Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 11-16 PCM i 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 NOVEMBER 16, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER fide Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Kristen Mann and James McCloskey. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Bertil Johnson was out of town and was excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 26, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the October 26, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RESOLUTION REGARDING CHANGE OF BROOKWOOD HOUSING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE Chairperson Malecki introduced the first item of business, a resolution finding that the modified project plan for the Brookwood housing development project and the modified tax increment plan for the Earle Brown Farm tax increment district are consistent with the plans for development of the City of Brooklyn Center. She asked whether there were any comments. Commissioner Bernards asked whether staff had met with the Brooklyn Center school district. The Secretary responded that the City Manager and the Economic Development Authority Coordinator have been meeting with the school district officials. He stated that there was a public hearing scheduled for this matter at the City Council meeting on November 27 and that the matter would probably be laid over at that time. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-5 REGARDING CONSISTENCY OF A CHANGE IN THE HOUSING DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE AND TAX INCREMENT PLAN WITH THE CITY'S Z`OMPREHENSI1 E PEAR Motion by Commoner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Sander to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-5 regarding the modification of the Brookwood housing district boundary and the modification of the tax increment plan for the Earle Brown Farm as being consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Ainas, Bernards,Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM PUD Ordinance The Secretary then briefly introduced the draft Planned Unit Development Ordinance and stated that he would like to review it point by point in hopes that the Commission would be ready to take action on it at this evening's meeting. 11-16-89 -1- Commissioner Ainas stated that '- he wished to withdraw his suggestion for a restriction requiring a minimum investment or minimum building to land ratio since it would be difficult to arrive at a precise figure and even more difficult to administer in practice. The Secretary thanked Commissioner Ainas for his comments. He stated that he agreed with the goal of the idea originally suggested by Commissioner Ainas and that its objective of insuring high quality development was consistent with the objective of the ordinance. He stated that the idea had been considered by the staff. He added, however, that such a mechanism could reduce flexibility and might have to be modified a number of times. Commissioner Ainas stated that he wanted to avoid a PUD with a hot dog stand anchoring a mini warehouse development. The Secretary answered that if the proposed ordinance would not allow the City to avoid such a development then there is probably a problem with the ordinance. He stated that, as the City deals with Planned Unit Developments, it is likely that more standards for them will be set. He stated that the intent of the ordinance, however, was to allow for more possibilities and that no use could totally be ruled out ahead of time. Commissioner Ainas stated that, from the perspective of a developer, it is important for a City to give a reasonably clear indication as to what it really wants. He cited an example of a case in which he was involved in private practice with a City which rejected a development proposal without indicating what it did, in fact, wish to see. The Secretary then began to review the draft ordinance point by point. He reviewed the purpose section and the section on permitted uses. He noted the Comprehensive Plan recommendations contained in the Land Use Revisions Map which would serve as the basis for deciding what land uses would be allowed within a PUD. He explained the relationship between some of the land use categories in that table in the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning districts contained in the Zoning Ordinance. As an example, he stated that the term "commercial retail" refers to the C2 zoning district and the possibility of land uses other than purely retail uses. He added that the Comprehensive Plan sometimes recommends mixed uses for a given area. The Secretary then went on to review the section on development standards and gave some examples of certain provisions regarding parking, setbacks, buffers, etc. Commissioner Sander noted that she was in the real estate business and had seen a number of problems in Maple Grove and Brooklyn Park. She stated that she felt the draft ordinance covered some of the areas of concern that have arisen in those cities. The Secretary went on to review the subdivision of the draft ordinance relating to general standards. He gave the Commission some examples of possible redevelopment districts, primarily in areas along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that one question that the City will have to deal with is whether to predesignate certain areas for a PUD classification or whether to deal with a PUD designation on a case by case basis. The Secretary then went on to review the provisions on application and review of a PUD proposal. He noted that many of the procedural provisions are basically the same as the rezoning process and that this is a lengthy procedure. He pointed out that the ordinance would enable the City to approve not simply a general land use, but a specific development plan which would have to be approved at least in a preliminary manner along with the rezoning action. There followed a brief discussion of Brooklyn Boulevard and the continuity of land use in Brooklyn Center relative to that in Brooklyn Park. The Secretary discussed this area and also County Road 10 as it enters Crystal. 