Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 06-19 K�MORANDUM TO: Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group Commissioner Richard Theis 561 -8738 Douglas Olson 561 -6968 James Carlson 561 -1065 Louis Terzich 561 -8639 Eilert Pederson 561 -5654 George Uhlenkott 561 -8259 Dale Magnuson 561 -8533 FROM: Blair Tremere, Planning Commission Secretary DATE: June 19, 1978 SUBJECT: Review of Planning Commission Application No. 78032 (Rezoning) The Planning Commission considered the above matter at the public hearing on June 15, 1978, and has referred the matter to your group for review and comment. The application was submitted by R. L. Johnson who seeks rezoning, from R -3 (Townhouse- Garden Apartments) to C -2 (General Commerce), of property in the 7200 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard (west side). The following information is enclosed for your review: 1) Photocopy of the June 15 Commission minutes 2) Map of area 3) Copy of Ordinance Rezoning Evaluation Criteria. 4) Copy of letter from applicant discussing the request. 5) Copy of letter from City to applicant commenting on request. It is important that the time and place of the Group's meeting be publicly announced prior to the meeting. We suggest that the Chairman and members set a date to meet at the City Hall, and notify us. We will arrange for a meeting room and will see that the meeting is properly announced. The Commission would appreciate your comments and /or recommendations within 30 days. Thank you for your cooperation. 1. The final registered land survey is : subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. The final registered land survey is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. The next item of business was consideration of Application Application No. 78032 No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson. The item was intro- (R. L. Johnson) duced by the Secretary who explained the applicant is re- questing rezoning from R -3 (Townhouse Garden Apartments) to C -2 (General Commercial) of a tract of land consisting of two parcels which contain approximately 5 acres bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the east, the municipal Brooklyn Center - Brooklyn Park boundary on the north, the east boundary of "The Ponds" Planned Residential Development on the west, and the north boundary of the Creek Villa townhouse neighborhood on the south. He explained that the south property line is on the south side of Shingle Creek which runs through the property and that the Creek is not the boundary between the Creek Villas townhouse neighborhood and this property,as it might appear on the City map. He stated the applicant owns the bulk of the property with the exception of the smaller interior parcel abutting Brooklyn Boulevard which contains a rented single family home. He stated the owner of the single family home has submitted a letter stating no objection to the rezoning request. The Secretary also commented on conceptual development plans the applicant had submitted, and he emphasized that, while the conceptual plans indicated the use of some adjacent land owned by the applicant in Brooklyn Park, the zoning matter before the Commission was not concerned with that prospective use and no presumption should be made as to the specific type of development which might or might not occur on the property. ' The Secretary presented transparencies showing the location of the property as well as slides indicating the features of the property. Extensive discussion ensued regarding information submitted by the applicant explaining the request. The Secretary stated that the applicant has, for some time, proposed conceptual plans for a commercial development which has included a restaurant. He stated the applicant has been informed over the past several years that restaurants require C -2 zoning which is not consistent with the Com- prehensive Plan for properties along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated no development proposal has ever been submitted for an R -3 type development. The Secretary also commented that the application had been accepted as a request to rezone the property to C -2, which comprehends both retail and C -1 Service /Office uses because of the applicant's insistence that a portion of the site be zoned to accommodate a restaurant. He noted, however, that the applicant had submitted conceptual layouts indicating a "split" zoning, wherein the southerly part of the property �s' uc zuried C -1 `u. ceve i opment w i th office-type uses, and the northerly portion would be zoned C -2 to accommodate • a restaurant use. He stated the applicant's contention is that the C -1 would provide "buffering" for the residential development to the south on the other side of the Creek from the proposed retail or restaurant use on the north. 6 -15 -78 -4- Application No. 78030 The next item of business was consideration of Appli- . .(Ansari Abrasives) cation No. 78030 submitted by Ansari Abrasives, 3!100 48th Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the, City Council on October 3, 1977 approved Application No. 77054 consisting of site and building plans for a new structure on the site. He stated that one of the con- ditions of that approval is that, prior to occupancy of the new building, the two parcels comprising the property will be combined through plat or registered land survey. The Secretary briefly explained the:- "history of the subdivision in the area and stated,the applicant had submitted a preliminary registered land survey to meet with the stated requirement. Public Hearing Commissioner Engdahl stated that notice of public hear- ing had been published and that no one was present to speak on the application. Motion by Commissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Recommend Approval of Following further discussion there was a motion by.Com- Application No. 78030 missibner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to (Ansari Abrasives) recommend approval of, No. 78030 submitted by Ansari Abrasives subject to the following conditions: 1. Final registered land survey is subject to review by the City Engineer. 