The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011 09-29 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SEPTEMBER 29, 2011 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes — August 25, 2011 Regular Meeting 4. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Discussion Items A. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere to discuss new Minnesota Statutes 2010, Section 462.357, Subdiv. 6 as it relates to Variances B. Introduction of two, separate proposed development plans by Paul Hyde of Real Estate Recycling on the former Howe Fertilizer Site, 4821 -4823 Xerxes Avenue North and the former Lifetime Fitness Site, 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue (No Official Action to be taken) C. Status Report on other ongoing projects throughout the City D. Update on the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study — 2011 -2012 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION AUGUST 25, 2011 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Sean Rahn at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Sean Rahn, Commissioners Kara Kuykendall, Rachel Morey, Carlos Morgan, Michael Parks, and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Councilmember Carol Kleven, Secretary to the Planning Commission Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Stan Leino was absent and excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JULY 14, 2011 There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to approve the minutes of the July 14, 2011 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Sean Rahn explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. APPLICATION NO. 2011-017 — CARLEIN CLOUTIER — 5731 CAMDEN AVE N Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -017, a request for a Variance to allow the continuation of two accessory structures in the rear yard of 5731 Camden Avenue N. Mr. Benetti presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal. (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 2011 -017, attached.) Mr. Benetti explained that Section 35 -530 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows detached or attached accessory buildings, such as garages and/or carports, along with utility or storage sheds provided the total ground coverage of all accessory building(s) does not exceed the ground coverage of the principal dwelling; and that no more than two accessory structures are permitted on any one residential premise. Mr. Benetti further demonstrated with a PowerPoint presentation the following history of the property: • The property owner was given notice by the City's Code Enforcement Division a number of weeks ago indicating her property was in violation due to the excess number of sheds on the property. The City requested that the owner remove one of the accessory buildings to be compliant with Code. 8 -25 -11 Page 1 • The owner /applicant appeared before the City Council at the May 23, 2011 meeting requesting a stay on the code enforcement action and a "grandfathered right" determination by the Council. • The Council directed city staff to look into the matter, whereby a letter was prepared by staff and mailed to Ms. Cloutier and Ms. New, dated July 5, 2011 indicating the grandfathered right is not applicable. • The Applicant appeared again before the City Council at the July 11, 2001 meeting, informing them of the recent letter and grandfathering determination, and about the variance process. • Upon advisement of the City Attorney, Ms. Cloutier was directed to contact city staff and make application for a variance. • City planning staff met with Ms. Cloutier and Ms. New and advised them of the variance process and this application was filed shortly thereafter. • The owner has communicated to staff that their need for two extra sheds is strictly personal; especially their desire to store excess equipment, furniture and personal belongings of other family members. The Applicants further indicate in their application that the smaller shed was built in 1978 and the larger shed was built in 1995. Ms. New purchased the property in 1998 — after the two sheds were built. It was pointed out by Mr. Benetti that planners, prior to accepting any variance application, will seek out or suggest any available alternatives. He added the only logical alternative in this case would be to remove one of the two sheds and enlarge one of them to increase storage space; or simply remove one of the two sheds and eliminate the need for a variance. Mr. Benetti added that this application does not appear to meet the other (current) standards in review of variances except, however, the hardship to the current owners created by the previous homeowner. Mr. Benetti stated Staff recommends denial of Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -017 based on the grounds that the new standards for granting variances (under Mn SS 2010, Section 462.357, Subdivision 6), particularly the standards for reasonableness and uniqueness to this and all other properties throughout Brooklyn Center have not been met; and the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. PUBLIC HEARING — APPLICATION NO. 2011 -017 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -017, at 7:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Chair Rahn called for comments from the public. The applicant Carlein Cloutier, 5731 Camden Avenue N, stated that in review of city ordinances, she found where it states that "no more than two accessory structures can be permitted" - but does not feel that the ordinance states that a garage or shed count as an accessory structure. Ms. Cloutier stated she purchased the property in 1998 with both sheds on the property. She added that they haven't made any changes to the property since then. She also explained that she 8 -25 -11 Page 2 was notified in April that they had a zoning code violation and feels that wording in the letter does not match wording in Chapter 35. Ms. Cloutier explained that she did bring this issue to City Council two times and was advised to file for a variance. She added that she then created a petition within the general neighborhood and everyone was supportive of the two sheds remaining on the property. She further stated that an unnecessary hardship was created by the previous owners and if they were to comply, it would be difficult to remove the shed. They would have to demolish it since they can't remove it intact since the neighbor's fence and trees are in the way. She further stated that a variance would allow them to continue reasonable use of the property since they have a large family and need the shed for normal storage. She invited Commissioners to come out to the property and take a look. Chair Rahn asked Mr. Benetti to explain the definition of an accessory structure. Mr. Benetti explained that under definitions in Chapter 35, it states that an accessory structure is described as garages and sheds and limited to two per single family property. Commissioner Parks asked what defines an accessory structure. Mr. Benetti stated that an accessory structure is considered secondary to the primary principal