Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 11-18 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER November 18, 1993 REGULAR SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - October 28, 1993 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. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 93015 Request to rezone from C2 (Commerce) and R5 (Multiple Family Residence) three parcels of land located at the S.E. Quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment t c 0 PLANNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHEET Application No: 93015 Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center Location: Southeast Quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North Request: Rezoning The City of Brooklyn Center, under this application, is initiating a rezoning of three parcels of land located at the southeast quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North from their current C2 (commerce) and R5 (multi family residence) zoning classifications to a Cl (service/office) zoning designation. This rezoning, if approved, when coupled with an existing Cl parcel of land at the southwest corner of 66th Avenue and North Willow Lane would make four contiguous parcels of land all with the same Cl zoning classification located between 66th Avenue on the north, 65th Avenue on the south, T.H. 252 right of way on the west and North Willow Lane on the east. The properties under consideration for this rezoning and their current zoning designation are as follows: 6550 West River Road, site of Premier Mechanical which is currently zoned C2; 6500 West River Road, the site of the Brookdale Motel which is currently zoned C2; and 6525, 27, 29 North Willow Lane, the site of a City owned apartment complex slated for 0 demolition which is zoned R5 BACKGROUND This City initiated rezoning was established by the City Council on September 27, 1993, at which time the Council set November 18, 1993, as the date for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing regarding a rezoning in this area. The City Council also took action on that date to adopt an Interim Emergency Ordinance (Ordinance No. 93-11), an Interim Ordinance (Ordinance No. 93-12)and a City Council resolution(Resolution No. 93-156)all for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City, and regulating and-restricting development on all land south of 66th Avenue and north of I-694 lying between Willow Lane and T.H. 252. This established a moratorium on development and redevelopment in the affective area. The moratorium is not scheduled to expire until January 25, 1994. The Planning Commission on October 14, 1993, discussed the City Council's direction and after deliberation agreed that it would be appropriate to consider a rezoning of the necessary property so that a C1 zoning designation be considered for the property bounded by 66th Avenue on the north, 65th Avenue on the south, T.H. 252 right of way on the west and North Willow Lane on the east. The Commission directed the staff to prepare, publish and mail appropriate public hearing notices regarding such a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment. This proposed C1 zoning designation is consistent with zoning recommendations made by the Planning Commission in 1989 following a land use study of the area by Short-Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH). _ 1 Application No. 93015 continued One of the properties under consideration for rezoning has been the subject of three development P P g J P proposal over the past four years, each involving the use of this site addressed as 6550 West River Road as a gas station/convenience store/car wash. The most recent request (Planning Commission Application No. 93010 submitted by Holiday Station Stores, Inc.) has led the City Council to seek a rezoning of this are because of the incompatibility of C2 uses with neighboring residential property to the east of this site. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES All rezoning proposals are to be measured against the City's Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (copy attached). It is the policy of the City that zoning classifications be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and that rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning" which is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular land owner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. Each rezoning proposal is to be considered on its merits and measured against the various guidelines contained in Section 35-208. A review of the guidelines is as follows: a. Is there a clear and public need or benefit? The public need or benefit which would result from the proposed rezoning is to establish an appropriate buffer zone between the high level of traffic and the accompanying noise, odor and vibration from T.H. 252 and the well established single family residential area to the east of the subject site. The use of the east half of the subject property for intense commercial uses cannot be appropriately buffered and screened from that residential area. Many of the permitted and special uses allowed under the current C2 zoning, particularly uses that are 24 hour operations and involve the regular coming and going of traffic at all hours, are not compatible with the residential area to the east. A C 1 zoning designation in this area would allow less intense service/office land uses which do not have the same adverse impact on the neighboring residential property. b. Is the proposed zoning classification consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? A Cl zoning classification for the proposed area would be more compatible with residential areas than a more intense commercial development. A review of other zoning designations leads to the conclusion that C1 zoning is the most appropriate. An industrial use.of the property would be incompatible with the neighboring residential use. Multi family residential has not proved very compatible with neighboring properties and single family residential does not appear to be economically feasible for redevelopment in this area and should not be looked at as a transitional or buffer use between T.H. 252 and the existing residential development. 11-18-93 -2- Application No. 93015 continued C. Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be contemplated for development of the subject property? All permitted uses in the proposed zoning district can be contemplated for development or redevelopment of the subject area. This City has acquired the multi residential property at 6525, 27, 29 North Willow Lane for the purpose of clearing the land and eventually allowing the redevelopment of this property, possibly in conjunction with other property in the area. A multiple family use of the property has not proved to be appropriate in this area. The fact that there is an abundance of multi family dwellings in the northeast area of the City, as well as in the City as a whole, leads the City to look for another zoning of the land consistent with this area. The property immediately to the north is zoned C1 and redevelopment of the two properties, or possibly all of this area, would be appropriate. Attached is a list of the Cl permitted and special uses from Section 35-320 of the City 's Zoning Ordinance. Any of these uses could be developed in this area. A large single development, or multiple office development, without direct access to Willow Lane would serve this area well. d. Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? Other than the upgrading of T.H. 252 and the redesign of the intersection at 66th Avenue North, there have not been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in this area. e. In the case of City initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? The City Council has concluded that to continue with a C2 (commerce) zoning on this land with the type of high intensity commercial uses attracted to this area such as a gas station/convenience store/car wash or possibly fast food restaurants is inappropriate given the close proximity to a solidly established residential area to the east. A service/ office designation and eventual redevelopment of this area offers the owners of the property a reasonable use of their property in a manner compatible with neighboring property with no potential depreciating affect on the value of neighboring property. f. Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning district? It does not appear that there would be any major difficulties with respect to meeting ordinance development restrictions for the proposed Cl zoning designation. It should be noted that the Brookdale Motel would become a non- conforming use of land if the zoning proposal is accomplished. This means that 11-18-93 -3- i f Application No. 93015 continued this i 1 t s s to could continue to be used a motel but could not be expanded, be enlarged or if it were destroyed by more than 50% by fire, wind, etc. it could not be rebuilt. Premier Mechanical is a use which can be comprehended in a C 1 zoning district with the exception of the outside storage that is done on the site. This aspect of the operation (outside storage) would be considered a non-conforming use and could continue but could not be enlarged or expanded. g. Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, configuration, topography or location? The fact that the currently zoned C2 property is generally situated at a higher elevation than the property to the east makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to screen the adverse affects of a C2 use of the property from the residential areas to the east. A service/office utilization of the entire area, with its less intensive uses and a possible single unified development, can overcome this difficult screening and buffering issue. Also, it is believed that the C2 zoned property is generally unsuited for many of the more intense commercial uses which are attracted to this site again, because of its close proximity to residentially zoned property. h. Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, warranted by: 1.) comprehensive planning; 2.) Lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3.) The best interests of the community? Currently the land use designation of this area in the Comprehensive Plan recommends a commercial retail utilization of the area. A Comprehensive Plan amendment will have to be accomplished for this rezoning to be approved. Figure.14 and table 15 of the Comprehensive Plan relating to land use revisions specifically will have to be altered to acknowledge this area for service/office development. With respect to the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district, there is little developable land in the City. Redevelopment will have to occur for a Cl use of the property and this type of redevelopment in this area should be encouraged. Regarding the "best interests of the community" it appears that a rezoning to C1, as mentioned previously, makes sense from the standpoint of all parties concerned. i. Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? We believe it does and is a very real compromise respecting all the parties concerned. It should be noted that the City, in the latter part of 1989, retained the consulting firm of Short- Elliot-Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) to conduct a land use study in this area. There were three study 11-18-93 -4- Application No. 93015 continued areas reviewed and various findings and recommendations were made. Area number two of that study is the same area under consideration in this rezoning. As part of its study, SEH recommended a reconfiguration and redesign of the 66th Avenue/Willow Lane intersection as a key element in its land use recommendation that proposed C2 on the west half of this area (along T.H. 252). It supported the open space and buffering concept and the avoidance of direct access onto Willow Lane. A softening of the curve on West River Road, north of 66th Avenue and the "teardrop" median separation have been accomplished. The other aspects of the redesign have not been accomplished, and do not appear to be feasible at this time as well. The Planning Commission at the time of the SEH study made a different recommendation given its review of the same land use study. That recommendation also supported the redesign and reconfiguration of the 66th Avenue/Willow Lane access especially the open space and buffering proposal and the elimination of direct access to Willow Lane. However, the Planning Commission recommended that Study Area 2 (which again is the same area comprehended in this rezoning proposal) be rezoned to C1 or PUD/C 1 with a definite service/office orientation. The Commission's recommendation noted that the Brookdale Motel and Atkins Mechanical uses, however, are acceptable uses in this area. The Commission also noted that the necessary land area be acquired in order to redesign the access to North Willow Lane and to provide and maintain a buffer/landscape/berm area. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As mentioned previously a Comprehensive Plan amendment is required for this rezoning, or any rezoning, to be accomplished. Figure 14 and table 15 of the Comprehensive Plan relating to land use revisions at location no. 3 recommends that this area be a commercial retail use for a great portion of this property. It is recommended that the plan be amended to acknowledge the area bounded by 66th Avenue on the north, 65th Avenue on the south, T.H. 252 on the west and North Willow Lane on the east as location no. 3a and be designated "service/office". Justification for a Comprehensive Plan amendment is the same as that outlined above for the rezoning. It appears that it is in the best interest of the community to have a service/office designation for land use in this area that will provide an appropriate buffer and transition area between T.H. 252 and the residential area to the east and also it will represent a reasonable use of the land. A public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment has also been scheduled. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS The Commission has asked for information relating to the draft Comprehensive Management Plan established for the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Attached is a copy of a summary of the draft Comprehensive Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement date June, 1993 for the Commission's review. As mentioned at the October 14, 1993, Commission meeting, the staff has met with representatives of the National Park Service and discussed if the proposed legislation would prohibit commercial development within this.area. Policies apply to property within 300' of the ordinary high water mark of the Mississippi River or 100' from 11-18-93 -5- f Application No. 93015 continued its bluff line. It does not necessarily prohibit commercial development in these areas but encourages development that is sensitive to the River. Attached are two draft Planning Commission resolutions, one recommending amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the other recommending the dis po sition of Planning Commission Application No. 93015. The Planning Commission normally refers rezoning requests to respective the Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. There has been much neighborhood review and comment over the past few years, and in fact the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group in 1989 recommended the rezoning of this subject area to Cl. The City Council has established the date of January 25, 1994 as the end of the moratorium. Because of this short time frame and the past Neighborhood Advisory Group comments it is not recommended that this matter be referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for additional comments. If the Commission concurs with the Cl rezoning proposal it is recommended that the appropriate recommendations be made and this matter referred to the City Council for their consideration at their next City Council meeting which is scheduled for December 6, 1993. 11-18-93 -6- ■ X11 ■� •����� Iliad■■■� �■ f ro _ � �� ■■ ■�■ ■Viii■■■■� i�i�i�i�i�i�i� '�" • � �o � OM Mons Raj s MIN mm w AAPP all Aml • Ines 1, I WIN �� ■ ri■ \ CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 12th day of October , 1993 at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an interim Emergency Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Development on all Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I-694 Lying Between Willow Lane and Highway 252. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City's Personnel Coordinator at 569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 93-11 INTERIM EMERGENCY ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT ON ALL LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I-694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 252. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Background. 1.01. In connection with the consideration of an application for rezoning and permits for development of a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, City staff, consultants, Planning Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and the City Council reviewed the existing and potential development in the area. As a result of that review process, the Council determined that the current land use controls did not adequately address various land use concerns in the area. Among these concerns were inadequate or inappropriate buffering of nearby residential uses, nonconforming uses, zoning ordinances which were not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, insufficient or hazardous traffic circulation, changes in land use and roadways which occurred since current zoning controls were adopted, and adjacent or nearby land uses or potential uses which were not compatible with permitted uses or special uses in the affected area. 1.02. The Council determined that there was a need for further studies to be conducted so that the City could adopt appropriate amendments to its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code so as to ensure protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The Council directed that such studies be undertaken. 1.03. Studies and amendments to the City code which were considered in connection with earlier reviews of the official controls applicable to the affected area were not acted upon by the City Council. CLL58963 BR291-4] t i f ORDINANCE NO. 93-11 r 1.04. As a result of consideration of an application for a special use permit for a filling station and car wash on a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, the Council has determined that the current zoning of the affected area is not, or may not be, appropriate or sufficient to protect the public health, safety or welfare for a number of reasons. These reasons include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The proposed use would have unacceptably adverse impacts on surrounding uses because of 24 hour activity, noise, lights, glare and traffic. b. Such adverse impacts cannot be adequately mitigated by site design or improvements. C. Many of these adverse impacts would result from permitted uses as well as special uses under current zoning. 1.05. A hearing has been scheduled for the purpose of considering amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. 1.06. The Council has therefore determined that there is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and ensuring that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and protection sought to be afforded by, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances until such hearing is held, and any modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and land use regulations are effective. 1.07. Due to the pendency of an application for a special use permit for proposed development in the area affected by this ordinance, the Council has determined that adoption of an emergency ordinance is necessary to serve the purposes described in paragraph 1.06 until an interim ordinance can become effective. Section 2. Determination. 2.01. This interim ordinance shall apply to all property south of 66th Avenue and north of I-694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252 (the subject area). 2.02. During the period this interim ordinance is in effect, no property within the subject area may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall any site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than renewals) , plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any use. 2.03. This ordinance shall remain in effect until the sixty-first day following its adoption, or such earlier date, as may be adopted by the City Council. CLL50963 BIU91-I] 2 ORDINANCE NO. 93-11 Section 3. Applicability. 3.01. This ordinance applies to any application for site plan approvals, PP , rezonings, licenses, plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City Council before the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. 4.01. This ordinance is effective upon adoption. Adopted this 12th day of October , 1993. Mayor DeputyCity Clerk Date of Publication: October 6, 1993 Effective Date: October 12, 1993 CLL50963 BR291-43 3 i 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25thday of October , 1993 at 7:15 p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an interim Ordinance for the Purpose of Protecting the Planning Process and Health, Safety and Welfare of the Residents of the City, and Regulating and Restricting Development on all Land South of 66th Avenue and North of I-694 Lying Between Willow Lane and Highway 252. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City's Personnel Coordinator at 569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. 93-12 INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE - HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT ON ALL LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I-694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 252. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Background. 1.01. In connection with the consideration of an application for rezoning and permits for development of a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, City staff, consultants, Planning Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and the City Council reviewed the existing and potential development in the area. As a result of that review process, the Council determined that the current land use controls did not adequately address various land use concerns in the area. Among these concerns were inadequate or inappropriate buffering of nearby residential uses, nonconforming uses, zoning ordinances which were not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, insufficient or hazardous traffic circulation, changes In land use and roadways which occurred since current zoning controls were adopted, and adjacent or nearby land uses or potential uses which were not compatible with permitted uses or special uses in the affected area. 1.02. The Council determined that there was a need for further studies to be conducted so that the City could adopt appropriate amendments to its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code so as to ensure protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The Council directed that such studies be undertaken. 1.03. Studies and amendments to the City code which were considered in connection with earlier reviews of the official controls applicabld to the affected area were not acted upon by the City Council. cttsa9�9 ORDINANCE NO. 93-12 f a 1.04. As a result of consideration of an application for a special use permit for a filling station and car wash on a portion of the property affected by this ordinance, the Council has determined that the current zoning of the affected area is not, or may not be, appropriate or sufficient to protect the public health, safety or welfare for a number of reasons. These reasons include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The proposed use would have unacceptably adverse impacts on surrounding uses because of 24 hour activity, noise, lights, glare and traffic. b. Such adverse impacts cannot be adequately mitigated by site design or improvements. c. Many of these adverse impacts would result from permitted uses as well as special uses under current zoning. 1.05. A hearing has been scheduled for the purpose of considering amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code. 1.06. The Council has therefore determined that there is a need for an interim ordinance to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and ensuring that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and protection sought to be afforded by, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances until such hearing is held, and any modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and land use regulations are effective. Section 2. Determination. 2.01. This interim ordinance shall apply to all property south of 66th Avenue and north of I-694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252 (the subject area). 2.02. During the period this interim ordinance is in effect, no property within the subject area may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall any site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than renewals), plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any use. 2.03. This ordinance shall remain in effect until January 25, 1994, or such earlier date as may be adopted by the City Council, provided that if the consideration and adoption of amendments to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning code are not effective by the end of such period, this ordinance may be extended for such additional periods as are deemed necessary by the City Council and as are permitted by law. Section 3. Applicability. 3.01. This ordinance applies to any application for site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses, plattings or replattings, land divisions or CM58949 DR291-17 2 ORDINANCE NO. 93-12 consolidations, special use permits or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City Council before the effective date of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. 4.01. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this 25th day of October , 1993. Mayor bWgk�/ Deputy City Clerk Date of Publication: October 5, 1993 Effective Date: November 5, 1993 I CLL58942 su9i-u 3 J �j f f l Member Celia Scott introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 93-156 RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY, AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING DEVELOPMENT ON ALL LAND SOUTH OF 66TH AVENUE AND NORTH OF I-694 LYING BETWEEN WILLOW LANE AND HIGHWAY 252. WHEREAS, in connection with the consideration of applications for rezoning and permits for development of a portion of the property affected by this resolution, City staff, consultants, Planning Commission, the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and the City Council reviewed the existing and potential development in the area. As a result of that review process, the Council determined that the current land use controls did not adequately address various land use concerns in the area. Among those concerns were inadequate or inappropriate buffering of nearby residential uses, nonconforming uses, zoning ordinances which were not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, insufficient or hazardous traffic circulation, changes in land use and roadways which occurred since current zoning controls were adopted, and adjacent or nearby land uses or potential uses which were not compatible with permitted uses or special uses in the affected area; and WHEREAS, the Council determined that there was a need for further studies to be conducted so that the City could adopt appropriate amendments to its Comprehensive Plan and zoning code so as to ensure protection of the public health, safety and welfare. The Council directed that such studies be undertaken; and WHEREAS, studies and amendments to the City code which were considered in connection with the earlier reviews of the official controls applicable to the affected area were not acted upon by the City Council; and WHEREAS, as a result of consideration of an application for a special use permit for a filling station and car wash on a portion of the property affected by this CLLS8936 Du91-43 ' l RESOLUTION NO. 93-156 ` ordinance, the Council has determined that the current zoning of the affected area 0 is not, or may not be, appropriate or sufficient to protect the public health, safety or welfare for a number of reasons. These reasons include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. The proposed use would have unacceptably adverse impacts on surrounding uses because of 24 hour activity, noise, lights, glare and traffic. 