Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 03-30 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF j HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 1 STUDY SESSION MARCH 30, 1989 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Mike Nelson at 8:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Mike Nelson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards, Lowell Ainas, Bertil Johnson, Ella Sander and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 16, 1989 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the J minutes of the March 16, 1989 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in lj favor. Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas and Mann. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Johnson and Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89002 (City of Brooklyn Center) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request to rezone from R5 to C1 the land at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard and the neighboring lots to the south. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report and the draft resolution recommending approval of the rezoning request (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89002, attached) . PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 89002) There being no comments or questions from the Commission, Chairman Nelson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on the application and asked whether anyone present wished to speak. No one spoke on the matter. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commis—'sioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION ADOPTING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89-3 (Application No. 89002) RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION N0. 89002 SUBMITTED BY THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Mann to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-3 regarding disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 89002. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Johnson, Sander and Mann. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 89011 (Public Storage) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, an appeal from a determination by staff that mini-storage facilities are not permitted in the C1 3-30-89 -1- zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 89011 attached) . The Secretary added that the I-1 zoning district which acknowledges warehousing and storage as a special use, is centrally located and is not a high crime area. Regarding control of special use permits, the Secretary stated that, once a special use permit is granted and if the conditions are abided by, a property right has been established and that the City does not have extensive control over the operation of special uses. There being no questions or comments from the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson asked the appellant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Don Jensen, of Public Storage, approached the Commission. He showed them a rendering of a similar mini- storage facility located in Golden Valley. He stated the mini-storage industry has changed considerably since 1973• Mr. Jensen then read extensively from an APA study done in 1985 on mini-storage. He noted that mini-storage started in the 1960's in the sunbelt and that the use spread to other areas of the country in the 70's and 801s. He stated that offices use self-storage for excess files and that private individuals use self-storage because they cannot afford additional storage space at their apartment or on their property. He stated that one distinction between warehousing and mini-storage is that warehouses have employees which stay and do work during the day and self-storage has customers who come and go. Mr. Jensen stated that many communities throughout the country have begun to allow self-storage in commercial and even residential zoning districts because they recognize its customer orientation. He stated that he and other representatives of Public Storage have met with neighbors in the area and that several people feel this is a good use for the location at the southwest quadrant of I94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. He again referred the Commission's attention to the rendering of the Golden Valley project which he said is compatible architecturally with a residential neighborhood. Mr. Dan Rooney, also of Public Storage, then addressed the Commission. He discussed the financial strength of Public Storage at some length. He stated that the market has changed and that self-storage is now a long term land use of 20 to 30 years. He stated that Public Storage has institutional investors as well as individuals. He stated that Public Storage was interested in a commercial location because the location is safe, convenient, attractive and secure. He stated that Public Storage generally locates in or adjacent to commercial areas along major thoroughfares. He stated that the general public is 80% of the customers and businesses the remaining 20%. He stated also that Public Storage seeks to serve people in transition, such as empty nesters. Mr. Tim Malloy, of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, then addressed the Commission at some length. He stated that the mini-storage use has changed in response to market concerns. He pointed out that self-storage is a low traffic generator. He stated that self-storage can develop in commercial areas and can have an attractive facade. He noted the use of landscaping and the presence of a 24 hour on-site manager. Mr. Malloy stated that Public Storage can serve as a buffer between more intense and less intense land uses. Mr. Malloy went on to distinguish Public Storage from a warehouse use. He stated that self-storage does not generate as much truck traffic as a warehouse would. He also stated that warehouses have employees who may cause some disturbance to the neighborhood on their lunch hours and that warehouses store volatile materials. He explained that self-storage has few semi trailers coming to its property. He also 3-30-89 -2- stated that forklifts are not necessary. He added that the self-storage use would not permit the storage of volatile materials. Regarding buffer requirements, Mr. Malloy pointed out that the purpose of buffers includes the need to screen one use from another. He pointed out that screening can be accomplished in a narrow buffer area. He explained that wide buffers are used for industrial uses because of noise and vibration from trucks, manufacuturing, etc. He stated that self-storage does not involve these kinds of activities and, therefore, a narrower buffer is sufficient. Regarding ground coverage, Mr. Malloy pointed out that an office development would have a ground coverage of approximately 30%. He noted that the proposed site plan calls for a 37% ground coverage. He explained that ground coverage controls limit the density and intensity of various land uses. He stated that a low intense use such as public storage can have greater coverage because they have less of an impact per square foot of building. Regarding parking, Mr. Malloy stated that the parking ratio for self-storage is very low. Regarding aesthetics, Mr. Malloy pointed out that the draft ordinance proposed a general guideline for aesthetic controls on self-storage uses. He pointed out that the City has a site plan approval process and that the developers would have to submit site and building plans for review by the Planning Commission and City Council. 