Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 03-21 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MARCH 21, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting was called to order by Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren at approximately 7:43 P.M. ROLL CALL Steve Boone and Planning Commissioner Ella Sander. Committeemember Ray Haroldson arrived later at approximately 8:00 p.m. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION ON REZONING PROPOSAL Mr. Warren briefly gave the members present a background on the proposed rezoning. He noted that there had been a neighborhood meeting on March 14 which had not been attended by any of the neighborhood advisory group members due to a snowstorm that made travel inadviseable. He showed the committeemembers an area map of the proposed rezoning and a plat survey showing in greater detail the area to be rezoned. He stated that the Planning Commission had asked the neighborhood group to address the additional question of what to do with the R5 property to the east of the C2 zoning district. He stated that the easterly parcel would serve as a buffer to the C2 property. He stated that the Planning Commission had considered the possibility of rezoning that parcel to C1 to lock in an office development as a buffer to the C2 use to the west. Mr. Boone asked whether there was a site plan for an office development. Mr. Howard Atkins and his architect Hal Pierce submitted to the advisory group a rendering of a 12,000 sq. ft. office building to be built on the easterly parcel. He stated that there would be no access onto Willow Lane. Mr. Pierce noted that there would be parking located under the building. Mr. Boone asked what the height of the office building would be relative to the service station. Mr. Pierce stated that the service station would probably be about 14 ft. high. He noted that the office building could not exceed 35 ft. because it is located in the Critical Area zone of the Mississippi River. He stated that, although the office building is located on lower ground, the height of the office building would be adequate to buffer the service station. He stated that a C1 use would probably be a better neighbor than an R5 use. Mr. Boone asked what the likelihood was of the office building being built. Mr. Atkins explained that they wanted the building at least 50% leased before they constructed it. He stated that there would be approximately 2,000 sq. ft. leased by Atkins Mechanical and 2,000 sq. ft. by the architect, but that this would only be about 1/3 of the 12,000 sq. ft. office building. Mr. Boone noted that the neighbors wanted an office development to serve as a buffer, but questioned how realistic it is that the office building would be built. Mrs. Sander asked about the possibility of rezoning the land in question to C2 after the office development was constructed. Mr. Warren pointed out that if the service station is built within the existing property, they probably would not be interested in more land later on. 3 -21 -89 -1- Mr. Boone stated that Atkins Mechanical has been a good neighbor and that he trusted Mr. Atkins to have honorable intentions. He stated that the overall proposal with the office building as a buffer would seem to make sense. Mrs. Sander asked whether the service station would be able to access onto 66th without the rezoning. Mr. Warren stated that it would be a little more difficult. He showed the members a drawing of the median opening in 66th. He noted that some of the old right -of -way, north of the Atkins Mechanical property, has been vacated. Mr. Boone expressed some concern regarding water from the car wash getting out on 66th and freezing in the wintertime. He also expressed a concern for pedestrian traffic from the bus stop. Mr. Warren showed a preliminary site plan of the service station layout. He noted that there would be no access to Willow Lane, but added that the staff had been asked to consider closing off 65th Avenue North to the south so that people would not be able to exit the service station and go around the block to Willow Lane. Mr. Boone expressed some concern with the traffic from the service station and the office building using a single curb cut onto 66th. Mr. Warren noted the connection of the two sites at the south end on the preliminary plan. He stated that the City would have a problem if traffic began going around the block onto Willow Lane and suggested that 65th might be closed to prevent such traffic movement. He stated that the City would have to look at providing access to emergency vehicles in such an event. Mrs. Sander expressed concern about cars making a 180 degree turn from going northbound on Highway 252 to southbound on the frontage road. She expressed concern regarding the possibility of rear end accidents. Mr. Boone noted that there is already traffic exiting the highway at 66th and that there would be additional traffic brought on by the service station. He stated that he thought the C2 zoning was appropriate, but that the site must be properly designed. He stated that the City would have to look closely at how traffic would flow through the site. Mr. Warren noted that the C2 zoning allows a variety of commercial uses, some of which generate a lot of traffic. He stated that office development has peak traffic flow in the morning and early evening, but not on weekends. Mr. Boone noted that the station would cater to evening traffic. Mr. Warren pointed out that the property in question was bound to generate more traffic when it was fully developed. He pointed out that it was only 1/4 developed at present. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENT Mr. Boone then opened the meeting up to comments from the neighborhood. A number of concerns were expressed by people in the neighborhood. Traffic on 66th, on West River Road, and even possibly on Willow Lane was a concern. Someone mentioned noise from the SA station across the highway and the expectation that there would be more noise from a Fina station on the east side of the highway. Concern was expressed regarding a school bus stop in the area and how that would relate to other traffic already using West River Road and perhaps generated by the gas station. The feeling was expressed that another gas station would not serve the local neighborhood and that another convenience store was not needed. One neighbor expressed concern regarding a 24 hour a day operation with a car wash, semi trucks, speakers at the gas pumps, traffic, etc. Mr. Boone stated that he understood the concerns of the property owners, but noted that the owner of the subject property has rights as well. He noted that a gas station.is already allowed under the existing zoning. Mrs. Sander asked what the purpose of the meeting was. Mr. Warren stated that the purpose was for the neighborhood group to advise the Planning Commission on the rezoning proposal. He pointed out that the easterly parcel should also be 3 -21 -89 -2- considered for a rezoning, possibly to C1, to assure office development rather than multiple- family. Mr. Warren stated that the City would review the site plan and take the concerns of the neighbors into account, but that the City could not ultimately deny the use of the property. Mr. Warren also stated that the City