2. Such adverse impacts cannot be adequately mitigated by site design or improvements. 3. Many of these adverse impacts would result from permitted uses as well as special uses under current zoning. and; WHEREAS, a hearing has been scheduled for the purpose of considering amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code; and WHEREAS, the Council has therefore determined that there is a need for regulations to be adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and ensuring that the City and its citizens retain the benefits of, and protection sought to be afforded by, the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances until such hearing is held, and any modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning and land use regulations are effective." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center,Minnesota: 1. This Resolution shall apply to all property south of 66th Avenue and north of I-694 between Willow Lane and Highway 252 (the subject area). 2. During the period this Resolution is in effect, no property within the subject area may be developed, redeveloped, nor shall any site plan approvals, rezonings, licenses (other than renewals) , plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits be issued by the City for any uses. 3. This Resolution shall remain in effect until S„)uA RY d5, 1°,° or such earlier date as may be adopted by the City Council, provided that if the consideration and adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive CLLS6914 RESOLUMON ATO. 93-155 Plan and zoning code are not effective by the end of such period, this Resolution may be extended for such additional periods as are deemed necessary by the City Council. 4. This Resolution applies to any application for site plan approvals, rezonin s, licenses plattings or replattings, land divisions or consolidations, special use permits or building permits that have not received preliminary approval by the City Council for the adoption of this Resolution. 5. This Resolution is effective upon adoption. Dated: September 27 , 1993 Todd Paulson, Mayor ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Barb Kalligher , and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Todd Paulson, Celia Scott, Dave Rosene, Barb Kalligher, and Kristen Mann; and the following.voted against the same: none, Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. cuS6916 BA291-t] 3 t .� fi Section 35-208. REZONING EVALUATION POLICY AND REVIEW GUIDELINES. 1. Purpose. The City Council finds that effective maintenance of the com- prehensive planning and land use classifications is enhanced through uniform and equitable evaulation of periodic proposed changes to this Zoning Ordinance; and for this purpose, by the adoption of Resolution No. 77-167, the City Council has established a rezoning evaluation policy and review guidelines. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the City that: a) zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and b) rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning," defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner, and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles. 3. Procedure. Each rezoning proposal will be considered on its merits, measured against the above policy and against these guidlines which may be weighed collectively or individually as deemed by the City. 4. Guidelines. a Is there a clear and public need or benefit? (b) Is the proposed zoning consistent with and compatible with surrounding land use classifications? (c) Can all permitted uses in the proposed zoning district be comtemplated for development of the subject property? (d) Have there been substantial physical or zoning classification changes in the area since the subject property was zoned? (e) In the case of City-initiated rezoning proposals, is there a broad public purpose evident? (f) Will the subject property bear fully the ordinance development restrictions for the proposed zoning districts? (g) Is the subject property generally unsuited for uses permitted in the present zoning district, with respect to size, con- figuration, topography or location? (h) Will the rezoning result in the expansion of a zoning district, ' warranted by: 1) Comprehensive Planning; 2) the lack of developable land in the proposed zoning district; or 3) the best interests of the community? (i) Does the proposal demonstrate merit beyond the interests of an owner or owners of an individual parcel? l E 2 c��►c L I CE N � (�o rw p e'SA'C u s i va pl.A N �s TABLE 14 Land Use Plan Revisions Location Number Recommended Land Use la. Mid-Density Residential or Public Land lb. Mid-Density Residential 2. Single-Family Residential 3. Commercial Retail 4. Commercial Retail 5. Mid-Density Residential 6a. Light Industrial 6b. Light Industrial 6c. Mid-Density Residential 7a. Single-Family Residential 7b. Public Open Space 8. Multiple-Family Residential 9. Commercial/Retail 10. Commercial/Retail 11. Mixed Use Development (Including High-Density, High-Rise Residential, Service/Office and General Commerce) 12. Mid-Density Residential/High Density Residential . 13. Mid-Density Residential 14. Single- or Two-Family Residential 15. Public Open Space 16. Public Open Space 17. Mid-Density Residential 18. Light Industrial 19. Commercial 20. Low-Density Residential 21. Service/Office 22. Low-Density Residential 23. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 24. Service/Office 25. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 26. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 27. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential pR- Service/Office/-Nid-TI-nsity .Residential 29. Commercial Retail 30 Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 31. Service/Office/Mid-Density Residential 32. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 33. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 34. Mid-Density Residential 35. Commercial Retail 36. Mid-Density Residential/Service/Office 37. Mid-Density Residential 38. Single-Family Residential 39. Service/Office 40. Commercial Retail 41. Service/Office 42. Mid-Density Residential 98 r �` 1 � MINOR Nil RE Man y 01 all �:I �,--�,;�,��®n-,�►�..+ � � 'J l�SUN 1PEN, 1� six�... .