2. Final regis "tered land survey is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The motion passed unanimously. Application No. 78031 The next itemof business was consideration of Appli- (Robert Gustafson) cation No. 78031 submitted by Robert Gustafson, 5242 France Avenue North. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposes a registered land survey which would combine two existing parcels and would create a new single family residential parcel facing Ewing Avenue North. He stated the applicant owns a lot which extends from France Avenue through to Ewing Avenue on the east, as well as a lot on France Avenue to the south of and adjacent to the parcel. He reviewed a transparency and slides of the area and commented further as to the history and configuration of the property," Further discussion ensued regarding the topography of the area, the soil conditions and the water table elevations. There was also a brief discussion regarding a narrow Outlot between the Ewing Avenue street right- of -way and the property line of the subject property. The 5ecretary that this would be incorporated in the new plat and combined, into the main parcel. Chairman Engdahl recogni -zed the applicant and further discussion ensued regarding the future development ofthe proposed lot and specifically a to whether existing trees would have to be removed cr• altered. The appli- cant responded that he did not feel the large box elder tree on the l would have to be removed since iL �va� behind the established building s1tback line of ad- jacent residences. Public Hearing Chairman Engdahl stated that notice f public hearing had been published and that no one w s present to speak on the application. Motion by ommissioner Pierce seconded by Commissioner Malecki to c se the public hearing. The motion passed unanimousl . i Recommend Approval of Following further discussion there was a motion by Com- Application No. 78031 missioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Pierce to (Robert Gustafson) recommend approval of Application No. 78031 submitted by Robert Gustafson subject to the following conditions: -3- 6 -15 -78 The Secretary stated that the application was accepted in its present form because, to presume a "split" zoning would be to prematurely determine that C -2 was an appropriate zoning, contrary to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the Com- mission and Council, following the hearings and further consideration of the matter, could modify the proposal if the "split" xoning concept was deemed to be appropri- ate so that the result would be a C -1 and C -2 zoning of the same property. The Secretary stated that the Commission had several courses of action which could ultimately be recommended: approve the rezoning as submitted; deny the proposal • as submitted; approve a "split" C -1/C -2 zoning; or approve a C -1 zoning of the entire property. He ex- plained that the Comprehensive Plan states that appro- priate land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard include multiple - residential as well as Service /Office. The Secretary stated that the R -3 property could support approximately 36 to 40 townhouse -type units. He also explained that the applicant has indicated approximately 2.8 acres of the approximate 5 acres was deemed "build- able ", but that it should be understood that the exist- ing 100 ft. easement over Shingle Creek cannot be built upon, and that this area is part of the land the appli- cant is stating is "unbuildable" in addition to the land which soil testing apparently has indicated is not highly desirable for construction. The Secretary concluded, stating that following the public hearing the Commission should review the appli- cation thoroughly in the context of the City Policy and Guidelines in Section 35 -208 of the City Ordinances. A brief discussion ensued with the Director of Public Works relative to possible traffic generation by a 1 townhouse development, an office complex, and a restaurant. Ghai "rm a n Engdahl recognized the applicant and an extensive discussion ensued beginning with the appli- cant's explanation of a model layout of the proposed development. The applicant stated that in consider- ation of the commercial development to the north in Brooklyn Park, he felt that townhouses would be difficult to market. He stated that he was a food service operator and his main interest in the develop- ment of the office comples was to establish his corporate offices and to sell a portion of the property to an interested restaurant developer such as Sambo's. Mr. Johnson also stated that a prime concern in the re- zoning request was the economic considerations wherein a portion of the property would have to be a higher zoned commercial that could be sold in order to support the office development. He stated that otherwise he would probably have difficulty in developing the property. The Secretary clarified earlier remarks regardina con- sideration of the use of Brooklyn Park land in relation to a proposed use on the Brooklyn Center side of the municipal boundary. He stated that, while the zoning of the Brooklyn Park land may have significance in V determining the highest and best land use of the Brooklyn Center property, the earlier point was that no presumptions should be made about the density or development capacity of Brooklyn Center property which would depend upon the use of the Brooklyn Park property for parking. -5- Commissioner Pierce inquired whether the applicant's developme p p p lans , articularly for the proposed Sambo's Restaurant, had been reviewed with respect to parking and the Secretary responded in the negative. The Secretary continued that, while conceptual plans were significant to show that a given piece of land could he developed as per the proposed zoning, zoning decisions should be based upon the appropriateness of the proposed land use. He stated the City must be aware that, once rezoned, the property could be put to any of the permitted or special uses in the proposed zone, notwithstanding the intent or conceptual plans conveyed by the applicant. Commissioner Theis inquired about the effect of rezoning • residential land for nonresidential uses thereby reducing the potential number of housing units that the City could build, particularly in light of the Metropolitan Council guidelines and allocation formulas for housing units. The Secretary reviewed the Metropolitan Council Housing policies for low to moderate income housing, as well as for the housing need in general. He stated the Metropolitan Housing forecasts were being revised, but that Brooklyn Center was a high priority community in providing housing since it was considered a fully developed community with respect to utilities and services. Commissioner Theis stated his concern about the Metro Council's view of Brooklyn Center removing a number of housing units from the potential housing inventory and referred to another application considered last year where a nonresidential special use request involving a large residential tract was denied because of the concern for retaining residentially zoned land for housing development. The Secretary explained that the Metro Council could con - sidere the City's "housing performance" during its review of any grant applications submitted by the City. He stated there were two basic issues in this regard for the Commission to consider: r 1. The significance, if any, of the reduction of the potential housing inventory by approximately 36 to 40 units. 2. Whether rezoning the property to a non - residential status would represent a precedent which could be construed adversely as negative housing performance" by the City and particularly by the Metropolitan Council. Chairman Engdahl stated than a public hearing had been Public Hearing scheduled and that neighboring property owners had been notified. He recognized Mr. Larry Bradford of 7220 Perry Court E. who stated that when he purchased a townhouse in the Creek Villa townhouse neighborhood, he was very con - scious of the R -3 zoning of the property to the north and he was sensitive to the environmental impact upon the Creek and Creek easement. He stated his particular concerns were with potential traffic generation, noise generation and the proposed restaurant use. He suggested that the homeowners abutting the property also had economic concerns the a p p !; •-„-t� 'and ne stated th- �. part of as well :s -;� a �c: , the City's Comprehensive Planning the R -3 Zoning has been established for a number of years within which the appli- cant could have planned development accordingly. Commissioner Pierce asked Mr. Bradford for his opinion of an office -type use, and the response was that, while it was not viewed favorably, it was considered a lesser problem than the retail - commercial and restaurant zoning. Chairman Engdahl noted that no one else was present to speak Close Public Hearing to the application. There was a motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Book to close 'the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 6 -15 -78 -5- Chairman Engdahl stated that economic consideration, per se, was not among the criteria for evaluating re- zoning petitions. He briefly reviewed the criteria and stated that, in his opinion, subject to further input from the Neighborhood Group and the Commission, he felt there were indication of "spot zoning" which he could not support. Commissioner Theis stated at this time that he could not look favorably upon a rezoning to C -2; and that he still had some serious questions about the impact upon housing Policies, whether there was a need for the rezoning, and whether the proposed rezoning was compatible with the area. He stated that the "split" zoning concept had • more merit than a total rezoning of the entire property. Commissioner Hawes stated that there was perhaps another version of a "split" zoning, Namely, leaving the southerly portion of the property R -3 and rezoning the northerly portion to C -1. He stated that generally he could not support a rezoning to C -2 of any portion of the property, but would be willing to consider other alternatives. Commissioner Book inquired as to the Comprehensive Plan provisions for this area including the Creek Villas townhouse site prior to its development. The Secretary explained that the 1966 Comprehensive Plan stated that appropriate uses along Brooklyn Boulevard were either multiple- residential including R -3 type development and Service /Office Commercial. He stated that, based on that guideline, the City had established this area as R -3 in 1968. He commented that it would not be in- appropriate for.the City to reconsider that determination of highest and best use and redesignate a portion of the area C -1. Commissioner Book stated that he did not see merit at this time in "split" zoning concept, but he could see ' possibilities for rezoning to uses. He noted that, from -the developer's perspective, a substantial portion of the property through the Shingle Creek easement was already committed to a buffering between this site and the development to the south. Commissioner Pierce stated that C -1 use had some merit because of the nature of office -type uses with their hours and relatively low intensity traffic generation. He also stated that the C -1 type use on the south could provide a buffer