staff have not encouraged the property owner to develop the property for a gas station. He said that he was actually somewhat opposed to that use, although it is allowed as a special use in the existing zoning. Mr. Boone asked what ability the City had to restrict the hours of operation and prohibit diesel pumps and other matters. Mr. Warren stated that the gas station would be subject to the standards for special use permits contained in the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that these standards have to do with traffic impact, the impact on other public facilities and on the neighborhood. He stated that he really did not know at this point whether the proposal would be considered to meet those standards. He stated that just because there was going to be more traffic on 66th is not necessarily a reason to deny a development proposal. He stated that development would obviously bring more traffic. Mr. Boone expressed concern regarding the flow of traffic through the site and how that might impact the neighborhood. One neighbor present asked why all of the property could not be zoned C1 for a service /office development. Mr. Warren responded that the City could initiate such a rezoning. He explained that it would have to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the Plan presently calls for the whole area to be zoned C2. He stated that an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan might be in order for a C1 zoning. He also stated that such a rezoning would have to be evaluated in light of the rezoning evaluation guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance. The neighbor pointed out that office development would only bring car traffic rather than trucks and that there would be less noise, especially during the evening hours. She asked about the possibility of a stoplight at the median opening. Mr. Warren stated that there was no plan for a stoplight at the median opening. He stated that traffic would probably be handled by putting a stop sign at the driveways entering 66th to control access onto 66th. One neighbor expressed a concern regarding the 24 hour operation and the possibility of U turns down on Willow Lane. Mr. Boone pointed out that a gas station is already allowed in the C2 zone. He pointed out that the C1 zoning on the easterly portion would buffer the C2 development and that the rezoning of a sliver of land would allow more rational use of the property. One neighbor stated that the City should look at the effect of the gas station on the neighborhood. He pointed out that there would be problems and asked how the City would deal with them. Mr. Boone responded that the City is using either a C1 or R5 zoning district to serve as a buffer between the neighborhood and the gas station. Mr. Atkins stated that the purpose of the rezoning is not to make a larger gas station, but to allow for better access onto 66th and better traffic flow on the site. Mr. Pierce, the architect for the conceptual office building, stated that the site is larger than Fina usually has. He stated that the purpose of the rezoning is to try to make two parcels that are more workable than with a jogged zoning line. Mr. Warren explained that the rezoning to C1 is partially because the City does not normally allow commercial and residential developments to share access. He explained that, if the R5 property were developed for apartments, it would be sharing access with a commercial use which is not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Warren listed some options for the neighborhood advisory group. He stated that, regarding the rezoning of the sliver of land, the group could recommend in 3 -21 -89 -3- favor of or against or express no opinion. He also noted that the group could recommend a rezoning of the buffer parcel from R5 to C1. He also stated that the group could recommend doing nothing. He added another option might be that the group could recommend that the City initiate a rezoning of the entire property to C1. Mr. Haroldson stated that he had managed a service station at one time and that trucks don't usually go off the beaten path to get fuel. He stated that if there were diesel pumps, it would probably be for cars. People from the neighborhood pointed out that trucks presently use the Superamerica station on the other side of Highway 252. Mr. Haroldson noted the traffic problems already on 66th and stated that he did not think people will go out of their way to stop at the gas station. He stated that he felt the station would probably be used more by the neighborhood than by through traffic. People from the neighborhood disagreed. Mr. Haroldson stated that he could not see the economic logic of putting a gas station on the southeast corner of Highway 252 and 66th, but added that the owner has rights to develop the property. He also told the neighbors that the City Council tends to listen to neighbors and encouraged them to come out to the public hearing. Mr. Boone stated that he felt the R5 property should be rezoned to C1 and that he was not excited about a service station. He stated that the City Council should deal with the concern of traffic impact and how to manage the traffic flow in reviewing the development plan. Mr. Pierce stated that Fina has an option on the land at present. One neighbor accused the City of being dishonest about the proposal. Mr. Warren responded he did not believe the City was being dishonest about the proposal. He pointed out that various options are being discussed. He added that the City could choose to rezone the property to C1 rather than C2. He pointed out that staff have in no way encouraged the use of the property for a gas station, in fact, they have been more discouraging. He also pointed out that no development plans have even been submitted nor formal approval of the gas station has been sought. He added that staff have set up meetings to get neighborhood comment on the proposed rezoning and to seek input and comment and he believed the entire matter has been open and above board. ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATION Mrs. Sander stated that she would recommend that all of the property between Willow Lane and Highway 252 be rezoned to C 1. Mr. Boone stated that he concurred with that recommendation. He stated that an office use would be the best for the property considering traffic ingress and egress and the impact on the neighborhood. He stated that he was concerned regarding the traffic flow through the site and the impact on the neighborhood. He also recommended rezoning land all the way down to 65th, including the motel. Mr. Atkins stated that, as an owner he had an interest in retaining the current C2 zoning. Mr. Haroldson stated that he agreed with the recommendation to rezone all the land to C1. He stated that he did not want to see more apartment buildings nor a gas station. Mr. Warren concluded that the neighborhood group recommends a denial of the rezoning and an alternate rezoning proposal from the City to rezone the entire block to C1. He noted that the motel and the existing apartment building would become nonconforming if such a rezoning were eventually approved. The neighborhood group agreed with this conclusion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:43 p.m. Chairman 3 -21 -89 -4-