Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 04-29 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTx OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION - APRIL 29, 1982 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The P anna.ng Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:40 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Lowell Ainas and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Assistant City Engineer James Grube, and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht explained that Commissioners Sandstrom and Simmons had called earlier to say they would be unable to attend the evening's meeting and were, therefore, excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - April 15, 1982 Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the April 15, 1982 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commis- sioners Malecki, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed LYNBROOK BOWL LANDSCAPE PLAN e Secretary noted that the applicant for the Hussman Investment rezoning (Application No. 82020) was not present and recommended taking up review of the Lynbrook Bowl landscape plan. He explained that Mr. Steve Nelson, owner of Lynbrook Bowl, wished to delete trees in the parking lot islands from the approved landscape plan. Instead, he would concrete over those islands. The Secretary stated that the extent of this revision in the landscape plan required review by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Manson arrived at 7:43 p.m. Chairman Lucht called on Mr. Nelson to explain his proposed revisions. Mr. Nelson explained that irrigation had been planned in the perimeter, but not in the parking lot islands nor on the east and north sides of the building. He recommended removing the trees from the parking lot islands, since they would not be regularly watered. Commissioner Manson expressed concern over the sea of blacktop that would remain without any parking lot landscaping. Mr. Nelson stated that the - ; r large blacktop area would be visible only from within the lot, not from outside. He stated that the City's concern should be the outer perimeter of the property and not the inner lot. He also explained that he would be upgrading the landscaping on the east side of the building. The Secretary explained that underground irrigation is required in all landscaped areas and that Ms. Nelson's assumption that the east and north sides of the building could be exempted from irrigation was erroneous,. The Secretary;,noted, however, that Mr. Nelson was not required to irrigate the .islands There followed a. discussion of the underground_irrigation 'requirement. Mr. Nelson stated that 4-29-82 -1- he mainly wanted to eliminate landscaping from the parking lot islands. He stated that the islands will not be watered regularly and any trees planted on 'those islands will very possibly die out. He also stated that snowplowing would create problems for the islands by dumping salt and debris on the trees. He stated that there would be eleven to twelve trees removed. The Secretary stated that it was up to the Planning Commission to recommend a . course of action for the 'staff to follow up on. Commissioner Ainas stated that ash trees would have trouble sur- viving without regular maintenance, but that smaller trees probably could survive. Commissioner Versteeg stated that it would be useless to plant trees that would not be maintained and, therefore, not survive. Commissioner Manson stated that she liked to seethe trees, but that they must. be viable. She stated that she was not opposed to a change in the landscape plan. Commissioner Versteeg. asked what size the trees would be and whether they would be a traffic hazard. The Secretary stated that 2h" to 3" diameter shade trees were proposed in the original plan for the parking lot islands. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the perimeter landscaping would block out the parking lot from passing motorists. The Secretary answered that there would be berms in addition to the landscaping. The Assistant City Engineer explained that the berms would have to be 4 feet in height or more to block out the parking lot from the view of passing motorists. Chairman Lucht suggested Russian Olives in the parking lot islands- for best survival. He stated that the trees would be protected by the islands from the snowplows. Mr. Nelson stated that his primary concern was the salt from the parking lot being thrown up on the trees. Chairman Lucht stated that Russian Olives are a very hardy tree which survive in a number of difficult locations, including parking lots. Commissioner Malecki stated that 3 she liked to see trees in large parking lots. Commissioner Ainas agreed that Russian Olives would be a good choice. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether it had been the practice of the City to require landscaping in parking lot islands. Chairman Lucht stated that the City did prefer to see landscaped islands in large parking lots. Chairman Lucht stated that it seemed to be the con- sensus of the Planning Commission that Russian Olives could be sub- stituted for Summit Ash in the parking lot islands and that Mr. Nelson stated that he would use Russian Olive trees if they were not more expensive. MOTION CONCERNING LYNBROOK BOWL LANDSCAPE PLAN Motion .by Commissioner Malecki seconded y Commissioner Manson to approve use of either Russian Olives or Summit Ash in the parking lot islands at the Lynbrook Bowl in fulfillment of the landscape plan approved under Application No. 81032 . Voting in favor: Chair- man Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 82020 (Hussman Investment Com 'an ) The Secretary introduced the next item of usiness, .a request to rezone from Rl to R3 the vacant lots at .811 and 821-73rd Avenue North, and a small .parcel to remain after realignment of 69th'Avenue North to connect with 70th Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 82020 attached) . The Secretary then reviewed with the Planning Commission a petition opposing the 4-29-82 -2- rezoning submitted by abutting landowners and a submittal arguing against the rezoning from Mrs. Melba Evanson (attached) . Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. James Merila, representing Hussman Investment Company, commended the thorough job done by Mrs. Evanson in stating her objections to the. rezoning. He showed the Planning Commission a colored rendering of a proposed townhouse development: Concept A which calls for four two-unit townhouse buildings and Concept B which calls for two four-unit townhouse buildings. He also showed building eleva- tions for the perspective townhouse structures. Chairman Lucht asked whether the two-unit townhouses would be similar to those on Logan and 58th. Mr. Merila answered that they would be similar but that they would be dressed up more on the exterior. Mr. Merila stated that the R3 zoning is contained in the proposed Comprehensive Plan which was approved by the Metropolitan Council on December 17, 1981. He showed a potential future project with twelve additional townhouses on the land to the south. Mr. Merila argued -that the rezoning would allow for more single-family attached homes -in the community and would contribute considerably to the tax base. Re- garding traffic impact, Mr. Merila stated that having five more residential units than would be allowed by Rl zoning would not affect the traffic along 70th noticeably since .the traffic count for that roadway is projected to exceed 3,500 cars per day. ' Re asked for favorable action on the rezoning and stated that he felt there was merit in the request. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Madeleine Roche of 816-69th Avenue North reminded the Commission of the Comprehensive Plan which was in effect when the current residents in the area bought their homes. She asked whether those residents have a voice in planning the land use of that area. She stated that she did not feel additional tax base was a relevant issue, but rather the impact of a proposed development on surround- ing land uses. She stated that R3 development would contribute to the "cement city" that pervails in so much of the northeast neigh- borhood (the concentration of high intensity land uses with parking lots) . She stated that there was a limited amount of single-family development between the apartments �Lnd the City Maintenance Annex and that this should be bolstered rather than threatened by more high intensity land use. As for the contention that the area is troubled by high water level, she stated that the residents that live in the area have no water problems in their basements and that the property should be suitable for single-family dwellings. She_ stated that the land in question has been bought and sold in the past with the R1 zoning and that the current owner has merely speculated that he can appreciate the value of his property by rezoning it to R3. Mr. Paul Rosso of 7 Ortman Street, Minneapolis (brother of Mrs. Melba Evanson of 800-69th Avenue North). stated that a petition of 100% of the homeowners adjacent to the proposed project had been submitted objecting to the rezoning. He stated that no traffic signals are planned for the 70th Avenue North intersection with Highway 252 and that the proposed Comprehensive Plan nowhere recommends rezoning of the land in question to R3. Mr. Joseph Roche of 816-69th Avenue North stated that the neighbors` 4-29-82 -3- in the area want to retain the Rl zoning. He stated that a` businessman who owns the land wants to change the zoning to the detriment of the neighborhood. He .stated it was simply a case of an owner speculating for his own gain and that there is no just - fication in planning principles :for the rezoning. Mrs. Melba Evanson of 800-69th Avenue North stated that she agreed with all the other opponents to the re-zoning. She stated that she felt Mr. Merila was going beyond his duties in seeking the rezoning.' She stated that the property owners in the area never asked for re- zoning of their land. She stated .the road alignment has not been approved and should not be assumed in evaluating the best use of the land. She asked the Planning Commission to consider the interest of the property owners. Mr. Bob Lane, son of Mrs. HO W. Lane of 824-69th Avenue North, stated that his mother prefers the R1 zoning and asked the Commis- sion to deny the rezoning request. Chairman Lucht