HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 11- 28 MINUTES OF THE NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP
NOVEMBER 28, 1989
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting was called to order by Planning
Commission Secretary Ronald Warren at 7:04 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Those present included advisory group member Curt Danielson, Director of Planning
and Inspection Ronald Warren, Planner Gary Shallcross and Consultant Randy Thoreson
from Short - Elliott- Hendrickson.
BACKGROUND OF LAND USE STUDY
Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren introduced himself to the
residents in attendance and also introduced Curt Danielson and explained the
purpose of Neighborhood Advisory Groups. He then introduced the Planner and the
Consultant as individuals who had particpated in preparing the study of the land in
the area of 66th and West River Road to this point.
Mr. Warren then reviewed a background of the Land Use Study of the area between
Willow Lane and Highway 252 north of I94 and up to and including the MN /DOT house just
north of 66th Avenue North. He explained that, earlier this year, there was a
proposal to rezone a sliver of land adjacent to the existing C2 zone south of 66th
from R5 to C2 to accommodate a gas station, convenience store and car wash. He
explained that when the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group originally
considered this rezoning proposal, it recommended that the entire lot be rezoned to
C1. He went on to explain that the Planning Commission considered this
recommendation and in turn recommended a moratorium and a study regarding three
areas: 1) the MN /DOT property just north of 66th; 2) the block bounded by 65th on
the south and 66th on the north and by Willow Lane on the east and Highway 252 on the
west; and 3) the land south of 65th Avenue North and west of Willow Lane presently
occupied by the Lyn River apartment complex. He stated that the City Council agreed
to this recommendation and contracted with Short - Elliott- Hendrickson to do a Land
Use Study of these three areas. He then introduced Randy Thoreson from Short -
Elliott- Hendrickson to review the various land use alternatives for these three
areas.
REVIEW OF STUDY AREAS AND LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Randy Thoreson, of Short - Elliott- Hendrickson, then reviewed a number of
alternatives for the three study areas. The first alternative was to leave the
existing zoning as is. The second alternative was for Area 1 to be R1, Area 2 to be
C2 on the west and C1 on the east, and Area 3 to continue as R5. The third
alternative was to have Area 1 be R1, Area 2 be entirely C1 and Area 3 to remain R5.
He also reviewed other alternatives including one where Area 1 would be R1 and Areas
2 and 3 would be for multiple family and an alternative where Area 1 would be R1 and
Areas 2 and 3 would be C1. He reviewed some of the pros and cons of these various
alternatives.
He concluded with a review of two other alternatives. One alternative would be to
make Area 1, R1 and Area 2 would be a City redevelopment on all of the Atkins property
and leave the rest of the land south of the Atkins property as existing. The final
alternative was to redesign and rebuild the intersection of West River Road and 66th
Avenue North and extend a roadway down through part of the Atkins property and create
a buffer area in the northeast corner of the property and leave the rest of the zoning
as is.
11 -28 -89 -1-
Mr. Curt Danielson asked what City participation would be in the buffer. Mr.
Thoreson responded that the City would acquire and install the green area. Mr.
Danielson and Mr. Thoreson discussed the idea of the buffer and Mr. Thoreson showed a
graphic of the redesigned intersection on an overhead projector. A resident asked
what would be in the area between the new street and Willow Lane. Mr. Thoreson
responded that a berm and landscaping would probably be installed. Mr. Thoreson
briefly reviewed the layout of the street redesigned and a walkway which would move
through the area. Regarding Area 1 (the MN /DOT property), Mr. Thoreson stated
that he and the City staff had looked at this area and concluded that it was not
viable for either commercial or multiple- family development and that about all that
could be put on it was a single - family home.
