Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 02-11 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 REGULAR SESSION FEBRUARY 11 , 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commisssioners Molly Malecki, Mike Nelson, Bertil Johnson, and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, City Engineer Bo Spurrier and Recording Secretary 1,hry Lou Larsen. Chairman Lucht stated that Commissioners Lowell Ainas and Ann Wa.11erstedt were unable to attend this evening's meeting and were excused. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE The Secretary administered the oath of office of Planning Commissioner to new Commission member Bertil Johnson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 14, 1987 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the January 14, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson, Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 88001 (Metropolitan Transit Commission) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for site plan and special use permit approval for a park and ride lot at the Brooklyn Center Church of the Nazarene, 501 73rd Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88001 attached) . The Secretary explained a public hearing is scheduled and notices have been sent to neighboring property owners. Commissioner Bernards asked if the original special use permit had any special conditions attached to it. The Secretary responded the special use permit was amended when the fellowship hall was added to the church in 1981 and future parking was discussed at that time. He stated that the church and fellowship hall are used at off-peak traffic hours and the church is used on evenings and weekends. He added that as far as he knows the church is in compliance with any conditions imposed with the last special use action. Commissioners Bernards inquired how the parking lot fits into the church's future plans. The Secretary stated the park and ride facility does not rule out future expansion for the church. Commissioner Johnson asked if and where a bus shelter would be located. A representive of MTC responded that a bus shelter would be built and located at the bus pickup point. 2-11-88 _1_ Chairman Lucht called on the applicant to speak. Donald Shaffer of Barrientos and Associates, the architect for the applicant, explained the location of the lighting and stated that the light poles would be 30' high, rather than the 20' shown on the original plan. He stated he had just received a new plan that afternoon and was unable to inform the City before this evening's meeting. The reason for increasing the height of the poles is to get better distribution of light on the site. The Secretary asked if the design of the lights had been changed. Mr. Shaffer responded that the design is the same and there would be light shields on the residential side of the property. Commissioner Bernards asked if the lights are activated by a timer and at what time the first and last bus arrives. He also asked if the lights are activated seven days a week. Mr. Shaffer responded that the lights would be activated by a timer and that he believed the lights would only be on five days a week. He added that he would have to check on this and what the time was that buses ran. Commissioner Nelson asked if the light poles are 30' high. Mr. Shaffer responded that there are nine poles 30' high; the reason for the higher poles is that they couldn't get enough illumination from the shorter poles. i The Secretary asked the applicant to explain the bus schedule. Mr. Shaffer responded that he does not have enough information on the bus schedule, especially the Saturday schedule. Commissioner Bernards asked who is responsible for maintenance of the park and ride facility. Mr. Shaffer explained that there is a lease agreement being drawn up and at present, MTC is taking care of it. Commissioner Malecki asked if the facility is now being used as a park and ride facility. Mr. Shaffer responded that it is. The Secretary explained that it has been the City's position to encourage the use of existing facilities along bus routes for this park and ride use. He referred to the parking lot facility at Harron Methodist Church on 55th and Dupont Avenues North which is informally used as one. He stated he is not aware of any problems created with existing facilities of this kind. He noted the reason this application is before the Commission as a special use permit is because of the expansion of the existing lot for the park and ride facility. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Chester Nevin, 7242 Camden Avenue North, stated he was opposed to the facility and asked why this lot has to be expanded when other vacant property is available which does not affect residential property owners and could be used for such a facility. Mrs. Nevin stated she is also opposed to the park and ride facility because she believes it will have a negative affect on their property. Carol Carter, 7250 Camden Avenue North, asked why the property owners on the north side of 73rd Avenue North in Brooklyn Park were not notified of this evening's meeting. The Secretary explained that because those lots are in Brooklyn Park, the City notifies only the City of Brooklyn Park, who in turn may notify their Brooklyn Park residents. He added that even though those residents did not receive a notice, does not mean that they cannot comment on the project. 2-11-88 -2- Mrs. Carter stated she has added a $30,000 addition to her home and feels that the freeway expansion and now the proposed park and ride facility will devalue her property when the time arrives for her and her husband to sell their home. She stated she has contacted a real estate firm and was informed her property value would be downgraded a minimum of 5% of the market value. She explained she feels the facility will attract theft, breakins, littering and become an eyesore for the neighboring property owners to look at out their windows. She stated that she feels that the church has been parking cars in its parking lot illegally and also, it attracts kids to park there in summer. She asked why a facility could not be built at the neighboring vacant property near Beacon Bowl on 66th and West River Road which is not near any residential properties. She feels she and the rest of the neighbors have been very tolerant in the past and have never complained about any activities at the church. Chairman Lucht commented that nothing would change because of the proposed park and ride facility other than the addition of some parking stalls. Mrs. Carter stated she feels the view of the church parking lot, and now the park and ride facility, diminished the value of her property. Chairman Lucht asked if the church would be gaining income from the facility. Pastor Errol Webb of the Church of the Nazarene stated they are not receiving income from it now, but will have some type of lease agreement in the future. Jerry Cowan, owner of Evergreen Apartments which abuts the church parking lot to the south, stated he felt shrubbery is not acceptable screening as debris can blow into the apartment property more easily than through a fence. He stated he is also concerned with the height of the light poles which may allow light to shine into his tenants' apartments at night. Mr. Cowan also inquired if it would be possible to extend a sidewalk to his apartment complex to make access to the bus stop easier. Mrs. Carter asked why the City is agreeing to the expansion of the parking lot. The Secretary responded that the expansion is not a City-initiated project. He explained that MTC representatives approached the City and expressed the need for providing a park and ride facility location in this general area. He stated the City encourages the use of, or expansion of, existing facilities rather than build a new freestanding park and ride facility. The Secretary stated the property is still a church facility and the church will be responsible for maintaining its property. He noted that it just appears to be a more judicious use of property to expand an existing facility that is already convenient, than to build a new facility in the same general area. Mrs. Carter stated that she and the other property owners are the people who have to live with the results and the results include convenience and money for the church. The Secretary asked the MTC representatives to further explain the facility. An MTC representative explained that they had looked at other facilities in the area, but had decided the church lot to be more acceptable. Chairman Lucht asked what payment the church is getting for the park and ride facility. Mr. Shaffer responded that there will be a long term lease agreement drawn up involving maintenance and upkeep with some rental fee paid to the church. Chairman Lucht asked how long the lease agreement would be. Mr. Shaffer answered it would probably be a 20 year lease. 