1 Mr. Don Jensen then addressed the Commission again. He showed the Commission photos of other self-storage developments around the country. He also showed the rendering of the Golden Valley project which is not yet complete. He acknowledged that not all self-storage projects look like the Golden Valley project. He acknowledged that Public Storage has bought some older style mini-warehouses around I the country. He stated that Public Storage looks for transition areas between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas. He stated that self-storage has been used as a buffer use between residential and commercial areas and is often in a PUD district. i Mr. Jensen briefly reviewed the discussion which took place in 1973 by the City Council. He stated that the limitations placed on the location of self-storage facilities would limit the potential sites to very few parcels in the City, perhaps j only the subject parcel. He concluded by stating that the taxes from the parcel in question would increase fivefold with little impact on public facilities if the self-storage use were developed. Chairman Nelson stated that he had come into the meeting disposed to act on the application quickly. He stated that he was concerned that the Commission may be swayed by a classy developer, but that the City has to be concerned with the unclassy developers as well. He asked the Secretary how the City would deal with other self- storage companies. i Mr. Tim Malloy showed the Planning Commission a map of the City with commercial development and commercial zoning outlined. He pointed out that there would be a 2 acre minimum for self-storage uses. He stated that the map shows that there are very few parcels in the City which would be eligible for self-storage. The Secretary interpreted the Chairman's question to be what controls the City would have over this or other developers. He explained that the controls that would be adopted would have to be applied the same to all applicants. The Secretary acknowledged that the City can develop regulations which would, in effect, limit self-storage to a few available parcels. He stated, however, that the basic i 3-30-89 -3- 1 I { question at issue is a use question. He stated that he had no difficulty in classifying the self-storage use as industrial. He pointed out that if self- storage were allowed in the C1 zoning district, it would certainly be allowed in the C2 district as well. The Secretary stated that staff are not opposed to self-storage facilities per se, but added that there is land available in the I-1 and I-2 zoning districts for such a use. He also pointed out that in 1973, the City Council was looking at a similar proposal on a C2 zoned parcel. He noted that the C2 zoning district is a much more intense zoning district than the C1 district. He noted further, however, that the application for that location was denied. Commissioner Ainas stated that there was nothing wrong with the aesthetics of a Public Storage facility, but that in reading over the permitted and special uses in the C1 zoning district, he concluded that self-storage would be too far a departure from these other uses if it were allowed. He stated that, if self-storage were allowed in the C1 zone, other uses might also be allowed and the C1 zoning district would become meaningless. He stated that he felt the self-storage use could be okay along Freeway Boulevard, but not along Brooklyn Boulevard. Commissioner Johnson noted that one concern regarding the property in question is traffic at that location. He stated that the freeway exit and the congestion of traffic in Brooklyn Boulevard would make a low traffic generator for the parcel a logical choice. Commissioner Bernards stated that people in the neighborhood must have found out what uses were allowed in the C1 zoning district at the previous meeting. He stated that he did not feel it was fair to change the rules regarding the C1 uses while the rezoning application was proposed. He recommended sticking with the C1 zoning district as is and not to change the ordinance. He also pointed out that industrial property is fairly close to residential and commercial property in Brooklyn Center. He stated that he felt the self-storage use belonged in the industrial park. Commissioner Malecki acknowledged that self-storage would be a low traffic generator, but stated that the City has to consider other C1 parcels in the City. She stated that self-storage would be a departure from the general uses allowed in the C1 zone. She also noted that the industrial park in Brooklyn Center is not that far from residential and commercial areas and can be seen from the freeway. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 89011 (Public Storage) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 89011, on the grounds that the use proposed is not similar in nature to other C 1 uses and would undermine the integrity of the C 1 zoning district. Voting in favor: Chairman Nelson, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards, Ainas, Sander and Mann. Voting against: Commissioner Johnson. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) Group Home Studies The Secretary referred the Commission's attention to two studies regarding group homes. The first was a market value study done by Peter Patchin, which concluded that there is no measurable impact of group homes on residential property values. The second study, he noted, was done by Donn Wiski of Resolution, Inc. and the first three chapters were available for the Commission's review. He stated that no 3-30-89 -4- Planning Commission action was needed tonight, but the staff will answer questions if the Commission has any. Chairman Nelson asked about the time line on the options available to the City. The Secretary explained that the moratorium on group homes would stay in effect through April, 1989. He stated that originally the City wanted - a recommendation from the Planning Commission by the end of March, but that that would be impossible because the studies are not complete. He stated that the City could extend the moratorium for an additional period of time, or it could let it lapse and deal with the Kelly House as proposed. b) PUD Ordinance The Secretary then referred the Commission to the draft PUD Ordinance from the City Attorney. He stated that, again, the City was not looking for a recommendation this evening. He stated that staff have looked at the draft ordinance and are still reviewing it. He pointed out that a PUD Ordinance can be used effectively in redevelopment situations and, in some cases, new development. The Secretary explained that the process of designating an area for a Planned Unit Development is similar to the rezoning process. He added that PUD districts can accommodate mixed uses of residential and commercial. He stated that a PUD Ordinance would basically give the City some flexibility to grant variances implicit in a proposed development plan. The Secretary then updated the Planning Commission on the rezoning of land south of Freeway Boulevard. He stated that the City Attorney has advised that the ordinance 1 language regarding retail sales in single tenant buildings would be problemsome. He stated that staff have concluded that they should take out any reference to retailing other than retailing as an accessory use to a wholesale, manufacturing or processing use in the I-1 zone. He stated that the new PUD district could allow the City to approve a retail development in the I-1 zone without necessarily opening the entire I-1 zone to retail sales. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:00 p.m. irman 3-30-89 -5- E I E