Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 03-30 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 30, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Stephen Erdmann, Rex Newman, Sean Rahn, Dianne Reem, and John Whitehead were present. Commissioner Graydon Boeck was absent and excused from the meeting. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Sara Beck. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — MARCH 16.2000 Commissioner Rahn and Whitehead mentioned that on page 4 and 9 of the March 16, 2000 minutes, they should be listed as voting in favor of the motion. Commissioner Reem stated that on page 9 of the March 16, 2000 minutes she had voted against the motion supporting the Pan African Social Club. Commissioner Whitehead stated that in the March 16, 2000 minutes it reads he arrived at 8:10 p.m., but in reality he arrived at 7:50 p.m. There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2000 meeting as amended. The motion passed unanimously. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Willson 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. COMMERCIAL ZONING REORGANIZATION Ronald Warren presented to the Planning Commission an overview of the proposed commercial zoning districts. He mentioned it is requested of the Planning Commission to provide the City Council with a status report by their April 10, 2000 meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission that the four districts proposed be reshuffled so they represent a progression from the least intense district to the most intense district. The four districts are as follows: C -1, Neighborhood Commercial District; C -2, Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial District; C -3 Central Business District; C -4, Highway Commercial District. 03 -30 -00 1 Mr. Warren stated that there are a number of recommendations the proposal should include, which he listed at this time. Mr. Warren went on to explain in further detail other recommendations and comments the staff has suggested. Mr. Warren displayed a revised listing of proposed zoning districts and uses, in addition to a summary of existing commercial zoning districts and uses. Also presented was the table of minimum district requirements and special requirements in the existing C -1, C -lA, and C -2 zones from the zoning ordinance, a map of Brooklyn Center zoning districts and recommendations from the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study. Mr. Warren requested the Planning Commission to review the information presented and see if it adequately reflects the status of the review of the commercial zoning reorganization to date. If so, this status report and update will be presented to the City Council for further discussion. Mr. Warren explained the areas included in each recommended zoning district: C -1 69th/Humboldt Commercial Area 57th/Logan Commercial Area Area by Spiritual Life Church 50th and Drew 53rd and Dupont C -2 All Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial Areas C -3 Central Commercial Area Including Brookdale Perimeter Business; Shingle Creek Parkway area; and areas south of Freeway Boulevard between Shingle Creek and Humboldt Avenue. C -4 Brooklyn Boulevard and I -94, 66th and 252 except for Areas Zoned PUD A discussion began regarding the appropriate zoning district for automobile sales under the proposed zoning reorganization. Chair Willson, noting point No. 2 in the status report, suggested that it might be appropriate to include the area around County Road 10 and T. H. 100 including the Brookdale Ford property in the proposed C -4 (Highway Commercial District) and allow auto sales only in this district. He did not favor including auto sales in all the areas proposed for the C -2 or Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial District. Commissioner Erdmann mentioned the area between 69th Avenue North and the freeway on Brooklyn Boulevard as being a more intense commercial area containing car dealers, automobile related uses, the school bus garage, etc. He stated this area is significantly different from the area on Brooklyn Boulevard north of 69th Avenue. Commissioner Erdmann questioned the implications of some of the car dealerships becoming non- conforming uses under the new classification. Chair Willson stated that he did not believe we wanted to establish new non - conforming uses through this zoning district reorganization. Mr. Warren explained the impacts of creating non - conforming uses which essentially means the City would be trying to phase out such uses. No expansion, alterations or changes to such uses could take place. He concurred with the Chair that this zoning district reorganization was not intended to 03 -30 -00 2 establish new non - conforming uses. He also agreed that it would not be wise to consider automobile sales uses throughout the proposed C -2 Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial District. He pointed out that both the proposed C -3, Central Commercial District and the proposed C -4, Highway Commercial District would allow automobile sales. He added that with the existing proposal all automobile sales except Brookdale Chrysler and Brookdale Mitsubishi would be in the C -3 or C -4 districts. He noted both Brookdale Chrysler and Brookdale Mitsubishi are Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and the proposal recommends that all PUD's remain as they are, so no non- conforming