Mr. Warren then explained to those people present that there were actually two
studies being conducted at the same time in the same general area and by the same
consultant, Short - Elliott- Hendrickson. He explained that the study that was being
discussed at this evening's meeting was a Land Use Study of the area at and primarily
south of the intersection of 66th Avenue North and West River Road. He pointed out
that there is also a study being conducted of West River Road itself north of 66th and
that some of the residents at this evening's meeting may have been at meetings
regarding that study. Mr. Warren explained that they had looked at the MN /DOT
property for some sort of buffer use and had concluded that both C1 uses and the
multiple- family were not viable on the property. He stated that the only
alternative was to allow for single - family development and that a physical buffer
would probably have to be created to protect that single - family home. Mr. Thoreson
reviewed the last alternative as being that Area 1 would be R1 property; Area 2 would
be C2 on the west and the buffer and roadway and the existing multiple- family on the
east; and that Area 3 would remain multiple- family. He reviewed some of the
challenges presented by this area for the Land Use Study.
A woman present asked how the redesign option would affect cars wanting to go north
on Highway 252. Mr. Thoreson reviewed some of the facts about the intersection of
66th Avenue North and Highway 252. He noted that there are only two lanes and that
the right lane has three options: to turn left, to go straight ahead, or to turn
right. He stated that this results in some backup in the right lane. Mr. Warren
explained that the northerly portion of the redesigned intersection which would
include a large teardrop shape median has been looked at by the City Council. He
explained that the large teardrop was to allow trucks to turn around within 66th
rather than going either north or south on Willow Lane. He explained that the
redesign of the southerly portion of the intersection would do away with a straight
shot into the residential neighborhood along Willow Lane.
A woman resident asked regarding parks in the area, indicating that there was a need
for more places for children to play in this area. Mr. Thoreson responded that the
buffer area would not necessarily be designated as a park, though it would
constitute public open space. Mr. Warren added that the area would be landscaped
and that hopefully the roadway realignment would help provide better access to the
park further north on West River Road. Another resident stated that kids would play
wherever there is open space. Mr. Warren acknowledged that there were a number of
kids in the area and commented that it would probably be better for them to play on
the berm created in the buffer area than in the street.
A resident asked what the distance would be between Willow Lane and the new street on
the other side of the buffer. Mr. Warren responded that it would probably be 60' to
80 The resident asked whether the City had considered a block wall as opposed to a
berm. Mr. Warren answered that the City had looked at berming and landscaping to
11 -28 -89 -2-
provide a screening treatment in as aesthetic a manner as possible, but that no final
design has been looked at. He noted that other alternatives could be considered.
Another resident asked whether the City had considered extending the berm north of
66th to provide additional screening for those homes also north of 66th. Mr. Randy
Thoreson answered that the City has looked at that and that it would be advisable to
do so.
A woman resident inquired as to the movement of vehicles around the teardrop shaped
median in 66th and the way of getting onto 66th to go north. Mr. Warren and Mr.
Thoreson reviewed the layout of the revised intersection plan. They explained that
there would be stop signs for both northbound and southbound traffic so that cars
would be able to move onto 66th during the interruptions. Mr. Warren added that
Willow Lane may be extended somewhat northward, but that the City does not want to
connect the southerly leg of Willow Lane with the northerly leg. He expressed the
concern that this could become another through street which would be undesirable for
the residential neighborhood.
In response to a question from another resident, Mr. Warren and Mr. Thoreson
discussed the plans for the frontage road along Highway 252 south of 66th Avenue
North. They indicated that a portion, or all of this area might be vacated.
One of the residents along Willow Lane brought up the issue of land use and the option
of continuing multiple - family land use south of 66th. He stated that there are more
young kids now and he questioned whether multiple - family is an ideal land use in this
area. Mr. Warren responded that the zoning regulations for the multiple- family
districts regulate building types, but cannot regulate the type of occupants. He
pointed out that the apartment units allowed in the R5 zone could all be one bedroom
units which would involve very few children. He noted, however, that two bedroom
units are allowed and that some three bedroom units can be comprehended. He added
that the City's Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance allows many people to
occupy a dwelling unit, possibly up to six individuals in a two bedroom apartment.
The resident commented that in looking at land uses, a light commercial use might be
a preferable use, but may not be practical from an economic standpoint. He
acknowledged that a multiple - family use may be an appropriate buffer, but does also
present some problems for the neighborhood. Another resident commented that he did
not feel high density residential should be located next to single - family. Mr.
Warren stated that a multiple- family complex can be a good neighbor, if it is
maintained well. He pointed out, however, that a Zoning Ordinance cannot control
the maintenance of property, including single - family property. The resident
inquired as to the license for the apartment complex at 65th and Willow Lane. Mr.
