Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 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, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:36 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas and Richard Hager. Also present were 'Director of Planning and .Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary noted that Commissioners Simmons and Sandstrom had .called to say that they would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and asked to be excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 28, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to approve the minutes of the January 28, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commis- sioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Hager. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 82008 (Bergstrom Realty) Following the C�irmaT explanation, tie Secretary introduced the first item of business, a-request to rezone a 7.5 acre tract of land lying east of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center from C2 to R3. He reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82008 attached) . * Commissioner Malecki asked whether the 1977 rezoning request was approved pending submittal of a screening and buffering plan between the shopping center and single family residences on the subject property. The Secretary answered that the Planning Commission had recommended amendment of the old Comprehensive Plan and approval of the rezoning to Rl. The application was referred to the City Council, he said, which did not take final action on the application, but waited for a screening plan which was never submitted. Commis- sioner Malecki asked whether it was standard procedure to attach conditions to a rezoning. The Secretary answered that, in the case of the Madsen property rezoning in 1919 , the land to be rezoned had no formal legal description and needed to be replatted into identi- fiable land parcels before the property in question could be listed in the Zoning Ordinance as R3. He stated that since this had not been done, the rezoning has not really taken effect. Commissioner Manson asked whether platting was always necessary with a rezoning and whose responsibility it was: the owner' s or the City' s. The Secretary stated that platting is not always necessary with a re- zoning of land, only when the land to be rezoned has no platted legal description. He stated that platting must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits and that it is the owner's responsibility to complete this process if he wishes to develop the property. 2-11-82 "' -1- t Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Jim Merila, of Merila and Associates, representing Bergstrom Realty, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that a meeting had been held with the neighbors- to the east of the property in question on February 2. He stated that the general consensus at the meeting was apprehension over a possible rental or sub- sidized housing project on the property. He stated that the assurance that the owner can give that the property will not be developed for rental subsidized housing is that the rezoning be made subject to a replatting of the property into a planned unit development townhouse project. Mr. Merila then showed some slides of the land in question and of the surrounding land uses. He also showed a conceptual plan of the area and pointed out that a pond would be constructed to lower the water table in the area. He ex- plained that the pond would drain to a storm sewer in 67th Avenue Forth. Mr. Merila then showed some slides of similar townhouses and reviewed other owner-occupied townhouse developments in Brooklyn Center. He stated that he felt a townhouse development would be a good transitional use between the shopping center and the single family homes to the east. He stated that there is no intent that the project be a subsidized housing development and added that, with the budget cuts at the federal level, there is almost no money for subsidized housing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Dale Stelzer of 6837 Emerson Avenue North asked some questions re- garding the conceptual plan for the townhouse development. He asked how high the berms would be along the east side of the devel- opment and whether water would flow over or between the berms to a storm drain running behind the homes facing Emerson Avenue North. The Secretary stated that building permits would not be issued until the site and building plans for the project had been approved, and that buffer and screening is required between Rl and R3 developments. He explained that berming is not required between the two uses, but that it can be used as a fulfillment of the screening requirement,. He also pointed out that a drainage and utility plan is required as part of the site and building plan approval and that this drainage plan must not adversely impact on surrounding property. Mr. Stelzer stated that he did not want six feet of water in his basement, which could happen if all of the water from property to the west drained toward the single family homes facing Emerson, which are at a lower elevation. He also stated that the proposal for 64 townhouse units is almost like putting up an apartment building, as far as resi- dential density is concerned. The Secretary stated that buildings with common entrances are not permitted in the R3 zone. Mr. Stelzer asked whether there was any way that the proposed development could turn into a low income rental project. The Secretary answered that the Zoning Ordinance does not control ownership, but rather things, - such as height, bulk, density, setback and buffer requirements . Mr. Stelzer asked whether townhouses were more beneficial than single family homes from a tax base standpoint. The Secretary answered that there would be more value added to the tax roles with individ- ually-owned townhouse units. He explained that owner-occupied townhouses are appraised on the basis of their market value, whereas rental townhouses are appraised on the basis of their income po- tential. Mr. Merila stated that it was the applicant's intent to take