dwelling. He added that an accessory structure can have electricity but not sewer or water. Zoning Code further prohibits any accessory structure from being used as a residence or dwelling. Except in some cases where homeowners convert their attached garage space into livable space, but only after meeting all current residential building codes, and review and approval by the City Building Official. Ms. Cloutier further stated that the shed has electricity and it would be a hardship to remove it. She adds that when a permit was issued and an inspection done for the second shed, the city should have, at that time, required that one of the sheds be removed. Mr. Todd Gunderson, 701 58 Avenue N, stated that a few years ago when his wife was sick he was going to build a greenhouse. He later learned that the city had received a complaint about the greenhouse and was told he had to remove it. He then moved the greenhouse to his daughter's house. Then his daughter received a notice that she could not have the shed. He explained both times that it was not a shed but a greenhouse. He feels that there is a neighbor conflict with these sheds and if he was told to take down his greenhouse /shed, then the applicant should also be required to remove theirs. Mr. Gunderson also stated that the applicant asked people to sign a petition at National Night Out and some neighbors have since asked to have their name removed from the petition. Mr. Gunderson feels that the applicant reported his property in violation. No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -017. 8 -25 -11 Page 3 CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2011 -017, at 7:32 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she understands that the city recommends denial of the variance but feels that the City screwed up when they missed the violations two times. She added that she would approve it since the city did not handle this properly from the beginning. Mr. Benetti responded it was not exclusively the "City [that] screwed up" in this case, but a combination of a building permit in 1995 that failed to illustrate the other shed; or possibly a "verbalized" agreement between City staff and the former owner that allowed the larger shed to be built but only if the smaller shed were removed; or an innocent oversight by the city inspector in the field. Regardless of these unknowns or possible scenarios, city staff analyzed this particular variance on its own, separate merits and under current ordinance standards, and what may or may not have happened in 1995 is no longer relevant in this case. Commissioner Parks stated that the community should be softer and kinder and allow the applicant time to amend the problem without causing any hardship. He feels that the city should allow the owner to find a solution when they have the time and resources to do so. Commissioner Parks added that the applicant has tried to be a good neighbor by passing around a petition. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she does not feel that the ordinance should be changed but if they approve the variance it is for the right reason such as it is a hardship. Chair Rahn stated that he has a different opinion especially when dealing with people. He explained that he feels that there may be an inspector that responds to a complaint in a manner different than another inspector and may not note a violation in the same manner. He added that for consistency, we have ordinances in place and it is the staff's responsibility to enforce them when noted. Chair Rahn also stated that he feels that the ordinance is quite clear with what is allowed for accessory structures. He feels that if we are going to make an exception, the intent of the ordinance must be followed. He added that he would vote to not grant a variance but rather look at the ordinance for possible amendments. Chair Rahn asked staff to explain the timeline involved with this application. Mr. Benetti explained that they have 60 days to make a decision based on the application date. He further explained that the applicant had gone to the City Council and they directed them to bring this matter before the Planning Commission and he feels that the Council will take action based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Parks stated that there may be some confusion regarding the definition of an accessory structure and it would be helpful to amend the ordinance to more clearly define it. He also feels that granting the variance will not create a flood of other variance requests. Chari Rahn stated that for consistency the ordinance should be followed and enforced. 8 -25 -11 Page 4 Commissioner Schonning stated that he was notified that he could not build a third garage. He didn't know what the rules were and removed it. He added that he feels that the Commission either recommends that the City Council reviews an ordinance amendment or that the deny approval based on the rules being followed. Commissioner Parks stated that they could grant a variance and give the homeowner time to amend the situation when they can afford it. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that she feels that the owners are not asking for an extension to keep the shed until they are able to remove it, but rather they want to keep it. She added that the violation was of no fault of the applicant's. She also does not feel the ordinance should be changed. Chair Rahn stated that just because something has not been caught for a period of time, doesn't mean it should be allowed, whether on purpose or by accident, and if it is a violation, it should be addressed and enforcement should occur. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2011 -017 There was a motion by Commissioner Parks, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall, to recommend to the City Council that it approve Application No. 2011 -017, submitted by Carlein Cloutier based on the hardship brought on by others (i.e. the former landowner) and that this variance request is reasonable based on the current situation of the Applicant and the apparent longevity of the sheds allowed by the City to remain in their current locations. Voting in favor: Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Morgan, and Parks And the following votes against the same: Chair Rahn, Commissioner Schonning. The motion passed. The Council will consider the application at its September 12, 2011 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. APPLICATION NO. 2011-015 — SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -015, which had been tabled at the July 14, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. The request from Sears Roebuck and Company is for a minor amendment to the 1999 Brookdale Mall Planned Unit Development (PUD). Sears is requesting the City consider and approve the similar development standards granted to Gatlin Development Company under the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (SCC -PUD) applications. Mr. Benetti provided a PowerPoint presentation to give an overview of the revisions to the zoning standards originally requested by Sears including the following