to z C -2 development on the north which would be further removed from the R -3 townhouse develop- ment of Creek Villas. He stated he did not .strongly support the concept of C -2 on this property and that he at this -time felt that perhaps Commissioner Hawes' concept had merit. He suggested that further input should be requested from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. Commissioner Jacobson stated that her initial reaction was that C -2 zoning was not consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan and therefore not appropriate for this area. She agreed that the matter should be referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group and she also com- mr. ►;te:' tha± 'ho C i , - ����� Supp vrt. a S })71t` zoning at this time. • Commissioner Malecki concurred, and stated she was con - cerned that the C -2 zoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She also felt that input should be solicited from the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group. -7- 6 -15 -78 Following further discussion there was a motion by Table Application No. 78032 Commissioner Book seconded by Comm L, Johnson) Commissioner Hawes to (�. table Application No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson •, and to refer the matter to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The motion passed unanimously. The Secretary briefly explained to the resident of 7220 Perry Court East and to the applicant that the matter would be referred to the Neighborhood Advisory Group whose meeting would be determined shortly and would be a public meeting. He stated that following review and comment by the Group, the matter would be reheard by the Planning Commission, and that notices would be sent of that meeting. He stated that when the Planning Commission forwarded . a • recommendation to the City Council notices would also be sent of the City Council meeting. He suggested that interested parties could contact the Planning and Inspection Department to determine the time and place of the Neighbor- hood Group meeting. The next item of business was consideration of Appl�icatio Application No. 78033 No. 78033 submitted by Mr. Wa ne Anderson, 2024 Ericon (Wayne Anderson) Drive. The item was introduc d by the Secretary who s �ted the applicant seeks special u e permission for a home occupation consisting of a ph tographic and printing,' related business. He briefly reviewe the proposed use and 'presented slides showing the applicant' premises. He also eviewed a letter submitted by the applicant to the file scribing the proposed use. The Secret�ry stated that thp' Building Official has inspected the premises and report that the use can be accommodated within code requirements. Chairman Engdahl recognized t applicant j a`nd i nquri ed whether the use would be loca d in the basement and the �' applicant responded in the aff'rmative.He also stated that materials used were class fied as ,;corrosive; but they were not flammable, although i was a�might icipated that, in the future metal printing plat s whi be used would require storage in a metal cabi et./ Building Official r Will Dahn was recognized and st te(�that the quantity and type of storage proposed by the applicant was permitted, but that bulk storage of large quan 1ties of such materials wou be cause for concern. The applicant indicated that such storage and large quantitte of materials would not be on the premises. Discussion ensued with respect to annual review of the proposed use and possible requirement that should the nature of the use change, or be expanded, would require an amendment of the special use permits c T E Secretary stated that review o-F this application indicated major concerns involve' compliance vith the ordinance provisions for special home occupations, partictriarly with respect to the employment of not mare than one nonrksident on the premises, and the provisions 'for adequate park'Ing. The Secretary stated there was no indip'ation that there wo CI " ld be an adverse impact on neighboring properties. Building fficial Will Dahn com- mented that a stm?lar use had been permitted for a Mr. Green- wood in the so portion of the ity a couple of years ago, and tha 'there had been no prcbl eRrs with that use. th� �e u i { be ? CK r,g up the prork anal del i veri ;�g s t to then custo and that he did not anticixate any public traffic to and f om the house. He stated there ould be periodic deliver of supplies although he anticip ted he would also do much of that. 6 -15 -78 -8- 8 � PA Q APPLICf1Tld�� �c, v _ _ . i f ` A do s t T f t y ti... + Section 35 -208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the comprehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaluation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77 -167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and. review guidelines. 2. Policy. I is - the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning, " defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or - to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidelines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines. (a) Is there a clear and public need, or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in - the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of 'the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning _classification changes in the area since - the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City - initiated rezoning proposals, is there a }goad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully - the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is - the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in - the present zoning district, with respect , to size, configuration, topography or location ? (h) Will - the rezoning result in - the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) - the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) 'the best interests of' community? i) Does - the proposal demons'tra'te merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? 