care of the drainage from the subject property by using an existing catch basin and storm sewer on the east side of the site and with a couple of additional storm sewer lines connecting the 2-11-82 -2- proposed holding pond to storm sewer in 67th. Mr. Duane Bass of 6807 Emerson Avenue North asked whether the pro- ject would be built all at once or over a period of years. Mr. Merila answered that it would probably be built over a couple of years time and that the first thing to be secured would be financing. Mr. Bass asked where building would commence . Mr. Merila stated he was not sure, that_ it would depend on which units were sold first. He added, however, that the grading and drainage would be completed at one time, before the building of any townhouses. In answer to a question from Mr. Bass regarding berming, the Secretary stated that berms are not required, but may be used to fulfill the screen- ing requirements between R3 and Rl uses . He stated that a per- formance agreement would be required to ensure the completion of approved site improvements. Mr. Tim Boyle of 6813 Emerson Avenue North stated that he favored a single family development on the property in question. He cited the policy in the Comprehensive Plan that the Northeast Neighborhood be predominantly single family residential in character as grounds for rejecting the rezoning request. He also stated that the con- ceptual plan has three dead end streets, which he felt would be hazardous. The Secretary explained that those streets would be private and not publicly owned and that maintenance of the private streets would be by the townhouse association. Mr. Boyle noted that the land on which the townhouses would be built is approxi- mately four feet higher than the land on which his house sits. He stated that two story townhouses would look over into his house. Chairman Lucht pointed out that single family homes could be built in the same way and could have the same effect. Mr. Alvin Frederick 6825 Emerson Avenue North stated that the drain tile which Mr. Bergstrom put in some years has not done much good. He stated that water still drains into the back yards and basements of homes facing Emerson Avenue North. Chairman Lucht stated that the City is certainly aware of the drainage problem in that area and that it would be considered in the review of any proposed development. Mrs. Judy Stelzer of 6837 Emerson Avenue North asked whether the Brooklyn Center School District is really looking at the townhouse proposal. She asked whether 64 townhouses would be better than 22 single family residences; as far as the school district is concerned. She also asked whether the Planning Commission and staff consider the effect on school districts when land is zoned. The Secretary stated that school district concerns are not always primary in evaluating rezonings. He stated that zoning takes into account the characteristics of the land in question and does not require that a development consist of units with so many bedrooms, etc. He stated that there were no City regulations requiring more than one bedroom in a townhouse or in a single family dwelling, for that matter. He guessed that the basic unit would be a two bedroom unit with the option of having a third bedroom, however. Regarding the school district, the Secretary stated that townhouses tend to attract both young families and those families which no longer have children. He cited the example of the Creek Villas townhouse project, in which census information indicated that one block of 20 townhouse units had a population of 35 people, or 1.75 persons per household. He stated that the Brooklyn Center School District needs more students, not -so much an increase in property valuation. 2-11-82 -3- . Mrs. Stelzer asked whether Mr. Bergstrom could put up whatever he wants, be it rental or owner-occupied, once the property is rezoned. The Secretary answered that as long as the structures were permitted under the zoning ordinance restrictions, a rental or owner-occupied development could be constructed. Mrs. Arlene Frederick of 6825 Emerson Avenue North noted that the new Comprehensive Plan recommends Rl zoning for the property in question. She asked when that plan was adopted. The Secretary ex- . plained that the plan has not been formally adopted, but will be in the very near future. Mrs. Frederick asked whether zoning the property R3 would constitute "spot zoning" since there is no other R3 land adjacent to the property. The Secretary stated that zoning of a single parcel to a classification different from surrounding properties would not necessarily constitute "spot zoning" if the zoning met with general planning principles and was called for by the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Frederick stated that she favored the Rl recommendation of the new Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Assistant, noting the general concern over drainage expressed by those present, stated that an R3 development generally receives more scrutiny from the standpoint of drainage than an Rl development and that it would be easier to require and obtain certain drainage improvements as part of a townhouse project. The Secretary also noted that the cost of correcting the existing drainage problem could be met more feasibly by spreading it over a larger number of units than would be the case with a single family development. Mrs. Frederick stated that she considered 64 units to be too high a density. Mr. Gerald Peterson of 6843 Emerson Avenue North speculated that the applicant could get the property rezoned and then change the con- ceptual plan if the proposed conceptual plan does not sell. He asked whether that could be controlled. The Secretary stated that zoning could not control ownership, only bulk, density, height, setback, etc. He stated that there was no guarantee that the land would not be developed for rental housing. The Chairman pointed out that an owner-occupied development is probably more likely be- cause of the cost of correcting the drainage problem and would be easier to pass on with more expensive units. Two of the residents living to the east of the parcel in question