Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 10-17 CCM Special Session MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA OCTOBER 17, 1991 SPECIAL SESSION CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The City Council and the Planning Commission met in a special joint session and were called to order by Mayor Todd Paulson and Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:14 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Todd Paulson, Councilmembers Jerry Pedlar, David Rosene, and Phil Cohen. Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Sander and Mann. Also present were City Manager Gerald Splinter, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. The Director of Planning and Inspection noted that Councilmember Scott and Commissioners Bernards and Johnson were unable to attend. Commissioner Holmes arrived at 7:17 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Real Estate Signs Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren introduced the subject of real estate signs, particularly space for lease signs, by reviewing the recent history of a variance application that had been submitted by Welsh Companies for some space for lease signs at three of their properties in the City. He noted that the City's ordinance relating to space for lease signs was developed about 10 years ago as a result of another variance and noted that it was difficult to enforce, especially since no permit was required for such signs. He noted that there has been change in personnel in recent years and that the ordinance has not been rigorously enforced. He explained that a letter was sent to building owners and managers in the spring informing them of the ordinance and requiring them to comply. As a result of those compliance letters, a variance application was submitted and a new ordinance was ultimately adopted which has an expiration date of September 20, 1992. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that staff prefer as simple an ordinance as possible in order for it to be easy to understand and to enforce. The Director of Planning and Inspection then reviewed slides of a number of space for lease signs in Brooklyn Center. There followed a lengthy discussion of the matter of real estate space for lease signs and what the City's objectives were. Councilmember Cohen expressed concern about the aesthetics of some 10 -17 -91 1 of the signs and also the need to define what is a temporary sign. He noted that there is a slow real estate market right now and that there is a lot of vacant space because office space was overbuilt in the early to mid 1980 He expressed concern that there would be more signs for a longer period because of this. Councilmember Cohen stated that it would be appropriate for the City to develop its own set of goals and objectives regarding this subject and to transmit them to the building owners and managers and let them respond. He stated that it would be important to develop an ordinance that would stand up in court. Councilmember Pedlar stated that there would always be space available in larger buildings and that the signs served to market those buildings to people who are interested in space in Brooklyn Center. He expressed concern that limiting the signs too severely might deter development or redevelopment of certain areas. Councilmember Rosene stated that it is important to define what is temporary. He suggested that perhaps these signs should be allowed only every other year, yet he emphasized a need to be sensitive to business. Councilmember Rosene expressed a preference for a setback for these signs and wondered what the building owners and managers would say if the City laid the issue in their laps and told them of the City's- concerns. Mayor Paulson wondered whether it was appropriate to change the ordinance at all. He stated that the City had a good sign policy and that sign policies should be made by the Planning Commission and City Council. He expressed reservations about policy changes being pushed by advocates and wondered whether any change was really needed. He also stated that he did not think office space was as available as represented. The Mayor also expressed concern about the amount of staff time and time by the Planning Commission and City Council that would be needed to address this issue, which he felt was fairly marginal. He expressed a concern that such meetings address larger issues relating to the City's goals and objectives. Chairperson Malecki, referring to the number of signs shown in the slide presentation, stated that if people saw that many :signs in a residential neighborhood, they would think something was wrong with the neighborhood. She expressed an interest in a time limit for such signs. Commissioner Sander stated that what bothered her was the lack of consistency with the placement and size of signs. She stated that residential real estate signs are all pretty much the same. Commissioner Mann expressed support for a permit process with a time limit on such signs. The Planner pointed out some of the administrative difficulties with time limits and sizes of signs. He noted that sign contractors have a difficult enough time reading sign ordinances and that they get permits. He expressed skepticism that realtors who put up real estate signs would be familiar enough with the 10 -17 -91 2 ordinance to observe anything that was very complex. The City Manager pointed out that the more complex the ordinance, the more likely it would require a permit process. He stated that the City had to balance the need for ease of enforcement with other goals regarding aesthetics and necessary visual communication. The Director of Planning and Inspection answered many questions throughout this discussion. He noted that there was a greater preference for freestanding signs except with tall buildings where greater visibility is obtained by putting it on the wall. He stated that it is difficult to regulate aesthetics. He noted that flashing signs are prohibited, but that he was not aware of other ordinances that regulate colors, etc. The Director of Planning and Inspection asked for more input on this subject and noted that representatives of the building owners and managers would certainly have their input into the process as well. b) Major Thoroughfare Setback The Director of Planning and Inspection then introduced the subject of major thoroughfare setbacks particularly as it relates to commercial buildings along Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that Brooklyn Boulevard