conditions of approval: 8 -25 -11 - Page 5 1. The utilization of the subject property shall receive the benefits of and conform to the approved 1999 Planned Unit Development plan, with the exception of the additional variations from the 1999 PUD Agreement noted in the 2011 Sears Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement contained herein. A. Required parking for a retail use is reduced from 5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area to 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross leasable retail area. B. Required parking for a restaurant use is reduced from one space per two seats and one space for each employee on a major shift to 10 parking stalls per 1,000 sq. ft. of restaurant area. C. The space between rows of 90 degree parking stalls is reduced from 63 feet to 60 feet; and the space between rows of 60 degree parking is reduced from 57 feet to 52.5 feet. D. The zero foot (0') lot line setback at the northeast corner of the Sears store building (measured as 163.6 feet) and which exists today shall remain, and the zero -lot line for the 140 feet of the existing screening wall for the loading dock area shall also remain. Applicant shall have the right to rebuild, extend or install a similar screening wall with zero -lot line setbacks along the property line in certain areas. 2. The use and development of Sears' property shall conform to those parts of the development plans described and illustrated under the 1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plans (full sized originals of said Development Plans are on file with the Business and Development Department of the City), and include the following: A. Site Survey (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet a0.1) as Attachment Two; B. General Site Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet al. 1) as Attachment Three; C. Landscape Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet L1.1) as Attachment Four; D. Site Lighting Plan (1999 Brookdale Mall Redevelopment Plan Sheet Li. 1) as Attachment Five; E. Major Access Routes map as Attachment Six; 3. The Applicant shall execute and enter into a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Agreement as prepared by the City Attorney. ACTION TO RECOMMEND REMOVING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -015 FROM THE TABLE 8 -25 -11 Page 6 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to remove Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -015 from the table. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -11 There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -011. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Morgan, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its September 12, 2011 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. APPLICATION NO. 2011-016 — LOREN VAN DER SLIK (GATLIN DEVELOPMENT) Chair Rahn introduced Application No. 2011 -016, which was tabled at the July 14, 2011 meeting. The request from Loren Van Der Slik for Gatlin Development Company, Inc., is for PUD Amendment approval to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. Mr. Benetti explained that Gatlin Development Co is requesting PUD amendment to the previously approved plans consisting of the following components: 1. The physical separation of the existing retail mall /food court building from the existing Sears retail store building; 2. The renovation/conversion of the Food Court mall building (common area) into retail space, which expands the net leasable retail area from 123,242 sq. ft. to 150,591 sq. ft.; 3. The elimination of proposed Building N from the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD plan; 4. The expansion of the central parking area on Lot 2, Block 1 (Building N lot) which adds 103 parking stalls to serve the additional retail of the Food Court building; 5. The addition of a 6,000 sq. ft. commercial pad site with 30 parking stalls labeled as Building R, located at the southeast corner of Xerxes Avenue /56 Avenue entrance, along with a new 0.71 acre lot. Ms. Kathy Anderson, Architectural Consortium, stated that she has concerns regarding the look and design of the proposed Sears wall. Mr. Eitel responded that Sears will be required to have the look and feel of the rest of the Shingle Creek Crossing development with brick and stucco to compliment the Gatlin properties. 8 -25 -11 Page 7 Mr. Will Matzek, Kimley Horn & Associates, responded to a previous concern of two way traffic in the area between Sears and the old food court building and stated that they made it a two way traffic area and added requested landscaping also. Sears Attorney stated that they would like to see the roadway between Sears and the old food court building dedicated as a two way street. Mr. Eitel stated that the Commission could add such a statement to the resolution for approval. ACTION TO RECOMMEND REMOVING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2011 -016 FROM THE TABLE There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to remove Planning Commission Application No. 2011 -016 from the table. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVALOF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOUTION NO. 2011 -012. There was a motion by Commissioner Kuykendall, seconded by Commissioner Morey, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2011 -012, along with additional language indicating the Commission supports the Applicant's request to have the drive -aisle or roadway between the buildings to have two -way movement of vehicles. Voting in favor: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morey, Morgan, Parks, and Schonning. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed unanimously. The Council will consider the application at its September 12, 2011 meeting. The applicant must be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration. OTHER BUSINESS: PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE Mr. Eitel stated that there have been several meetings in the last two years without a quorum. He added that there is a standard for attendance requirements by commission members and if there are three unexcused absences by a commission member during the calendar year that there is an action to be taken. Mr. Eitel further explained that staff would like to affirm that commission members are dedicated and committed to performing their required tasks including attendance at scheduled meetings. Chair Rahn explained that he feels it is unfair to the public when we are unable to hold a scheduled meeting. He added that it has been policy in the past that a commission member notifies staff when they are unable to attend so it is known ahead of time whether or not there will be a quorum in attendance. 8 -25 -11 Page 8 Commissioner Parks stated that it would be nice to get an email or phone call each time as a reminder of a scheduled meeting. Commissioner Kuykendall stated that commission members are all professionals and adults and they should be able to use the calendar they are given to know about scheduled meetings and should not need weekly reminders from staff. She added that it is embarrassing when they do not have a quorum and members in the audience are often angry and hostile. It was the consensus of the commission that they will take a closer look at attendance policies and enforce any necessary actions to allow a full quorum at future meetings. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Morey, seconded by Commissioner Kuykendall , to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Rebecca Crass Recording Secretary 8 -25 -11 Page 9 City of Business and Development Brooklyn Center— Department www. cityofbrooklyncenter. org 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 Phone 763.569.3300 TTY/Voice 711 Fax 763.569.3494 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Sean Rahn and Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Eitel, Business & Development Director Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist �.. DATE: September 23, 2011 RE: Agenda Item No. 5.13 — Introduction of Proposed Development from Paul Hyde, Real Estate Recycling, Inc Planning Staff is presenting for general review and discussion (no official action) of two proposed industrial redevelopment plans by Mr. Paul Hyde of Real Estate Recycling. The two sites are known as the former Howe Fertilizer site located at 4821 -23 Xerxes Avenue, and the former Lifetime Fitness site located at 4001 Lakebreeze Avenue. The Howe site was initially approved in 2008 under a new PUD plan to provide a 50,000 sq. ft office /warehouse facility. Mr. Hyde is requesting to slightly modify these plans, which may involve a PUD amendment or other application(s) to facilitate these changes. The Lifetime Fitness site proposes a new 123,000 sq. ft. office warehouse facility. This redevelopment would require a comprehensive plan (land use) amendment and rezoning from C2 Commerce to I2 General Industry. The review of this site will need to address a number of site planning issues, such as a regional trail connection, buffering and screening measures, residential neighborhood impacts, drainage, and others. A reminder these proposals are being presented simply as an update to the Planning Commission and informational purposes only. No official action will be taken. If you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting, feel free to call Gary at 569 -3305 or Tim at 569 -3319 (email GEitel kci.brooklyn- center.mn.us or TBenetti ,ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us). Thank you. LOGISMap Output Page a { 1 RER's Redevelopment Site former Howe Fertilizer site RER's Redevelopment Site- North Minneapolis M Cp ,njCj o=csam http:// gis. logis. org/ LOGIS_ ArcIMS/ ims? ServiceName= bc_ loaismap _ovsde &ClientVersion =4.0& Form = True &Encode= False[ / 25 / 2011 4:59:13 PM] Minneapolis . ,,, ...,� � _ .4k 1 S '} '��, ...,,+.` i -'' ,.,', t ,'�... , ...k � �.r''"!„ E ,e- er -�,� ,�3�C� �' "" «4 .. r3 c��•.. s�; L. .- ��`��r �`!i"�..bii+�!` fi t <., ,. v... xa '> rt m,r ;,;�'$.�'„' '` -7. � t.,t R �°, ,. W...w r a �' - ..fa r .:• ,» H�r, , .�,a ; p.op� .��'w"f,+:mt�pJS:�' .� ,a s.. Tsx.' e. ��'�F " '�ti' „ �a . .. Business Center II ,� "� a� _ ;. ; x„ "`. .� �m""; ^�'�'� ;a'�.' ��'n,.rr�E�«� +..,�'��^��x��•�� a� a �'; 3J �`` `�.'.+.F�� '��”. a rar� t ��''� �s�'kr ;�'�� r�a' "��Y�� a 4821 Xerxes Ave. N. r i B -tiding Area 50,000 si sKe Area 5 acres ia> Parking 103 states —-- t - _ BU, 2.011 000 ROPOSEJ` R UILDINq 4 r TYP Owned &Developed By: s l A a Real Estate Recycling 7 7 1-71.4 1 I , 4 3 � � c 0 30 @0 120 OPUS. Site Plan I SITE DATA 2tlMXG: R` MW�P uNaWxoxexR :� OPUS. SR NdA WRONG eRV. ENgi eem, I qs 8 Engineers, nc. vaMnc REWIREMirll£ � .WA t=µ I sr`�ara sawn r I 1 .; IAm ss. mra sw Im.Nen P-MG RE RED rfor 49th Ave. North PeR PftO° 1 Y.MReRI^. 8 12' -- P y ° PROPO6E0 -- -_ BJRDNC SET810c EEWRENBIfS:�� R k .'.-P REWIREMEVT 12' (PROPOSED NO PAAfING PESIRICnON) ME�1j H 14 4 � ��' X u rm mom p ---I iEEE PNtl6NC REOURmEIRS -------- ------------ . -- - PHC Ian 6 Wm -- - IT NEW B' 6a 10' -0 SCREENING WAIL CEDAR FENCE O SPECVL PEOJIRENEn15 A9JIiMG PESIDDIIIN IN �, // O wwM1 x",+`1'Mw • I -i w I -x t.swa m w n+a.nrr saw b� xwa wt) x,. x o as s.a x,n e.n. rww ew r .lew ecr a w Ia.wq. e�xxn Nw4xnws+tx•.n'r +a n. ,. a. DRDF - . r.• v. Ra. M a•x a r a n•xaf a-aM 11• bss.. M� °] nxmw aPeein w M • "'°t w.+x N �uw e T � r ixr x.ax a,M.....M Pia RO REEN I I ! DSW CME fiER _ _ �.d .•ease.. PwaN nn r pam a xx a �f Ala a . L I elegy mwe x�an w• a. � a w +i M j rd .d x. w" �.�. j CHAPTER 3: USE / OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION � NON -SEPARATED BiRTE - 3 _ — NON-SEPARATED USES sTUC (acrm —0 \\ VNDSCePE BUETFA LANDSCAPE BUFFER 15 1 I �... � _ —_ —_ —_ y It USE GRWP ysrxm , EMISi1NG FENCE 8. ENCROAGINENi � -i. i i i I I -- -_ —_ —_ j J, 1 1 NN MT 26 maxmrt RPx a. mrsmw,px usn x� .� rrt gvxeswns ¢naw usxs rxor xEa+rto. vcm a aRlmm M arum owns ORIK -IN ___ I 11 1 1 CHAPTER 6: CONSTRUCTION TYPES /REQUIREMENTS f--------- I - SECDON ttPE PEgAESNFNi6 (iA$E 6 -A) s/ 01 /I] /O6 RPNNNG /PJD 6UW1Iir/1 - 1 r9E xxl 01/23110 REN6ED PUD YJBMRik 1 a I 11 mms 0 mmw 1 I j 1 svEr x¢ 1 xis T I t I HATCHING INDN;AlE6 PAYENDVNMINOUS j � I I N.C. 1 1 a om�ucl 3 Pond I I � 1 1 NJ] 11 _I110 - -- --- j -- - - - - -- I I H.C. 1 7/,o/,o 1 —_ —_ —! Md-d L .1 7 G�WxNS ' I 1 1 , fAONT YMD G. iMWNM6 j I 9 1 1 ROW SETBAOC -10' xv.. 1 ° R 1 - DRIVe - m -- 1 1 wo uwam erv. Z 1 j 1 - - - - -- - - - -- r _ . - —_ MINNEAPOLIS H.c. BUSINESS CENTERII "IRE UN[ 6ROONVN OBIIER nw I ' \' a -- ------ ;W .\ b ARCHITECTURAL —__ SITE PLAN � SITE PIAN slDE reap xx �� 1.1 —ING In— A L X11 • - � . I .� Eb a r I + f x� F f -� r i ,e- — r � ✓r r I r a Awi fP - y / } r f 1 •1 1 t1 •1 Jil LAKE BREEZE AVE. N r I I I -I- - -- - - - +-- II II 6 FFIC iAREHO SE .I l l i i l i i i i j i i DRNE INDOORS '`� m 0 TRUCK COURT / rn 0 RETENTION POND / mi POND m - -- c TOTAL GROSS SO.FT.: 123,000 PARKING SPACES SHOWN: 188 (13511000) D North 06/22/11 I Opus. Industrial Warehouse Brooklyn Center 0 50 100 200 i Opus AE Group Inc. Brooklyn Center, MN Site Ilan Option 5 City nf Business and Development X-BrooMy Center— Department www. cityof brooklyncenter. org 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 Phone 763.569.3300 TTYNoice 711 Fax 763.569.3494 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Sean Rahn and Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Eitel, Business & Development Director Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist A DATE: September 23, 2011 RE: Agenda Item No. 5.A — Discussion with City Attorney LeFevere of Variance Procedures Planning Staff has invited City Attorney Charlie LeFevere to make a brief presentation and lead a discussion at the next Planning Commission's Study Session of September 29 This discussion will provide a legal viewpoint of the updated Minnesota State Statute related to variances. Staff also wishes to discuss the outcome of the recent variance request by Carlein Cloutier (to allow more than two accessory structures). Attached to this memo is a copy of the amended statute, which indicates deleted language by means of strike thfoug text and new or revised language as underlined text As part of this discussion, Staff may be asking the Planning Commission to consider or direct staff to modify our own Zoning Ordinance in order to follow -suit with this new state law. If you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting, feel free to call Gary at 569 -3305 or Tim at 569 -3319 (email GEitelkci.brooklyn- center.mn.us or TBenetti (cr�,ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us). Thank you. H.F. No. 52, 2nd Engrossment - 87th Legislative Session (2011 -2012) [H0052 -21 I 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to local government; providing for variances from city, county, and town 1.3 zoning controls and ordinances; amending Minnesota Statutes 2010, sections 1.4 394.27, subdivision 7; 462.357, subdivision 6. 