stated they would prefer that the property either remain C2 or be rezoned to Rl or Park, rather than R3. Mr. Merila made a few comments regarding the high water table. He stated that if the property were developed for single family homes, FHA and VA financing agencies would require that basement elevations be three feet above the water table. He pointed out that, with the, high water table, fill would have to be brought in to meet this re- quirement. This process would make the lots more expensive, he said, and would place the houses even higher above the single family homes to' the east. Mr. Merila -also pointed out that townhouse developments do appeal to families whose children have left home (empty-nesters) , but many of these older couples come from existing single-family homes within Brooklyn Center. As these older families move out, he said, younger families move into the vacated houses. In this way, he explained, the building of townhouses leads indirectly to more children within the school district. Regarding the option to change the entire development after approval of the rezoning, Mr. Merila acknowledged that -this was a possibility, but stated that after a plat is approved and filed as a condition of the rezoning, 2-11-82 -4- development must conform to the plat. CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hager to continue the public hearing on Application No. 82008, submitted by Bergstrom Realty until a later meeting after review by the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki; Manson, Ainas and Hager. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Chairman Lucht asked if the applicant had considered a different mix of housing on the site, perhaps including single family resi- dences. Mr. Merila answered that putting single family homes along the east side of the property with access to a public street, would crowd the townhouses and the ponding area to the west and perhaps result in a lower quality development. Chairman Lucht stated that there was obviously a concern over the density of the project and that a plan with fewer units should be considered. Commissioner Hager noted that R1 zoning would result in 22 units, that R3 could result in 64 units. He asked whether an R2 zoning would allow for enough units to break even on the development of the property. The Secretary and the Planning Assistant reviewed briefly the R2 re- quirements for lot sizes and explained that, in the R2 zone, there is no such thing as a zero lot line split ownership. TABLE APPLICATION NO. 82008 (Bergstrom Realty) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to table Application No. 82008 and refer it to the Northeast Neighbor- hood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chair- man Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Hager. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Mr. Tim Boyle asked why the application was referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group and not directly to the City Council. Chairman Lucht explained that the procedure is a standard one in rezoning applications and it is designed to obtain as much comment from nearby property owners as possible. The Secretary explained that there are certain time constraints placed on the City in processing a rezoning application which require that the application receive a hearing and be decided upon within a limited period of time. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9 :16 p.m. and resumed at 9 :42 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEM Amusement Centers and Devices The Secretary next reviewed with the Planning Commission some pro- posed revisions to the draft ordinance dealing with amusement de- vices and amusement centers submitted at the January 28, 1982 Plan- ning Commission meeting. He reviewed a proposed restriction on the location of machines in the proposed Section 23-2109 and the defini- tion of an amusement center in the proposed Section 23-2102 A. He also reviewed various minor word changes throughout the ordinance. The Secretary explained that he tried to make the changes to allow machines as a secondary use in certain types of establishments which do abut residential property, but to prohibit "amusement centers" from abutting residential property. The Planning Assistant asked whether, under the proposed language, a ShowBiz Pizza Restaurant could be allowed to abut residential property. The Secretary answered that the Planning Commission and City Council would have- to determine 2-11-82 -5- whether a use such as ShowBiz Pizza were primarily a restaurant or, ,in fact, ,an amusement center. Commissioner Manson asked what the effect of the changes would be on Holiday Inn. The Secretary answered that the machines at the Holiday Inn would have to be licensed, but that the establishment itself would not be considered as an amusement center and, there- fore, could abut residential property. The Secretary asked for other reaction from the Planning Commission. Chairman Lucht asked whether machines in churches would be regulated. The Secretary answered that he had not considered this possibility, but that machines in churches could be listed under "certain machines not licensed Commissioner Ainas suggested that possibly a barber would want to have an amusement device in the waiting area of his shop. There followed a brief discussion regarding the possibility of allowing amusement devices in employee lounges, lunch rooms, and customer waiting areas. The Secretary noted that he did not feel machines in employee lounges or lunch rooms would be subject to the licensing requirements provided they were used only by employees and not the general public. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Lucht checked briefly with the Planning Commission members as to whether they had contacted Neighborhood Advisory Group members to see if they still wanted to serve on these bodies . Planning Commission members - stated that their poll of advisory group members was not complete and Chairman Lucht carried the matter over to the following meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10 :30 p.m. Chairman I . E r f • 2-11-82 . -6-