Warren briefly reviewed the history of the 18 unit apartment complex north of 65th on
Willow Lane. He pointed out that the owner had been given a year to fix up the
property and that he had been lax in meeting that deadline. He stated that the owner
may have to post a guarantee to insure completion of maintenance items before the
license can be renewed. He added that revoking the license may be justified, but
that if that is done, the maintenance of the complex may get worse in the short run.
A woman resident asked what was the minimum necessary land area for a park. Mr.
Warren responded that it depended on the use of the park. He noted that a small play
lot could be developed on a fairly small parcel. In response to another question
regarding 66th Avenue North, Mr. Thoreson explained that the intersection at 66th
Avenue and West River Road is presently at level of service E. He stated that the
level of service for that intersection will almost certainly go to "F" regardless of
whether or not the Atkins property is developed. Mr. Warren and Mr. Thoreson went
on to discuss briefly some of the traffic patterns and traffic movements in the area
of this intersection.
11 -28 -89 -3-
In response to a question from a resident regarding the traffic pattern of various
land uses, Mr. Warren explained that office uses have an earlier evening peak hour
and that it is more concentrated than general commercial uses. He added that general
commercial uses may involve more overall traffic, but that the peak is less
concentrated. The resident pointed out the traffic from the gas station would come
out on the resdesigned road and would create some problems for residents in the area
which need to use that road as a way out of the neighborhood.
Another resident stated that he did not feel a gas station, even with a buffer, is a
good tradeoff for the neighborhood. Another resident asked a representative of
Superamerica how much land was needed for the Superamerica across Highway 252. Mr.
Bud Kaupp, of Superamerica, answered that he was not certain of the land area.
Planner Gary Shallcross stated that he thought the area of that parcel was
approximately two acres. He pointed out that the Superamerica store would be
approximately 8,000 sq.ft. whereas the Fina store proposed for Mr. Atkins' property
was closer to 2,500 sq. ft.
One of the residents along Willow Lane stated that he felt the matter had probably
already been decided and that the City was simply going through the formality of a
public meeting without really wanting to consider any other possibilities. Mr.
Warren responded that the City is looking for input. He reviewed some of the
options for the Land Use Study, especially Area 2 which contains the Atkins
property.
Mr. Curtis Danielson, of the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group, asked the
residents to comment as to their feelings regarding the proposed berm and buffer.
One resident responded that it was o.k., but that it would not screen the proposed
service station. Another resident stated that if the service station is built,
property values in the area will go down and that the berm will be insufficient to
screen the station.
Mr. Warren stated that another option was for the City to acquire all of Mr. Atkins'
property. He reviewed for the residents the legal context of the existing zoning
and land use of Mr. Atkins' property and the need to offer a fair price for the
property. He also reviewed uses allowed in various zoning districts which could be
considered for this area. He noted that, under some zoning schemes, some or all of
the uses on the block would become nonconforming uses. Mr. Warren went on to state
that there are a variety of issues confronting this area, among them:
transportation, land use, property maintenance, and property rights.
Mr. Danielson stated that he felt the alternative of providing a redesigned
intersection at 66th and West River Road and a berm was a viable alternative and
should be considered seriously. Mr. Warren stated that the matter would go to the
Planning Commission on December 7 and that notices would be sent to the same people
that received a notice of this meeting. Mr. Thoreson explained that his firm had
narrowed the range of options from 45 different alternatives down to about five. He
stated that he saw a value in the buffer with a berm alternative. He also explained
that the City could not rule out a gas station on the basis of traffic impact alone.
One resident stated that he did favor the redesigned road to provide a buffer from
the service station use. Another resident acknowledged that the City probably had
to choose between the lesser of two evils. He stated that if a station had to be
developed, then a berm might be the best buffer from such a use. The resident added
that the City should use its discretion in approving a special use permit to control
other aspects of the development plan.
11 -28 -89 -4-
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Warren thanked the residents and Mr. Danielson for coming to the meeting and
indicated that the business of the meeting had been concluded. The meeting
adjourned at 9:41 p.m.
11 -28 -89 -5-