1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 394.27, subdivision 7, is amended to read: 1.7 Subd. 7. Variances; hardship practical difficulties The board of adjustment shall 1.8 have the exclusive power to order the issuance of variances from the terms requirements 1.9 of any official control including restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall 1.10 only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the 1.11 official control in eases when there are practical difficulties or particular haidshir in 1.12 the way of car. ying out the sh ict lettet of mry official eenti of-, and when the -terrrrs0 1.13 the vminnee variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 4imdship"- asitsecF 1.14 1.15 put to it reasonable use if used ander the conditions allowed by the offieial emittols; the 1.16 plight of the landowne. is due to eirettinstanees unique to the ptoperty not created by the 1.17 , will not altet the essIntial character of the loerdity. 1.18 Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there 1.19 are practical difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties," 1.20 as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner 1.21 proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; 1.22 the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by 1.23 the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the 1.24 locali . Economic considerations alone shad do not constitute Section 1. 1 H.F. No. 52, 2nd Engrossment - 87th Legislative Session (2011 -2012) [H0052 -2] 2.1 use Fet the pta,xrty exists under the terms ofthe ordinmicc practical difficulties. Practical 2.2 difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar 2.3 energy systems Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in 2.4 section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the official controls. No variance 2.5 may be granted that would allow any use that is pt chibited not allowed in the zoning 2.6 district in which the subject property is located. The board of adjustment may impose 2.7 conditions in the granting of variances ter A condition must be directly related to and must 2.8 bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance inmte complianee 2.9 mid to p, otect adjacent pt ope, fies and the pablic inte. est. The board of adj ustment may 2.10 eonsidct the inability to use solar energy Mtents a "hardship" in the granting of vminnees- 2.11 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. 2.12 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 462.357, subdivision 6, is amended to read: 2.13 Subd. 6. Appeals and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and 2.14 adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any reasonable 2.15 conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of appeals and adjustments has 2.16 the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: 117 (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any 2.18 order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative officer in the 2.19 enforcement of the zoning ordinance. 2.20 (2) To hear requests for variances from the litet a! provisions of the ordin 2.21 2.22 , mid to gmnt StIch 2.23 varimtees only when it is dernonstt ated that stich actions wili be in keeping Yv ith the spirit 2.24 2.25 s the property in question emmot be pat to 2t reasonable use if t1sed wider 2.26 conditions allowed by the official conttols, requirements of the zoning ordinance including 2.27 restrictions placed on nonconformities. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in 2.28 harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are 2.29 consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for 2.30 the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning 2.31 ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, 2.32 means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not 2.33 permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances 2.34 unique to the property not created by the landowner-,I and the variance, if granted, will not 2.35 alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone slra# do not Sec. 2. 2 H.F. No. 52, 2nd Engrossment - 87th Legislative Session (2011 -2012) [H0052 -2] 3.1 constitute an andue li=dghip if reasonabie use for the property exists tinder the terms o 3.2 practical difficulties. Practical difficulties 3.3 include, but is are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy 3.4 systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in section 3.5 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the ordinance. The board of appeals and 3.6 adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any 3.7 use that is not petnwittecl allowed under the zonin ordinance for property in the zone 3.8 where the affected person's land is located. The board or governing body as the case 3.9 may be, may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two 3.10 family dwelling. The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions 3.11 in the granting of variances to insure compliattee and to protect adjacent propertieT.. A 3.12 condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact 3.13 created by the variance. 3.14 EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Sec. 2. 3 City of Business and Development X -BrooHyv Center— Department www. cityofbrooklyncenter. org 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 -2199 Phone 763.569.3300 TTY/Voice 711 Fax 763.569.3494 MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Sean Rahn and Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Eitel, Business & Development Director Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist DATE: September 23, 2011 RE: Agenda Item No. 5.0 — Update on the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study 2011 -2012 The City Council recently awarded a contract to SRF Consulting Group, Inc. for the commission of a study on the city's Brooklyn Boulevard corridor. City staff from engineering, business and development and building and community standards will be participating and working in a cooperative effort with SRF's own staff in developing and proving a new action plan related to this very important corridor in the city. A number of issues to be considered and studied include land use — both existing and future; driveway and access connections; right of way design; sidewalk and trail connections; signage; streetscape, landscaping and similar enhancements, and a host of other issues. The Plan is slated to be completed by late summer 2012. The plan will provide periodic updates and public meetings to gather input and comments from the affected stakeholders and general public, plus our city commission members and council members. There is no required action by the Planning Commission on this item. Planning staff is presenting for your review the "Project Context and Study Issues" map, along with the "Issues and Opportunities" table and "Deliverables" from SRF's original contract proposal. If you have any questions or comments prior to the meeting, feel free to call Gary at 569 -3305 or Tim at 569 -3319 (email GEitelgci.brooklyn- center.mn.us or TBenetti@ci.brooklyn- center.mn.us). Thank you. PROJECT CONTEXT AND STUDY ISSUES I ' o L Spot safety issu • '` �r <, p ri j. '} ij, AWN [�*»x. �,:,Ho-:,.:,� "-„;.