2-11-88 -3- Mr. Cowan asked if the land is tax exempt. The Secretary responded that the church is tax exempt and that MTC is a tax exempt entity. He added that he assumed the MTC use of the church lot for a park and ride facility would also be tax exempt. Mrs. Carter stated she still feels it is a moneymaker for the church. The Secretary stated the church will gain a better parking lot with improved drainage. Mrs. Nevin asked if there is one objection to the proposal would it be denied. The Secretary stated that it would not necessarily. He explained that this application is a special use permit and the standards for special use permits have to be addressed before it will be approved. He noted that these standards include that the use not be detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, not substantially diminish property values, not impede normal and orderly development, not cause traffic congestion and conform with pertinent development regulations. Mrs. Carter asked what the neighbors have to do to get the City to take another look at this project before approving it. The Secretary stated that the City has to balance the rights of all concerned. He explained that MTC park and ride lots are considered to be for the good of the public in that they help to reduce rush hour traffic congestion; serve to help reduce the consumption of gasoline, assist in lower (or maintaining) air quality standards; lessen the need for public expenditure of funds to build or upgrade new highway and freeway facilities. This must be balanced with the negative effects of the project on the neighboring property as outlined in the Standards for Special Use Permits. Chairman Lucht asked how much money anyone has lost. Mrs. Carter responded she believes she will lose approximately $20,000 when she sells her home. Chairman Lucht asked for clarification of location of the public property being referred to as a better location for the facility. Mrs. Carter responded that it is near the Beacon Bowl property on 66th and West River Road. Mrs. Nevin stated that when she looks out her window at peak traffic hours there is a life threatening situation created at the bus stop on T. H. 252. Six people have been killed previously in this area. Pastor Webb stated that the church's relocated entrance and driveway was moved further east than originally proposed to satisfy the neighbors. He explained that the church has tried to be a good neighbor and that he has picked up debris blown into the church's lot from the apartment buildings to the south. He stated the fence was taken down by the owner of the apartment complex. He noted that the church will continue to be a good neighbor and that he did not envision this parking lot expansion to be a detriment to surrounding property owners. Commissioner Bernards asked how long the church had been there. Pastor Webb responded that the church had been there 19 years. Chairman Lucht asked the neighbors what type of screening they would prefer. Mrs. Carter stated she would have to look at the fence and also, she now looks straight out to the freeway where all the garbage accumulates. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commission Malecki to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson, Bernards and Johnson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 2-11-88 -4- I Further discussion ensued regarding the park and ride facility. Chairman Lucht polled the Commissioners for their opinion. Commissioner Malecki stated problems do exist and possibly the Commission should get further information before making a recommendation on the facility. Commissioner Nelson referred to the special use standards and stated he would would like to see the screening requirement addressed. He stated he does not believe that property values would be effected. Commissioner Bernards stated he would recommend MTC to work with the property owners on the screening requirement and to have proper maintenance and policing of the area. Commissioner Johnson stated he is concerned with the height of the light polies and recommended that other areas for location of the facility be looked at. Commissioner Malecki stated if there is no control over parking of 35 cars at present what will the impact be when there are 105 cars. She stated she would rather table the application and have further study done before making any recommendation. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 88001 (MTC) oZt on by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to table the application and direct staff to bring back further information on the following: -traffic impacts in this area if larger park and ride is established; -the MTC procedure for siting park and ride facilities; -effect on property values in the immediate area if the park and ride facility is located at the church; -any safety concerns associated with these facilities, -consideration of 20' high light poles rather than 30' high poles; 1 -the possibility of reducing the number of stalls to be located along the west portion of the property. i Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki and Johnson. Voting against: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Bernards and Nelson. The motion failed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88001 (MTC) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 88001 subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to construction. 2. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to final approval of the plans. 3. B612 or B618 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas. 4. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 5. The property owner shall enter into the Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems. I I 2-11-88 -5- 6. The proposed landscape screening or a 6' high opaque fence constitutes an acceptable screening device to be determined by the City Council. 7. The applicant is strongly urged to consider putting a light in the vicinity of the sidewalk linking the parking lot and the bus stop. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Nelson, and Bernards. Voting against: Commissioners Malecki and Johnson. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM The Secretary reviewed proposed ordinance changes to Chapter 12, which is the City's Housing Maintenance and Occupancy Ordinance. He explained this ordinance is enforced by the Planning and Inspection Department. The Year 2000 Committee recommended consideration of extending the maintenance provisions of this ordinance to commercial and industrial property as well as residential. He asked the Commissioners to review the information included in their agenda packet for discussion at the Planning Commission study meeting on February 25, 1988. The Secretary explained that there will be other ordinance amendments to be discussed in the future such as parking of commercial vehicles and storage of boats, trailers and campers on residential property. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson, Bernards and Johnson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Chairman 2-11-88 -6-