�-�:+� ®11111 - • City of = rooklyn Cente 7 v a SUMMARY Draft Comprehensive Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement June 1993 MISSISSIPPI National River and Recreation Area Anoka, Ramsey, Washington, Dakota, and Hennepin Counties, Minnesota �l 1 Public involvement in the planning process for the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area is critical to the success of the plan. If you would like to comment on the draft plan and environmental impact statement, it is available in libraries throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. You may also receive a copy of the document by contacting: Superintendent, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area 175 East Fifth Street, Suite 418, Box 41 St. Paul, MN 55101 612-290-4160 Prepared by Mississippi River Coordinating Commission and National Park Service United States Department of the Interior * National Park Service • Denver Service Center REGION MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER & RECREATION AREA United States Department of the Interior National Park Service OSC•MAR 93•807•20014A 0 0 20 Miles Nunn 3s �p MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER 0% AND RECREATION AREA �` 0 Q' WIS ONSIN A,• C6 63 MINNESOTA " R TAYLORS FALLS ST.CROIX FALLS TO ST.CLOUD e 9. Js 03 5 CI STILLWATER ' s TO WAUSAU-► UDSON MINNEAPOLIS 94 ST.PAUL .PRESCOTT 'EAU CLAIRE P� �r y� 10 90 s, 2 S2 Ys 0 35 TO MADISON AND CHICAGO -A s, y Wisconsin „MANKATO Minnesota 9 TO LA CROSSE 1 Looking downriver toward the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul we see the Mississippi as a quiet country river, but the Mississippi is many rivers as it passes through this metropolitan corridor; a bustling river, a quiet river, a natural river,and an altered river;a river for commerce, a river for people . . in short, the Mississippi is a river great in diversity and great in its challenge. SUMMARY On November 18, 1988, Public Law 100-696 established the Mississippi National River (MNRRA) and Recreation Area as a unit of the national park system, which is composed of over 370 areas administered by the National Park Service (NPS), an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior.The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area was established by Congress to(1)protect, preserve, and enhance the significant values of the Mississippi River corridor through the Twin Cities metropolitan area, (2)encourage coordination of federal,state, and local programs, and(3)provide a management framework to assist the state of Minnesota and units of local government in the development and implementation of integrated resource management programs and ensure orderly public and private development in the area. The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area includes 72 miles of the Mississippi River and four miles of the Minnesota River and encompasses about 54,000 acres of public and private land and water in five Minnesota counties, stretching from Dayton to just south of Hastings. For many years the people of the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area have managed the resources of the Mississippi River corridor as it runs through their cities. This management has preserved the river in good condition so that people want to live near its banks and businesses choose to locate near its shores. At the same tine, with the emphasis on lakes in the Twin Cities metro area, the Mississippi River was for many years an undiscovered resource. In 1988 Congress charged the secretary of the interior(through delegation to the National Park Service) with coordinating the efforts of the federal, state, and local governments to keep this 72-mile section of the Mississippi corridor in good condition and enhance its resources. Congress also mandated that a Mississippi River Coordinating Commission be appointed to assist the secretary in developing an integrated resource management plan for the national river and recreation area. The commission was appointed by the secretary in May of 1990 and has worked in partnership with the National Park Service and many other agencies and groups to develop a proposal for managing the river corridor. Congress directed the commission to assist the secretary,the state of Minnesota, and local units of government to develop policies and programs for: (1) the preservation and enhancement of the environmental values of the area (2) enhanced public outdoor recreation opportunities in the area (3) the conservation and protection of the scenic, historical, cultural, natural, and scientific values of the area (4) the commercial use of the area and its natural resources, consistent with the protection of the values for which the area was established. The basic visions identified for the national river and recreation area would promote extensive partnerships between the corridor's political entities and various constituencies to create the desired future and achieve the legislative purpose for the 72-mile-long corridor through the Twin Cities area.Natural areas would be respected, appropriate treatment of cultural resources would be ensured, economic resources would be protected, and public use would be enhanced. iii The draft comprehensive management plan and draft environmental impact statement provides a proposal and three alternatives that offer a range of options to guide the management and use of this section of the river. Major issues include land resource protection efforts, commercial navigation needs, park land and recreation facility opportunities, and the role of the National Park Service in preserving, interpreting, and managing the national river and recreation area corridor. The plan, as directed by the legislation, is a conceptual policy and program-level document concentrating on corridorwide issues. Except for proposed NPS facilities it does not address site-specific issues. After a great deal of study and consultation and after receiving and considering comments from a wide range of individuals and groups, the commission and the NPS study team developed a draft plan that provides a framework to balance and coordinate natural, cultural, and economic resource protection, visitor use, and development activities. It would minimize adverse effects on the river corridor and conflicts between users while providing for a broad spectrum of land and water uses and managed growth. Corridor management policies would be applied in a practical manner with individual communities retaining flexibility to respond to unusual situations in special ways providing that the resources identified in the MNRRA act are protected. The most significant visual resources would be protected and restored where practical, including historic structures and landscapes. The river corridor would have continuous public or private open space along the shoreline area to the maximum extent practical and it would be connected to the downtowns and neighborhoods by open space and trails. This continuous open space may be a combination of public parks, trail corridors, and private land along the river that is retained as, or restored to, green space. It would be as wide as some of the existing major regional parks along the river or could be as narrow as the 40- foot shoreline preservation setback area. Except in existing commercial and industrial developments, downtown areas, and historic districts, the riverfront and bluff area would appear mostly natural from the river and its shoreline areas (as observed from the opposite bank). In downtown areas and historic districts development would be more visible but still complement the aesthetics of the river corridor, appealing to area residents and serving as an attraction to visitors to the metro area.Where the natural appearance has been altered in other areas, design guidelines and programs would be established to encourage the restoration of shoreline to a more natural appearance. Additional public and private open space would be provided through a continued local land and easement acquisition program. The goal would be to provide a continuous linear open space and trail along the riverfront in most of the corridor