� . u� �„ ►r��9f' +w! �'� t'4/ �j 4" r. '.de'..^'� c- r:.'_. rte' _ � I > a d r e „ r Recent streetsca e � � � � � �� •° p rovements: Extends from 65th Ave . �.. . r • � r � YA TWA xf- �+ s d � P � awl "M M Si na g ge for existin • '. '.+�"' ` g" and future businesses Mfg 4. It AL "OAK �rt� . - • - S , iL�,> i;�uc .' �s:t J' +��'�� i r '-� � � - r rtJ t " A �� Sidewalk located • "3„ » immediately at f j + � �` • •' 4 - � .... back of curb ! '[ tP - � • . , . Shingle Cre ek _ ��, t.' ,,t ° '9 ' ►► ' :F;`. impaired water, - ay!" '''' as d � r' e " • r:.J.�l+.. l =� Er ., r . �/ . I'll 1 > . w . !_ Existing - e es t Fo 81AA Shingle Creek N 1 � ni I'an Re tonal Trail tt� • , " -1 .". 8 1L ct. ri �' mil; . "�►C� %9l� P's ..i� ra U F + A il �...... �r rw.1, Paved street - w „ boulevard Law i*St! s • ALM w „�"•� � ��°� �' • New �� € tlt:9 �. � � t , - s treetscape `sa.0 r �,, treatment. ! Spot safety es AC issue — �a, High volume t» intersection „ - • ",'" Review artial access BusinesT • . ' Existin = Twln Lakes �. Access w� Regional Trail tse : s • �� I' �, t• Js �a`, r� •" • �15 , Brooklyn Center . .. Potential Arm "" ,v lei future t�rai t � � 11A Tw►n Lakes - t y �• eaures"" amrria e impaired �� • _ waters ; I overpass • 1 analysis area �" • " 61 . y 5 Spot safety Issue — •� Realign access l IL tPX � cam• 1 ?1 ,s�,�.it1T ,�"l a .a% a , R °- E k l i • n Ic MMM i , r Lack of street trees _ ri �. r�' / , »l •iii t _ .,` . *`� '- "' r '; • Aging storm sewer infrast uc ture , , i Single family homes with direct access ' • Discharge to existing storm T �.," s, to Brooklyn Blvd sewer- potential limited flow b TRPD Regional Trails •Entire corridor identified as TRPD potential future trail safety issue area �� Hennepin County bikeway . �` ( • Existing gateway fencing Proposed bikeway ' c c. ° Existing east -west sidewalk connection 51stAve, 55th Ave, 1 -94 ramps Existing traffic signal w �, Brooklyn Boulvard Corridor Study i i At SRF we are mindful of local needs to develop Task 2 Public and Agency Involvement: Public solid understanding of complex planning issues Involvement Plan, six TAC meetings, two open in order to prepare for the City's future, but houses, two City Council meetings, three agency also recognize that there are limited resources to coordination meetings, two residential property undertake such exercises. In response, we have owner meetings, two business owner meetings, developed two approaches to completing study limited targeted meeting mailings, electronic tasks as described below. The cost for each of newsletter, project website. these approaches is detailed and enclosed in a separate submission. If selected for this study, we Task 3 Corridor Vision and Goals: Draft and final will work with City and County staff to develop a memorandum outlining corridor vision and goals. final set of deliverables responsive to local needs Task 4 Corridor Issues Identification and at the cost that best fits your budget. Confirmation: Single technical memorandum with one comprehensive map. " Best Value" Approach Task 5 land Use Concepts and Recommendations: Understanding that the City's primary goals for Base map illustrating existing conditions, and the study are to create a vision for the Brooklyn technical memorandum documenting two land Boulevard Corridor that can become the founda- use scenarios. tion for identifying financial resources to fund Task 6 Roadway Concepts and Recommendations: ZI preliminary engineering and construction, to be the basis to redevelop initiatives and review of Concept -level roadway layout and cross sections for two roadway concepts, technical memoran- redevelopment proposals and generate interest in dum documenting roadway concepts, evaluation investment, we propose a "Best Value" alternative criteria and selected roadway concept. to the project scope which seeks to accomplish these goals at a value -based cost. Our approach Task 7 Transit Concepts and Recommendations: focuses on concept - level, yet technically sound, Technical memorandum and maps discuss- designs for "complete street" transportation ing existing and potential transit infrastructure infrastructure and streetscaping and generation improvements for concepts. of broad community, property .+� owner and agency agreement to Layers of Integrated Plans .i the concept. Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor ✓ vision Deliverables under each of ✓ cohesion the tasks identified in the RF P would be as follows: ' + 4 • ✓ policies Task 1 Project Management: + ✓ funding Monthly progress /status ✓ priorities reports and invoices, meeting ✓ Implementation scheduling, project schedule ✓ Transportation Systems updates, communications with ✓ land Use Brooklyn Center project man- ✓ landscoping/Streetscaping ager, quality control reviews. ✓ Environmental /Culturol Resources Wad r, r \, Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study 4 s ^' DELIVERABLES Task 8 Trail and Sidewalk Concepts and Task 3 Corridor Vision and Goals: Similar effort. Recommendations: Technical memorandum and maps discussing new connections and potential Task 4 Corridor Issues Identification and for overpass/ underpass facility. Concept level Confirmation: Detailed technical memorandums footprint addressing two approaches to grade for each topic with well - illustrated maps. transitions for grade - separated trail facility. Task S Land Use Concepts and Recommendations: Task 9 Landscaping, Streetscaping and Complete Similar effort. Streets Concepts and Recommendations: Task 6 Roadway Concepts and Recommendations: Development of two concepts, three node area Concept -level roadway layout and cross sections concepts. for two roadway concepts, technical memorandum Task 10 Preliminary Drainage Recommendations: documenting roadway concepts, evaluation crite- Concept level assessment of existing drainage/ ria and selected roadway concept, MnDOT staff treatment concerns and potential needs for recon- approval level layout for Preferred Concept. Za strutted facility. Task 7 Transit Concepts and Recommendations: Task 11 Official Map: Right of way estimates pro- Similar effort. vided by concept layout in lieu of an official map. Task 8 Trail and Sidewalk Concepts and �t Task 12 Cost Estimates: Broad cost estimates based Recommendations: Technical memorandum and on "per- mile" and "typical percent' calculations. maps discussing new connections and poten- tial for overpass /underpass facility. Additional Task 13 Implementation: Implementation plan. detail will be provided regarding grade separated Task 14 Report: Executive summary in addition facility. to technical memorandum. Task 9 Landscaping, Streetscaping and Complete Streets Concepts and Recommendations: Four "Comprehensive Preliminary additional node area concepts will be provided. Design" Approach Task 10 Preliminary Drainage Recommendations: Concept level assessment of existing drainage/ The RFP outlines a more "comprehensive prelimi- nary design" approach that culminates in a staff- eatment concerns and potential needs for recon- approved layout. While this level of detail would ff- strutted facility; preliminary drainage report including map of drainage areas, storm sewer siz- provide more surety to cost and right of way esti- ing and ponding /infiltration locations /sizing. mates, it also requires additional costs to develop. Additional deliverables under this approach for Task 11 Official Map: Official map provided. each task would be as follows: Task 12 Cost Estimates: Concept level cost esti- Task 1 Project Management: Additional quality con- mate and cost sharing breakdown. trol due to additional complexity of deliverables. Task 13 Implementation: Similar effort. Task 2 Public and Agency Involvement: Four Task 14 Report: Detailed report, Executive sum- additional TAC meetings, two additional agency mary, and technical memorandum. coordination meetings, and two additional business owner meetings would be provided; increased meeting mailings, and mailed as well as electronic newsletters would be provided. �►�� Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study 5 STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES, GOALS & TASKS Issues & Opportunities Numerous challenges exist that this study must address. Some of these challenges are detailed below. These and additional key issues have also been highlighted on the following page in the Study Issues Map and supporting photos. These observations will serve as a starting point for discussion and will be refined throughout the study process. Safety: Improve safety in the corridor for SRF's expertise in developing Safe Routes to School Plans and all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists County Road Safety plans will address the corridor's safety and vehicles. issues. Access: Address public and private access SRF strongly supports the implementation of access issues to increase the mobility and safety of management guidelines and thorough access inventory; the corridor. an access management plan will be developed to be implemented as opportunities occur. Multimodal Amenities: Identify SRF's expertise in transit, pedestrian and bicycle service opportunities to enhance existing and planning will identify multimodal service and amenity future transit service, and to incorporate enhancements to serve existing and future land uses along bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. the corridor. Land Use: Develop viable land use Barry Warner and Joni Giese will test infill and recommendations for physically or redevelopment land use options to arrive upon realistic, economically obsolete parcels along the achievable development plans. corridor. Complete Streets: Promote active living Craig Vaughn and Joni Giese will lead this effort to ensure by improving pedestrian & bicycle gaps and barriers in the existing pedestrian/bicycle system accessibility and connections. are identified and creative solutions are developed Image & Identity: Create an appropriate Our urban designers will carefully interpret the County's landscape /streetscape plan with wayfinding landscape /streetscape policy to establish image improvements. enhancements that are attractive, sustainable and contribute to livability. Long -Term Plan that Gains Stakeholder Led by Beth Bartz's strong facilitation skills, SRF will Support: Deliver a strong long -term plan conduct a variety of meetings (TAC, open house, City that establishes a vision for the corridor. Council, property owners, and business owners) that engage stakeholders throughout the study. Communication: Provide comprehensive Communications and informational materials will be created communication, coordination and that are easy to understand and maintained throughout the education of diverse stakeholders. study process. Agency Coordination: Maintain critical SRF will provide experienced project management and coordination between Brooklyn Center, meeting facilitation that fosters a cooperative spirit amongst Hennepin County, MnDOT, Metro Transit, the agencies and conduct agency coordination meetings and Three Rivers Park District. addressing issues as they arise in order to maintain study momentum. Funding: Identify funding sources that SRF's expertise in identifying funding strategies for will allow the long -term plan to be incremental improvements has been proven successful for implemented in phases. many past SRF studies. ff bi �, Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study 3 Northbrook Shopping Center in the northeast quadrant of Highway 100 and 57` Avenue North the site was purchased and cleared by the City's EDA in 2005. The EDA has been dealing with soil and groundwater contamination on and adjacent to the site but, with issuance of a No Association Determination by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency redevelopment should be able to proceed. CIVIC CENTER Brooklyn Center Civic Center was built in 1970 and, in addition to City government offices, contains a 50 -meter swimming pool, exercise area, locker rooms, recreation area and meeting rooms. The exercise area, locker rooms and recreation area ware updated and rehabilitated in 2004. With the swimming pool nearing forty years of age, the community is planning to rehabilitate the pool, and possibly expand the Civic Center in the near future. Several questions about rehabilitation and expansion were asked in the Community Survey, but because the response to the survey was low, the results were inconclusive. A telephone survey focusing specifically on the Civic Center is planned. OTHER MAPPED ISSUES Geographically based issues beyond City Center that should be dealt with in the plan are addressed in this sub - section. All planning issues identified are interrelated to a degree, and many of these have a bearing on City Center. BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR Brooklyn Boulevard is a six -mile long County road running parallel with County Road 81 and serving as a reliever minor arterial to that roadway. The Boulevard runs between County Road 81 in Brooklyn Park and the 44` Avenue North/Penn Avenue intersection in north Minneapolis. In the regional transportation system, it provides an alternative connection to Minneapolis and the central city from suburbs to the north and west. Average daily traffic on the 3.5 -mile stretch of Brooklyn Boulevard located in Brooklyn Center varies between 18,700 south of Highway 