explained to those present that it was the policy of the Planning Commission to refer rezoning applications to the appropriate Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. He stated that the Planning Commission did not wish to rebut the state- ments made by those who opposed the rezoning, but simply to gather input at this point in the process. Mr. Joseph Roche asked whether , the property owners would be notified of the Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting. Chairman Lucht responded in the affirmative and added that the neighbors would be notified of subsequent review of the application at the Planning Commission and City Council levels. Mr. Bob Lane asked whether the development concepts have been reviewed for ordinance compliance. The Secretary answered that they have not, that the proposed layouts are only concepts. He explained that site and building plans must come before the Planning Commission and City Council to review compliance with City Ordinances prior to the issu- ance of any building permits. Mr. Paul Rosso stated that the Secretary was proceeding as though the road realignment had already been approved. He stated that it was not approved and that it would not be approved. He stated that he had talked with engineers at the Golden Valley office of the Minnesota Department of Transportation and they do not think that the proposed connection is a good one. He also stated that it was inconsistent for the City to do away with curves at Palmer Lake and to install more curves adjacent to West River Road. He stated that the road realignment would not come about and that the whole re- zoning request was based on speculation and fraud. The Secretary informed the Planning Commission that the City Council has, in fact, approved the link between- 69th and 70th Avenues North. He acknowledged that there was no road yet built, but that the con- cept has .been approved and that the City Engineer has been directed to prepare plans for the project. The Assistant City Engineer stated that the project had been approved under Resolution No. 82-47, which vas passed by the City Council on March 22, 1982, copies of which are available at the City offices during normal business hours. Mr. Rosso stated that the City Council had been misinformed. And Mrs. Evanson asked the Planning Commission who they were going to believe. +!i-=:29-82 -4 ' Chairman Lucht explained to those present that the applicant has the right to pursue the rezoning of his property regardless of whether neighboring properties were opposed or not MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NO.' 8202'0 (Hus'sman Investment 'Company) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Versteeg to table Application No. 82020, to continue the public hearing for the application, and to refer the rezoning request to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS Tie Planning Commission recessed at 9 :17 p.m. and resumed at 9:37 p.m. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Windmills T e Secretary briefly introduced the first discussion topic on the evening's agenda following the recess. The Secretary stated that staff presently requires a building permit to be taken before erecting a radio tower and would follow the same policy regarding windmills. He explained that persons who wish to erect a wind generator must obtain approval from NSP first and buy a meter that runs backwards as electricity is fed into the power system. He stated that wind generators are fairly expensive and that they are not presently an issue in the community. He explained that the topic had been brought to the Commission for discussion to explore whether there is a need for regulation and control if more windmills are erected. He added that at present there is no height restriction, other than the re- striction on accessory structures of 15 feet, which has not been applied to radio towers or wind generators. He stated that the matter has been regulated under the building code and not the zoning code at this point. Chairman Lucht asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the matter. Mr. Jay Jacobson, a member of the Conservation Commission, explained that he had prepared the sample ordinance submitted to the Planning Commission. He explained that he worked for Enertech, a firm which builds windmills among other energy-saving devices. Mr. Jacobson stated that restricting the height of the wind generator restricts the amount of electricity which can be obtained. He recom- mended that no height restriction be imposed. Mr. Jacobson explained that NSP has to buy electricity from anyone who erects a wind generator provided a special meter is purchased to record the electricity gener- ated by the windmill. The Secretary added that NSP approves only certain windmills. Mr. Jacobson explained that a small windmill will cost $12,000.00 and that as windmills get taller their cost increases rapidly. He stated that Edina does not want towers to fall into a neighbor's yard and that, therefore, towers are limited to half the width of a residential lot. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commission may also have a concern regarding protection of others. He stated that the right of people to generate electricity from the wind was limited by rights that other people possess. Mr. -Jacobson stated that only one privately built windmill has fallen down, but that six government built windmills have fallen down. The Secretary asked Mr. Jacobson whether he recommended a height 4-29-82 -5- `__limitation. Mr. Jacobson stated that economics would limit the height of windmills, ,since they become increasingly expensive as -they. get higher. He stated that liability insurance should take care of the potential for property damage to others or personal injury. The Secretary explained that 110 ` is roughly the height of the . . Shingle Creek Towers Apartments to the south of City Hall. He stated there may be concern regarding aesthetics if everyone had a windmill of such a height or even if a number df people had them. He stated that windmills on farms pose no liability problems, but that, in a dense residential area, certain restrictions may be necessary. He suggested that perhaps neighborhoods should pool resources and buy one large windmill to feed into the power system as opposed to every- one having their own. He stated that the staff has considered en- couraging commercial and industrial uses to have windmills, but to discourage them in single-family neighborhoods. Mr. Jacobson explained that wind power is most efficient at a height above any surrounding obstruction, since the winds will blow more constantly where no other objects interfere. He explained the effect of "wind shadows which are caused by objects within 300 yards of the windmill site. He stated that although windmills are very ex- pensive, he expected electricity prices to rise from the current three to four cents per kilowatt-hour to twenty-five to thirty cents per kilowatt-hour in ten years. He explained that if windmills cannot reach an efficient height in Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Center may become 'a non=competitive place to live in because the cost of electricity will be so high. The Secretary stated that such an effect is a result of a number of City regulations. He explained that while regulations must not be overly excessive, they must still protect the interest of the community. He stated that zoning must balance the benefits from new investment with the impacts on the value of existing property investments. He again explained that accessory structures are limited to 15 ft. in height, but that radio and TV reception towers and antennae have been exempted from this limitation. The Planning Assistant asked Mr. -Jacobson whether he expected the City to adopt regulations regarding wind shadows to keep unscrupulous windmill salesmen from placing windmills in locations where they will be ineffective. Mr. Jacobson stated that he did not think such regulations would be necessary, that the industry would basically regulate itself. He stated that while the technology does not presently exist, it may be that in the future someone will invent a windmill that can work in spite of the turbulence created by wind shadows: In response to a question from Commissioner Manson, Mr. Jacobson described various types of windmills being used today. In general, he explained, too much prop area can increase the danger that a windmill will be blown down. The Secretary asked what would be the typical height of a windmill sold in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Jacobson stated that he would not personally sell a windmill that was less than 80 ft. high in Brooklyn Center. He explained that this was because of the number of trees and other obstructions in the city, that in other communities in flatter, less developed areas, shorter windmills would probably work. The Secretary commented that certain height restrictions exist around the Crystal Airport because of the F.A.A. regulations. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether the windmills would be 'free- 4-2 9-82 -6- standing or whether they would require guywires for support. Mr. Jacobson stated that in most cases there would be no place to put guywires. Commissioner Versteeg related the windmills to the TV towers in Los Angeles that are so dense they are ugly. The Secre- tary asked for comments from the Planning Commission regarding what should happen if windmills become popular. Commissioner Ainas suggested that perhaps there should be a minimum separation requirement between windmills. Mr. Jacobson stated that wind rights would not have to function like solar rights. He stated that placing a windmill close to another one would not likely affect the performance of another windmill. Therefore, he con- cluded, aesthetics would be the only basis for a separation re- quirement. He stated that he did not agree with such a rational for limiting windmills. Commissioner Versteeg asked whether tall windmills could create interference with TV and radio reception. Mr. Jacobson answered that windmills with metal blades can sometimes cause problems. The Secretary asked whether windmills could cause a noise problem. Mr. Jacobson stated that most units cannot be heard from the ground. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not feel many windmills would be built. Mr. Jacobson agreed that at present windmills are not cost effective and may not be for some years. Chairman Lucht questioned whether an ordinance was really necessary to deal with something that was not- yet a problem. The Secretary stated that there was need to settle- on,-a position to take with people wanting to erect towers over 15 ft. He explained that if the 15 ft. limit should be en- forced, then variances should be required to build anything taller. He also stated that radio towers would have to be treated the same as windmills. He stated that structures such as radio towers have not been regulated as to height in the past. Chairman Lucht stated that he had no problem with the current policy and he did not want to address a problem that didn't really- exist. The Planning Assistant asked whether a windmill could be built by a private resident in a commercial area and have the electricity run to a commercial building and then bill the commercial user for the energy savings. Mr. Jacobson stated that there are ways to arrange for this. He stated that in ten to fifteen years, photo- voltaics will be the best over-producers among the renewable energy resources. A discussion ensued regarding the regulatory approach to windmills. Chairman Lucht argued that the problem does not yet require an ordinance; that an ordinance could become obsolete by the time windmills became popular; and that the present policy is adequate for the current situation. Commissioner Versteeg asked who is responsible if a tower falls onto a neighboring property and a personal injury occurs. The Secretary answered that the contractor would be primarily responsible. He added, however, that the City would very possibly be drawn into a lawsuit, whatever the form of the City's regulations. Mr. Jacobson added that contractors have to have a considerable amount of insurance to sell wind energy conversion systems. b. Setback Deduction The Secretary en introduced the second discussion item for the evening's meeting, the requirement in the Zoning Ordinance to deduct 4-29-82 -7- from the land area used to calculate multiple residential density, the land within setback areas abutting public right-of-way. The Planning Assistant briefly reviewed practical and theoretical problems raised by the ordinance. He showed the Planning Commission on a City map some of the lots that are -most affected by the set- back deduction, particularly corner lots on major thoroughfares which have a large proportion of their land area deducted before density can be calculated. He stated that the reason for adopting the ordinance approximately eight years ago was probably to slow down or halt apartment development in the city. He stated that a more equitable approach, given this policy objective, would have been to rezone the parcels of land to some other use. He added that the ordinance affects different parcels of land differently, that corner lots are especially hard hit, but narrow deep lots are less affected. He noted that the overall reduction in buildable land area was between 20% and 30% , and on some parcels probably much higher. He pointed out that almost all existing apartment development in the city was built under the original density formulas prior to the imposition of the setback deduction. Therefore, he concluded, existing multi-family complexes are nonconforming as to density and would only return to conforming status with no additional land left for new construction. He recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council an ordinance change striking the setback deduction from the Zoning Ordinance because of its adverse and inequitable impact on existing multi-family zoned property. He pointed out that occasionally land which is zoned R5 can support more R3 type units than R4 type units because the R3 zoning classification does not require the setback deduction. Commissioner Ainas stated that he favored striking the ordinance. Chairman Lucht stated that he was unaware of the setback deduction because there had been so few multi-family projects brought to the City during his time on the Planning Commission. He also stated that he saw no reason for keeping the setback deduction in the ordi- nance. By consensus it was agreed that the staff should prepare more quantitative information regarding the impact of the setback deduction on existing multi-family zoned parcels and a proposed ordinance- amend- ment to delete the setback deduction from the Zoning Ordinance before the next Planning Commission meeting. In response to a question from Commissioner Malecki, the Secretary briefly informed the Planning Commission that he had distributed,a two-part article regarding conflict of interest for the Planning Commission's review. He stated that Planning Commissioners should be aware of instances in which their participation in a zoning de- cision could give the appearance of a conflict of interest. He stated that he had no instances in mind, but that the Planning Commission members should be aware of potential conflicts and should know when to abstain from a vote or discussion of a matter. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Versteeg seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11:23 p.m. 4-29-82 -8 Chairman