would see more development and redevelopment in the future and that the lack of depth of the lots along Brooklyn Boulevard can make redevelopment difficult. He stated that loosening the setback requirement might facilitate some redevelopment. He stated that this could be done through a Planned Unit Development or through an ordinance amendment. The City Manager pointed out that by putting the building back 50' from the right -of -way line, the activity is put closer to a residential area behind. He suggested that it might be more appropriate to put parking area closer to the residential area. He stated that this issue was easier to address before an application is submitted. He stated that there is some logic to putting parking behind the building. Regarding the abutment of gas stations adjacent to residential, the City Manager stated that there may be a way to buffer such uses and to allow the abutment. Councilmember Cohen offered some historical perspective on these ordinances. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan has been in effect for many years and that market forces have led development to go where it is easier, namely to vacant land up in Brooklyn Park. He stated that there may be a need to create a special zoning district on Brooklyn Boulevard to facilitate redevelopment.. The City Manager stated that a special district could be used or a Planned Unit Development. He stated that the City may also have to look at more retail development along Brooklyn Boulevard than the Plan presently calls for. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that he was not proposing that there be no standard, but that the City possibly look at a normal setback for commercial development instead of the extraordinary major thoroughfare setback. He stated that the rationale for extraordinary setbacks along major thoroughfares is to protect residences from noise and 10 -17 -91 3 I traffic, etc. He asked whether the same concern really held true for commercial development along major thoroughfares. He added, however, that there may be an of f ect on the movement of traf f is along a major thoroughfare if the buildings were allowed to be closer. Chairperson Malecki asked whether development was 50' from the right -of -way now. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded that it was not at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Rosene suggested that the matter be considered further. Councilmember Cohen stated that the City has been waiting, 25 years for redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard and that it hasn't happened. He stated that the Planning Commission should look at this area and consider the possibility of revising ordinances to facilitate it. a or Paulson urged a long term look M y 1 g g and referred to the example of Burnsville. The City Manager explained that Burnsville had completed a redevelopment along one of its major thoroughfares in which it tried to lead the redevelopment, not just react to it. c) Ordinance Prohibiting Abutment of Gas Stations and R1, R2 and R3 Zoning Districts The Director of Plannin g P and Inspection then introduced a similar subject relating to redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard, namely the prohibition in the Zoning Ordinance of gas stations abutting R1, R2 and R3 zoned property. He pointed out that the ordinance flatly prohibited such an abutment and that there are no standards to evaluate for a possible abutment. He asked the Council and Commission whether the City wanted to be that absolute in its approach. He stated that it has caused some difficulties with some redevelopment prospects. Commissioner Holmes asked whether the gas stations at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard were grandfathered. The Director of Planning and Inspection responded in the affirmative. The City Manager explained that the Superamerica at 57th and Logan was the original cause of the ordinance now in effect. He stated that this ordinance may stymie redevelopment in certain locations along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that the City would get an application in the near future and that it should look at: the issue ahead of time. He asked for direction from the Council and Commission. Councilmember Pedlar asked what would happen if the City stuck with the existing ordinance. The City Manager stated that the City somewhat would be limiting its redevelopment options m Y g P P on busier intersections where gasoline /food stores wish to locate. He pointed out that convenience stores almost always sell gas now and that they, therefore, cannot abut R1, R2, or R3 zoned property. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out that changing the rules would not necessarily bring about redevelopment, that it would still be necessary to remove houses and find an economically viable use for the land. In response to Councilmember Pedlar, the Director of Planning and Inspection stated that if the City relied on the special use 10 -17 -91 4 I standards, it would be tougher to deny a service station use. He stated that the outright prohibition of such uses to abut R1, R2 and R3 zoned property is the cleanest way to control them. He stated that if the City feels that there are other ways to deal with the abutment of these uses, it might open up some redevelopment possibilities. Councilmember Cohen stated that opportunity is fine, but that it doesn't always solve the problem. He stated that if an abutment of these uses was part of a package which would accomplish redevelopment of a block along Brooklyn Boulevard, it might be worth looking at. He stated that creating, buffers might be acceptable if it leads to a comprehensive redevelopment. He concluded that hanging with principles has not accomplished anything for redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard. Mayor Paulson stated that he did not know whether the City would accomplish anything if it opened up the opportunity for these uses to abut each other. He stated that the City might simply be setting up a conflict between neighbors and service stations. He stated that it would be appropriate to develop a plan and to involve the neighbors in looking at that plan for resolution of these issues. The City Manager stated that if the Planning Commission and City Council say no to abutment of service stations and single family residential, that gives direction to the staff. On the other hand, he stated, if the ordinance is loosened up, it would open up possibilities for redevelopment. He suggested considering looking at a development zone along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that it would be appropriate to work from a set of standards first and then to implementation. Mr. Janis Blumentals, an architect concerned with these issues, stated that there was a need for a master plan from the City, that it should not be too specific, but that it should provide some guidance. He suggested that a Planned Unit Development might be created by establishing a district and a redevelopment plan which could be effectuated by private parties in the future. The City Manager stated that it was important to develop a plan earlier and work with the neighbors so that they are not surprised at a public hearing. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that a master plan can be developed, but that somebody has to control the land and make the redevelopment happen. Otherwise, the City would just be looking at one parcel at a time. Mr. Dave Nelson, a local developer, stated that the City could set up a development district as has been done in Brooklyn Park. The Director of Planning and Inspection suggested that could be done under the Planned Unit Development ordinance. Mr. Blumentals stated that a master plan could be broad in scope, but establish some ground rules for future development. He asked for the City to tell them what it wanted. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated that that has been communicated, though the private parties may not like it. 10 -17 -91 5 i I The City Manager stated that if the City gives up an abutment restriction, it should know what it is going to get. He stated that the Maxfield Study carries some weight on these redevelopment issues, but that the Comprehensive Plan carries weight as well. He stated that the City has to decide what it wants. Councilmember Pedlar stated that it was important to look at these issues on a case by case basis. The City Manager stated that there would be risk in approaching these issues and urged the City _Council and Planning Commission to be anticipatory. Councilmember Cohen stated that it was cheaper to go where there is vacant land and that redevelopment is costly. He noted that there are few corner gas stations and repair shops and that there is actually a consumer need for this type of business. He noted that property on Brooklyn Boulevard is deteriorating and that the City should put efforts into Brooklyn Boulevard to keep it from going downhill. He stated that the City could not afford to condemn all the land along Brooklyn Boulevard and that it would have to use zoning to try to facilitate redevelopment. He expressed a willingness to look at zoning provisions relative to redevelopment. Mayor Paulson stated people are waiting to see what the City is going to do with the redevelopment issue along Brooklyn Boulevard. Councilmember Rosene stated he was in favor of opening up to all the opportunities the City could. He added that the City has four school districts and a number of physical barriers that stand in the way of a sense of community. He urged that when Brooklyn Boulevard is redeveloped, that a sense of cohesion be sought. There followed a brief discussion of service stations. Chairperson Malecki stated that there was a difference between a gas station and a service station where cars are repaired. Councilmember Pedlar stated 24 hour operations are not compatible with residential neighborhoods. Councilmember Cohen noted that repair garages do not operate late into the night and suggested that the City look at the hours of operation when stations are adjacent to residential_ Chairperson Malecki asked whether anybody was absolutely opposed to a change in the ordinance. Mayor Paulson stated that he was opposed to a change unless the City knows what it is going to get. d) R7 Property South of the Library The Director of Planning and Inspection then brought up the final discussion item, the R7 property south of the library. He noted that the Maxfield Study recommends a change in the zoning of this property and states that there is no market for multiple family residential at this time. He noted the study stated that commercial /retail would be better for this area from a market standpoint. He noted that the staff has been contacted in the past by people interested in commercial development and the staff has indicated that the R7 zoning is appropriate or that possibly C1 or 10 -17 -91 6 i C1A zoning would be acceptable. He noted there is no market for these developments now, though there is apparently a market for retail development. The City Manager noted the City 'would get a request to rezone the property in the near future. He stated a traffic analysis of the area indicates that retail would fit in this area whereas, if the properties were developed R7 or C1, the City would have to wait. The Director of Planning and Inspection stated staff has looked at this area as a transitional area between the park to the west and the commercial area to the east. He stated Shingle Creek Parkway tends to divide the less intense uses from the more intense uses. The City Manager stated the Hennepin County Government Center is a busy retail type public use and the Earle Brown Common High Rise was built 3 years ago. Councilmember Pedlar stated the City should perhaps look at a commercial rezoning. The City Manager stated commercial uses in this area would not be a big problem if those uses were lower traffic generating and the City does not really need more multiple family development at this time. Councilmember Pedlar added the City did not really need more office space either. He suggested looking at the opportunities. The Director of Planning and Inspection pointed out that back in the 1960 the opportunity was multiple family development. He stated it isn't always bad to set land aside for future use, be it multiple family or office, and wait for the demand to come along. Councilmember Cohen stated the City has sat on this zoning for a long time. He stated it was planned originally for an elderly high rise, but that there is no demand for that kind of development now. He stated if someone brings in a plan, the City should look at it. Councilmember Pedlar stated that in 30 years things get old and that if an opportunity comes along, the City needs to look at it. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Councilmember Rosene to adjourn the joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:51 p.m Mayor Todd Paulson Plannin Commission Chairperson 10 -17 -91 7