100 to 40,700 just north of I- 694/1 -94. Much of the roadway north of I- 694/1 -94 in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park has been improved to better accommodate the significant traffic volume and to facilitate adjacent redevelopment. The function of Brooklyn Boulevard within the regional transportation system conflicts with its function of providing access to residents of and shoppers in this part of Brooklyn Center. The section south of 1- 694/1- 94 is lined with many single - family dwellings that access directly onto the Boulevard, causing traffic problems. These single family units are too close to the street given the level of traffic carried by the street. In addition, the streetscape in this section of the Boulevard has a negative visual image and lacks aesthetic appeal. Brooklyn Boulevard has been extensively studied over the years, including in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study (1993) and the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994). The Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study is a set of project recommendations for land use and redevelopment, traffic circulation, parking and design and was intended to guide future decisions regarding redevelopment of the corridor. It contains an illustration of a proposed treatment for the section of the Boulevard south of I- 694/1 -94. The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study proposed an overall design theme for the public right -of -way of Brooklyn Boulevard, along with redevelopment plans for specific sites. Several detailed studies were prepared for specific sites, including at least two alternative site plans to illustrate the application of different design principles. Specifically recommended design themes should be implemented to encourage growth and provide the community with a greater sense of pride. The recommendations of the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study and the Brooklyn Boulevard 2 -7 Streetscape Amenities Study have generally been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but the City continues to consult the studies for further, more detailed, advice. The City Planning Commission should develop overall strategies to implement agreed upon design recommendations from these studies favorable to the community's image objectives. The land -use and redevelopment themes of both studies, broadly stated, recommend gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single - family units along the Boulevard. Further, both studies recommend replacing the single - family units with either commercial and office /service uses on sites that are large enough to provide for adequate circulation and good site design or with high- and medium - density residential uses. Generally, they recommend that the central segment of the corridor be used primarily as a commercial district while the balance of the corridor is devoted primarily to either higher- density housing or single - family housing south of Highway 100. Some neighborhood service and retail functions should be promoted at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and 69th Avenue. Additional multi -modal and transit amenities should be considered along Brooklyn Boulevard due to its multiple purpose and function to both the City and the region. Bus pull -offs and better bus shelters should be provided to upgrade this transit corridor. Positive changes have occurred on Brooklyn Boulevard, including the reconstruction of the Boulevard north of I- 694/1 -94, redevelopment of the Culver's restaurant commercial center at 69 Avenue, and redevelopment of the CVS drug store at Bass Lake Road. Reaching consensus on a vision for the section of Brooklyn Boulevard south of 1- 694/1 -94 that would then be translated into design parameters should precede redevelopment of land area along the Boulevard. Three basic alternatives exist for the reconstruction design of this section of the Boulevard: • Use the current design; • Create a landscaped boulevard between the roadway and the sidewalk; or • Widen the landscaped boulevard to create a greenway within which the walkway would meander, similar to 53' Avenue N. adjacent to the Bellevue Housing project. Upgraded multi -modal transit amenities could be provided to improve the function and safety of the corridor. Hennepin County should be engaged in the consensus - building process since Brooklyn Boulevard is a County road. Reaching consensus on vision and design will answer the following questions that need to be answered before redevelopment land use decisions can be made: • How much right -of -way will be needed in the reconstruction of Brooklyn Boulevard? • How far should the roadway be situated from residential structures? The Metropolitan Council should also be engaged in the consensus building process to implement design recommendations for transit shelters in the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study. HUMBOLDT SQUARE AND HUMBOLDT AVENUE (Freeway Boulevard to 69 Avenue) While the Humboldt Square Shopping Center functions to serve neighborhood needs, it is beginning to show signs of age. The Center is located within a concentration of multiple - family apartments and townhouses located in all four quadrants of the Humboldt/69"' Avenue North intersection — many having problems with deferred maintenance and many occupied by low- income households. The Center, originally constructed in 1973, and many of the multiple - family structures that were built in the 1960s are in need of renovation or redevelopment. Renovation and/or redevelopment of the multiple - family structures will be dealt with in more detail in the Housing section of the plan. Some of the same design recommendations from the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study could be encouraged in the future redevelopment of the Center. 2 -8 tx C;a�tc�va} Trail Along Shingle -Creek High - Density Residential Church (�p -Dcti tsity School � ` - csldcnt i:d School N eighborhood d Commercial NMd- 69d Ave. � m coem—mly 't'r:tll Alan Brooklyn g -MWa Ret it Shlr Ie C.rtek Pal'kwu' Boulevard ; Autu Retell Major Entry C r Open. Space /Ponca /Pa* Ride - or Conunercial d ` —offlce fl U school U Re ide t� �.. mmercailWixed. Use ial Co Node Q �_ Major Ent ry High - Density ltelidential Town Center "O Gird Ave. Focal Featurtl 4 �\ C==2 =C= e�t�c� tae c�r�acaa �s c,e-tr e�r�oe��oeo.a� y� `_ Trail S% U� "Towt1 Center "(1 Civic Complex 11 Hlgh- Densityd Q Resident ;al D Q t�:yttttierci:tl — - 1 - Brooklyn Cerli�er�� '1 Ring Road u Church -- K,� p Office — Commercial ° Nigghhorhood 1 Corridorp ; tlt� tie. C&imereial No L ,c Marker d I nc cyc tctt��pRSMWaD�IL1CIISIp Lj n High - Density i Il Residentinl 7'riii Link U 11rookdall �nlall a C 4 •� 0 O,trcc Q i] ti 7 n f U V A Q do D for v if M � jot Entry - , q Ch T 0 th _. High- DcAsity- �\ Rr siiierttlal Legend Predominant ' Land Use District `. M EOW- Aty Rcsitkntild _ last 0011 Existing Use City Gateway - to Remain /7 ° - Proposes! 1 Redevelopment ` - f North ° 0 Soo 1000 2000 I) Ij igw 78: Fjv inework Plan Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 34