situations would be created. Commissioner Newman questioned what the implications would be if a special use permit is involved. Mr. Warren explained that the City is trying to avoid or eliminate the need for special use permits through this zoning reorganization. He added, however, that special use permits may be necessary. Commissioner Newman questioned if there could be differences such as setbacks and other standards because of location in a C -2 rather than a C -4. Mr. Warren stated it would depend on the district standards adopted, but they could be different for different zoning districts. Commissioner Erdmann questioned if a 3 -story office building should be setback further from a residential area. Mr. Warren stated that these are the details that need to be looked at further and could be established if it is decided they are appropriate. A discussion next centered around possible recommendations for zoning around the T. H. 252 and 66th Avenue area. Commissioner Rahn questioned why the two areas that are not part of the PUD in this area, would be recommended as C -4, Highway Commercial District. Mr. Warren explained that the two areas west of T. H. 252 that include the Super America site, the Holiday site and vacant land were not part of the Regal Theater PUD He said the proposed C -4 gives these sites the most flexibility with respect to existing and future uses. Commissioner Rahn suggested that it might be appropriate to consider the property in this location that is not part of the PUD to be in the proposed C- 1, Neighborhood Commercial District, since gasoline service stations would be allowed in the proposed C -1 district. It might be appropriate also to consider the area on the east side of T. H. 252 to be in the C -1, Neighborhood Commercial District, as well. Chair Willson noted that if the area presently owned by the City, lying east of T. H. 252 and south of 66th Avenue, was in the proposed C -1 district, gasoline stations would be a permitted use and would be allowed. He explained that would be inconsistent with the rezoning and assurances given the neighbors in this area when the property was acquired by the City a number of years ago. Chair Willson also expressed his concern about some gasoline stations in neighborhood commercial areas, noting existing cluttered stations and potentially small lots for such stations such as at the northwest corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 69th Avenue. He stated he realized that these operations may be appropriate in neighborhood areas but noted screening, buffing and 03 -30 -00 3 landscaping are critical as well. He also acknowledged that eliminating the number and/or need for special use permits was a goal of the reorganization but it may not be possible to eliminate them entirely. He suggested the possibility of an enhanced Neighborhood Commercial District such as a C- I A that would allow these uses in particular locaitons rather than generally throughout the Neighborhood Commercial District. Commissioner Erdmann commented that another consideration in potential Neighborhood Commercial Districts is the different intensities of various uses. He noted a convenience store might have a higher level of traffic than a neighborhood cafe. Commissioner Newman stated he tended to favor retaining the residential neighborhood at 53rd and Dupont where Christy's Auto is located. Commissioner Reem questioned whether a tobacco store, other than tobacco sales at convenience stores, should be allowed in the proposed Neighborhood Commercial district. It was the consensus of the Commission that further careful review of uses, buffer requirements, setbacks and screening needs to be accomplished before a final recommendation on neighborhood commercial uses is made. The concept of an enhanced neighborhood commercial area should also be evaluated. Commissioner Newman questioned whether the proposed C -4, Highway Commercial District, was necessary. He thought this district might pose some "spot zoning" problems and that prehaps car dealerships, schools, bus garages, etc. could be included in a C -2A zoning district which would be an enhanced Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial District. More discussion took place regarding the City owned property east of T. H. 252. Mr. Warren stated that he doubted the property would be developed under its current commercial designation. He noted a recent proposal from a developer for senior housing that is no longer being pursued. He added that some type of residential use might be the most acceptable use on this property. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Rahn, Chairman Willson stated that he did not believe additional park land was needed in the City and that he did not believe this area should be used for that purpose. Mr. Warren commented further on possible proposals that may be received for redevelopment on Brooklyn Boulevard, north of 69th Avenue. He said he thought such redevelopment would be pursued through a Planned Unit Development proposal. The difficulty of putting together redevelopment for parts of Brooklyn Boulevard was also discussed. Commissioner Reem commented on the importance of obtaining sound redevelopment on Brooklyn Boulevard and the need to make it consistent with the Brooklyn Boulevard studies. 