while protecting natural, cultural, and economic resources. Open space would include public and private lands that are retained as primarily undeveloped.They may include lands devoted to active or passive recreational use or lands retained for visual or natural resource protection purposes. Some undeveloped areas would be acquired on the upper river (above the I-694 bridge) for open space purposes, although it is not feasible during the life of the plan to acquire a continuous public open space along the upper river due to extensive residential development. However, a continuous trail system using available corridors such as nearby streets and utility easements is an important component of the plan. The potential for additional open space increases in the middle part of the Mississippi below the Minnesota River and is greatest in the lower river area (below the I-494 bridge). It is recognized, however, that there are areas in all three portions of the corridor where a continuous public open space along both sides of the river is not practical. There would be an emphasis on working with local agencies to complete trail connections to provide a continuous trail system along or near the river and link with other areas outside the corridor. iv Commercial navigation activities would be continued. Decisions about activity expansion would be based on a balance between desired area resource characteristics and river system capacity. Decisions about commercial navigation uses would be based on resource values, emphasizing minimal impact on aquatic life. Local governments would continue to designate areas suitable for barge fleeting in corridor plans that are consistent with the plan. The Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)would review these community plans for conformity with the commercial navigation policies in the MNRRA plan. A wide range of visitor use (interpretation and recreation) activities would be encouraged that would emphasize selected areas. A variety of passive and active resource-related recreational activities would continue to be available to visitors in the corridor. These include fishing, boating, canoeing, hiking, bicycling, jogging, picnicking, birding, taking photographs, and participating in interpretive and educational programs. The Park Service would have a lead role in interpretation for the corridor. Because of the unusual nature of the corridor and the proposed management concept, NPS facilities would be limited to interpretive centers and administrative offices. With the partnership arrangement and the extent of local interpretation, these would be cooperative ventures, with only one interpretive facility owned and operated by the National Park Service. Based on the audience, site analysis, functions of each facility, and the interpretive themes, a system of interpretive facilities is proposed. The proposal capitalized on the excellent interpretive work already being done in the corridor and seeks to fill the interpretive gaps and offer overall coordination of activities. There are two major interpretive facilities planned: (1) a primary information and orientation center at Harriet Island opposite downtown St. Paul, and (2) a cooperative information and orientation center near downtown Minneapolis. The St. Paul/Harriet Island facility would be combined with the MNRRA administrative headquarters, strategically located to continue extensive interaction with the government agencies included in the MNRRA partnership. Two smaller cooperative interpretive centers(contact stations)are also planned,one in Hastings and another at Coon Rapids dam, each with a different interpretive emphasis and potential visitor experience. The National Environmental Policy Act requires that alternatives be evaluated for proposed federal actions, and the document analyzes three alternatives to the proposed plan. Alternative A(no action)would continue existing resource protection activities, land and water management, and visitor use programs. No overall comprehensive plan would be adopted for the river corridor, and local communities would continue to manage the river with minimal coordination and cooperation. Political boundaries would continue to delineate different management regulations, so individual segments within the 72-mile stretch of the Mississippi River would be managed according to different plans. Alternative B would place a greater emphasis on resource protection, more restrictive land management-(with only selective new development), and emphasize passive recreation activities. Efforts for resource protection-would be coordinated between the National Park Service and existing state, federal, and local programs, with the Park Service taking the lead on protection of the natural and cultural resources. v Alternative C would place greater emphasis on the use and development potential of the corridor; increased tourism and new commercial and industrial development would be encouraged to a greater degree. There would be less land management activity in alternative C, and visitor activities would emphasize more active recreation. Nationally significant resources would be protected under existing laws, regulations, and policies, and they would be marketed more intensively to stimulate visitation. Impacts of the proposed plan and the three alternatives are assessed in the document. Both positive and negative impacts to natural and cultural resources, visitor use, and socioeconomic environments are analyzed. If corridor communities adopt and enforce the land use management and open space policies in the plan, sensitive resources in the corridor would be protected, a natural appearance would be preserved (and restored in some areas), and improvements would be made to recreation and open space opportunities in the area. A table summarizing the impacts of the alternatives is included in the document and should be referenced for an overview of environmental consequences. Many individuals, organizations, and agencies have contributed to the planning process.Work groups made up of local technical experts assisted the commission and National Park Service team in developing visions, collecting data, and making recommendations for the plan. Public meetings and several newsletters have offered opportunities for public involvement. Opportunities to comment and influence the eventual outcome of the plan for the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area continue and comments on the document are encouraged during the public review period. I N � Vi ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY BY ISSUE Issue Proposed Plan Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C General Concept Balance use and preservation No action Emphasize more Emphasize visitor use needs resource preservation and development Land Use/Landscape Preserve and restore natural Continue existing land Stress protection of Encourage new high- Character Concept appearance of shorelines and use trends and natural,cultural, and quality development; bluffs; protect historic areas; landscape character existing economic add new uses with preserve economic resources; mixture resources and open design excellence provide setbacks and screen space preservation; stimulating