storage are allowed only in the I -1 and I -2 zoning districts. He stated that staff oppose the proposal to allow storage in the C1 zone. He added that the site plan shows a high density of building -to -land on the vacant parcel. Mr. Orgas explained that Public Storage is essentially a holding company and that they use the land for storage until a more intense use can be comprehended for the property. Mr. Jensen agreed with this description, but added that Public Storage has a good cash flow and that it would not turn over the use as fast as other developments might. Mr. Jim Pearson, the owner of the large vacant parcel, stated that he thought Public Storage was a clean and attractive use that would not generate kids or sewer flow. COMMITTEE DELIBERATION Mr. Orgas then asked the owners of the property what they preferred. Mr. Zimmerman stated that he would rather see the rezoning to C1. He stated that he thought it would be difficult to sell his property as single- family. Mr. Paulat stated that he felt it would be difficult to market his property as a C1 property since it was a small lot. He stated that it would be better to sell the homes as a group to a C1 user. He acknowledged that the R5 zoning of the property was also inappropriate, but expressed concern that under C1 he would not be permitted to add on to the home. Mr. Warren questioned whether it would be a good investment to add on to one of the single- family homes since this area is just not a good location for single - family homes. Mr. Shallcross added that there is a one acre minimum for C1 lots along major thoroughfares which would require some consolidation of the land parcels. RECOMMENDATION Pat Weitzel, Mary Jo Danielson and Walt Orgas all concurred that the C1 zoning was preferable over the R5 zoning at present. ADJOURNMENT Following their recommendation, the neighborhood advisory group adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Jh 1 C airman I 2 -21 -89 -4-