03 -30 -00 4 Following further discussion of the status of the commercial zoning reorganization, it was the consensus of the Commission that the March 27, 2000, staff memo adequately reflects the status of their review with emphasis on the need for careful review of the future zoning designation for the City owned property east of T. H. 252, south of 66th Avenue and potential uses in the propsoed C -1 Neighborhood Commercial District. Also, further review of enhanced zoning districts might be in order to address potential special use concerns. OTHER BUSINESS Chair Willson stated on April 17, 2000 there is an All Commission meeting. There was no other business. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Rahn, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:11 P.M. Chair Recorded and transcribed by: Sara Beck TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 03 -30 -00 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning Commission Secretary DATE: March 27, 2000 SUBJECT: Commercial Zoning Reorganization We have been requested to provide the City Council with a status report on the Planning Commission's requested consideration of a commercial zoning reorganization. The Commission has been reviewing this matter over the course of the last six months. The status report will be given to the City Council at their April 10, 2000, meeting and it is anticipated that the matter will be discussed at an upcoming Planning Commission/City Council meeting. Attached for the Commission's review is a revised listing of four proposed commercial zoning districts and uses based on a suggested reorganization. It was the consensus of the Commission that the four districts proposed in a report be reshuffled so that they represent a progression from the least intense district to the most intense district as follows: C -1 Neighborhood Commercial District C -2 Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial District C -3 Central Business District C -4 Highway Commercial District It was recommended that "tobacco sales" be added to the Neighborhood Commercial District (C -1) and that more office uses, such as a real estate office, be added to this district as well. "Park and Ride" and "Transit Hub" uses were to be added to the appropriate districts. These modifications have been made to the attached reorganization handout. Other recommendations and comments related to this proposal include: 1. Eliminate the word "industrial" from the C -4 district so that it reads "highway commercial district ". 3 -30 -2000 Page 1 2. Further evaluate whether automobile sales and service should be included in the C -2 (Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial District) or should the area where car dealers are located be zoned C -4 (Highway Commercial District). 3. Need to continue special requirements in the commercial zones such as buffer and setback requirements. Further review of specific regulations and requirements is also in order. 4. No consensus has been reached on the best way to distinguish uses in the neighborhood commercial district (C -1) from the other districts. It had been suggested that reduced square footage of buildings or lot sizes might be appropriate, however, such limitations are believed to cause development problems in the future. 5. All existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) districts should remain as they are. There may, however, be a need to modify the underlying designations to appropriately reflect the reorganized commercial zones. 6. Recommended zoning districts would be: C -1 69th/Humboldt Commercial Area 57th/Logan Commercial Area Area by Spiritual Life Church 50th and Drew 53rd & Dupont (Christy's) ? C -2 All Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial Areas (May be possible conflicts with C -3 and C -4) C -3 Central Commercial Area Including Brookdale Perimeter Businesses; Shingle Creek Parkway area (From Shingle Creek to T. H. 100); and areas south of Freeway Boulevard between Shingle Creek and Humboldt Avenue. C -4 Brooklyn Boulevard and I -94; 66th and 252 except for Areas Zoned PUD 7. There is need to further review potential zoning designations for the Racquet and Swim Club at France and Highway 100 and also the city owned property located between 65th and 66th/T.H. 252 and Willow Lane. (This property currently has a Service /Office zoning designation. 8. Further detailed review is in order for setback and other district requirements. One Commissioner has suggested creating a system of building setbacks from right of way 3 -30 -2000 Page 2 that would have reduced setbacks for lower buildings and greater setbacks for taller buildings. 9. The proposed Brooklyn Boulevard Commercial District (C -2) should be consistent with the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study. Attached for the Commission's review are a revised listing of proposed zoning districts and uses; a summary of existing commercial zoning districts and uses; the table of minimum district requirements and special requirements in the C -1, C -1 A and C -2 zones from the zoning ordinance; a map of Brooklyn Center zoning districts and recommendations from the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study. The Planning Commission should review the above information, recommendations and comments to see if it adequately reflects the status of our review of the commercial zoning reorganization to date. If so, this status report and update will be presented to the City Council for further direction and review. 3 -30 -2000 Page 3