11-16-89 -2- Commissioner Sander asked what prompted the new PUD Ordinance. The Secretary answered that the City was entering a time of its life as a community where there would be more redevelopment and that redevelopment situations will call for more flexibility on the part of the City. He stated that when a community is growing, it needs tough standards. Otherwise, he went on, a city may simply give away the ship to get new development. He stated that Brooklyn Center has a good commercial base, but that the City may have to do some give and take in order to get quality redevelopment in certain areas. He went on to discuss possible areas which would need redevelopment, including 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard, the Lynbrook area, the industrial area at 50th and France, etc. The Secretary stated that Brooklyn Boulevard probably would not ultimately have as much office development as is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the market is certainly not there now and that the City probably could not sustain that much office in the future. The Planner commented that a PUD Ordinance would be a sword that could cut both ways. He stated that while the ordinance would allow for greater flexibility in improving innovative arrangements, the construction of those arrangements might build in inflexibility in future use of the property. He stated that this was a problem that is faced by ordinary developments, but can be compounded when there is a mixture of uses and one use relies somewhat on another. He stated that it is important that the mixed use arrangements be a good long term investment. He noted some developments that had been built in the last ten years which have not been stable land uses. Chairperson Malecki brought up the example of the 35' buffer required when C2 uses abut R1 property. She asked how the City would deal with a situation where the commercial development exists first. The Secretary noted the example of the property east of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center in the Northeast Neighborhood. He pointed out that it had been zoned C2 for many years and that the owner proposed to rezone the property to R1 in the 19701s. He explained that the City's position at that time was that the R1 development would have to provide a 35' buffer strip even though the ordinance places the burden on the commercial use. Chairperson Malecki asked what would be done when the residential use existed first. The Secretary answered that the City may or may not vary from the basic 35' buffer requirement. He pointed out that, while developers will want to shrink the buffer strip, neighboring properties will want to expand it or see some other amenities provided. The Planner commented that having hard and fast standards for development can save time and money. He stated that they let the developer know what the standard is and what the City will accept. He stated that they tend to make the City Council's decision easier and avoid the need for costly consultants. The Secretary agreed and pointed out that the PUD Ordinance will add flexibility, but with that will go additional responsibility to closely analyze whether developments are properly planned. Commissioner McCloskey stated that it sounded to him like the choice facing the City was between changing standards or adding flexibility and that the staff has recommended added flexibility. The Secretary agreed with this analysis. Commissioner McCloskey asked whether the PUD Ordinance would result in more input for the citizen or for the public official. The Secretary answered that the City does not presently have a public hearing for site and building plan approvals. He pointed out that the PUD process would involve public hearings and more public input. He added, however, that the public can be legally unreasonable. He pointed 11-16-89 -3- out that the public probably would not have supported integrated schools and housing 30 years ago if it were left up to a local vote. He stated that the PUD Ordinance is another tool for controlling development. He cited one of the original zoning cases, Euclid vs. Ambler Realty as a landmark zoning case. He stated that that case established the legality of basic zoning in the 1920's. He added that 20 years ago special use permits became popular because they gave the City discretion to approve or deny certain uses within zoning districts. He pointed out, however, that the legal reality has been that the burden has shifted to the City to justify denial of a special use permit rather than being on the developer to prove that the proposal meets the special use standards. He stated that, with a PUD Ordinance, the City could be found to be arbitrary and capricious in approving one development concept while rejecting another. The Planner added that the Commission may want to think in the future about the possibility of expanding the time period in Section 35-210 of the Zoning Ordinance for considering rezonings and now PUD'S. He stated that the 'complexities of gathering input on a proposed plan and seeking revisions could be a time consuming process and that the 60 day time period may well be adequate. The Secretary suggested that the City try working with the PUD Ordinance and see how the 60 day time period works. He pointed out that the time limits in the Zoning Ordinance are intended to keep the City from simply shelving a proposal and killing it by not acting on it for an indefinite period of time. MOTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF PUD ORDINANCE Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner McCloskey to recommend approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 35 to establish a Planned Unit Development Zoning District in the City of Brooklyn Center. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Ainas, Mann and McCloskey. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Secretary then noted the date of the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on December 7 and pointed out that the moratorium on development in the area of 66th and West River Road would expire in mid December. He stated that he hoped to get the Land Use Study to the Commission and ultimately to the City Council in December. The Planner then showed the Planning Commission some building materials for the Ethan Allen building. He noted that the wood trim would be lightened up and the staccato board would also be lightened to an off-white color. He stated that he had no problem with the color scheme proposed and recommended that the Planning Commission not object unless the feeling is almost unanimous that the proposed color scheme is unattractive. The Commission had no objection to the proposed colors. ADJOURNMENT Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Ainas to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:24 p.m. �7 Chairperson 11-16-89 -4-