1 II . BROOKLYN PARK, MN 55428' (612) 533 -242 7232 BOONE AVE. NO. I r;ay 23, 19 Mr. Blair Tremere, Director planning and Inspectio City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek parkway Brooklyn Center, pan. 55430 Dear PRr. Tremere: yn Center planning ' y request at this time Brooklyn land_ situated I respectfu111 a for rezoning of my I Commission's considera of Brooklyn Boulevard. le Creek and westerly of it is uneconomically north of Shingle resent zoning ment hereon am aware of its p to�gnhouse develop businesses conditions sound for us to proceed with a and certain arlow current soil ' because of the i • e • two car dealerships, . a pizza p located north of us, and a real estate office• g acres. Of nder consideration consis2.8° acres of build - The property u there would be only this total a would remain ppprox this proper imately 400 of able land. buffer zone acreage between our as a 4 •g C -2, ac in its natural state to serve Of the total changed to acent land owners. the restaurant land the adj ration to have our conside for y allotted for build - we are asking only ro osed office e lg� of t he land use woul _ would not creat or establish '+ site (a restaurant sihiated be ablish an the proposed t rovide a i ing and a car dealers p land owners, b p n at the north end of Brookly I conveniences for surrounding while 81% � � would be family, full - service restaunottavailable), that with 40% Of Center, which currently site. ��e feel amount of C- l or office designated for the highest the land serving as a buffer zone, arties concerned will be it privacy and consideration for all p achieved. 'I t 1 i March 6, 1978 Mr. Robert Johnson 7232 Boone Avenue Borth Brooklyn Park, ?IN 55428 Dear Mr. Johnson: I wish to take this opportunity to update our review and analysis of your develop- ment proposal involving the land north of Shingle Creek and westerly of Brooklyn Boulevard. You have inquired about various rezoning and development possibilities on this land, which is zoned R -3 (Townhouse /Garden Apartc�ents), and your proposed development has included uses which require cor�-lercial zoning. You have submitted several conceptual schemes over the past several months showing a service /office use and a restaurant use. Last month we received a certified topographical survey of the property,and several days ago we received some prototype building plans for a Sambo's Restaurant from a f1r. Louis Terzich who indicated that this was proposed for your property. I believe it is essential here to restate the zoning and planning considerations that apply to this property which we have discussed with you. The City of Brooklyn Center reviews all proposed zoning changes according to a uniform policy and guide - lines which have been incorporated into the City Ordinances. I have enclosed a copy of this section for your review. It is the policy of the City that zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning; defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land- owner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. We have discussed with you that neither the proximity to Brooklyn Boulevard nor the nature of development to the north in Brooklyn Park preclude the use of this property as currently zoned, i.e. for multiple family dwellings of the townhouse design, either condominium or rental, similar to those on the other side of Shingle Creek which were developed by Dietrich Homes. We have also indicated that, with respect to rezoning of this property, the Com- prehensive Plan provides for the establishment of limited service /office commercial uses at appropriate locations along Brooklyn Boulevard, in addition to multiple family housing. Service /office commercial uses require C -1 zoning, and I have enclosed for your information a section of the Zoning Ordinance which lists the various C -1 uses. 1 Mr. Robert Johnson Page 2 March 6, 1978 Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the C -1 zoning district provide for retail commercial uses, including restaurants, which is one of the developments indicated in your conceptual drawings and other information which has been submitted. I want to confirm the discussion former City Manager Don Poss and I had with you some time ago regarding this matter: we cannot endorse and we do not believe the Planning Commission would look favorably upon a proposal for development which required rezoning to C -2. It is our veiw that a unified development proposal, incorporating all of the property north of the creek and west of Brooklyn Boulevard, which would involve Service /Office type uses, i.e., C -1 zoning, would be in keep- ing with the Comprehensive Plan and other similar actions for parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard. The development proposal should be a "package" development, although the actual construction could be phased. It is also important in this regard that, if a rezoning proposal is to be made in this area, it must involve the small parcel which now contains a small single family dwellinn. I believe you indicated that the owner of that property would be interested in participating in a rezoning and eventual replatting of the property. When you have had an opportunity to review this matter, we will be prepared to discuss in detail with you an¢ /or your.architect,the documentation necessary to complete an application for development under the present zoning, or rezoning and development under a proposed zoning such as C -1 (Service /Office). Sincerely, Blair Tremere Director of Planning and Inspection BT:mlg cc: Preliminary File ; cc: City•Engineer.James Merila Enclosures