tourism new uses with vegetation minimize new uses Riverfront Area Land Use Emphasize river-related and No new policy on Strictly river-related No new policy (w/in 300 feet of shore) river-enhancing uses;no river-related uses near uses;phase out i change to existing river inconsistent uses development Barge Fleeting Areas Monitor effects;activity No additional Freeze existing areas Add fleeting areas per expansion would balance management action pending additional demand while desired resource research on impacts and protecting significant characteristics and river alternatives; map all sensitive resources system capacity tential new areas Open Space Provide a continuous linear Add some additional Provide maximum open Acquire some park land open space where feasible; park land per existing space protecting for recreation and acquire threatened sensitive local plans sensitive areas and tourism needs resources emphasizing resource protection Park Land Ownership Minimal NPS land; additional No additional NPS Significant NPS land No additional NPS local park land land; additional local ownership,including land; additional local parks per existing transferring major parks parks per existing plans plans to NPS plus some additional lands Resource Management Balanced resource protection No additional action; Stress resource Promote greater use of and use;increase pollution monitor corridor protection and pollution corridor resources with reduction efforts;protect activities reduction; extensive protection under cultural and economic research efforts existing laws and resources;coordinate research regulations Visitor Use Provide broad range of Continue existing Emphasize passive Emphasize active activities in appropriate areas types of use with no visitor use activities recreation use coordinated management Park Service NPS interp./admin.facility in No NPS facilities Similar to proposal but No NPS facilities; Development/ St.Paul and cooperative more extensive NPS extensive local Cooperative Interpretive interpretive center in interpretive and recreation facilities Facilities Minneapolis; coop.contact recreational facilities stations near north and south ends of corridor Management Concept Extensive partnerships Existing programs; Stronger NPS role in Minimal NPS role In may lead to MNRRA corridor management corridor management deauthorization Land Use Management/ NPS develops agreements No additional NPS/Local partnership Metropolitan Council Monitoring Option with Metropolitan Council to monitoring to monitor plans and provides all local land review local plans and DNR to actions for plan use monitoring services review local actions for for plan conformance to MNRRA plan Vii t Planning Commission Resolution No. 1. The designation of this area for service/office uses rather than commercial retail uses will provide an appropriate buffer and transitional area between the heavily traveled T.H. 252 and the single family residential areas to the east of North Willow Lane. 2 . The service/office land use designation will provide for a reasonable land use for potential development and redevelopment in this area which will not have an adverse affect on surrounding property. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan be revised as follows: add location no. 3a to table 14 on page 98 to read "service/office" and to amend figure 15 relating to land use plan revisions to show area no. 3a as including all of the land south of 66th Avenue and north of 65th Avenue between T.H. 252 and North Willow Lane. Date Chairperson 0 ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. '1 i e Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 93015 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 93015 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center proposes rezoning from C2 (commerce) and R5 (multi family residence) to C1 (service/office) of three properties located at the southeast quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North and addressed as 6550 and 6500 West River Road and 6525, 27, 29 North Willow Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly called public hearing on November 18, 1993, when a staff report and public testimony regarding the rezoning was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed rezoning in light of the report received, testimony given, the guidelines for evaluating rezonings contained in Section 35-208 of the City's Zoning Ordinance and in light of comments made relative to this property in the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council through the adoption of an advisory resolution that the City's Comprehensive Plan be amended to create consistency between the Plan and the proposed rezoning comprehended for the southeast quadrant of T.H. 252 and 66th Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklyn Center Planning Advisory Commission to recommend to the City Council that Application No. 93015 submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center be approved in light of the following considerations: 1. The rezoning will allow for appropriate development and redevelopment in this area which will establish a proper buffer zone between the high level of traffic and the accompanying noise, odor and vibration from T.H. 252 and the established single family residential area to the east of the subject site. 2. The rezoning will prohibit the development of intense commercial uses which cannot be appropriately buffered and screened from the residential area to the east and will prohibit uses which currently are allowed in the C2 zoning district (particularly uses that are 24 hour operations) , involve the regular coming and going of traffic at all hours and are incompatible with the surrounding residential area. s. � J .01 i Planning Commission Resolution No. 3 . The rezoning will allow for development and redevelopment of land uses which can be considered compatible with surrounding land uses. 4 . The rezoning will allow for a service/office designation and the eventual development and redevelopment of this area which will offer the owners of the property a reasonable use of their property in a manner compatible with neighboring property. 5. The rezoning of the land to allow a service/office utilization of the entire area with less intense commercial uses can overcome the difficult screening and buffering issues posed by an intense commercial development. 6. The rezoning is consistent with the amended recommendations contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 7. The rezoning proposal demonstrates merit beyond the interest of the owners of the land in that it will provide for potential redevelopment and development which is sensitive to the screening and buffering concerns of neighboring residential property at the same time as it will provide a reasonable use of the land for its owners. 8. This rezoning proposal is consistent with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission in 1989 following the Commission's review of a land use study of this area done by Short-Elliot- Hendrickson, Inc. Date Chairperson ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: where upon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. a .. �Y_ � . •