Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 02-17 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 17, 1983 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The P anni g Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32' p.m. ROLL. CALL Chair man George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom and Donald Versteeg. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Assistant C'ity .Engineer James Grube and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - January 27, 1983 Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the January 27 , 1983 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: - Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas and Versteeg. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Simmons and Sandstrom. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83001 (Howe, Inc.) Following the Chairman's exp anation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, an appeal from a determination by staff that acquisition of a right-of-way parcel at the southwest corner of 49th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard would constitute an expansion of a nonconforming use. This item had been tabled by the Planning Com- mission on January 13, 1983. The Secretary briefly reviewed the contents of the staff report and also reviewed a letter from the City Attorney which outlined conditions for accepting the acquisition of the right-of-way parcel without it constituting an expansion of anon conforming use (see Planning Commission Information Sheet and. a letter . from the City Attorney dated February 10 1983 attached) . The Secretary also explained that the parking to be provided on the acquired parcel would reduce the variance from the parking require- ment granted under Application No. 79069. He explained that that variance allowed only employee parking to the west of the middle building because the parking is in an area designated as buffer strip under the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary stated that the area would still be used for access purposes though the applicant may choose not to use it for parking in the future. Commissioner Simmons asked if the parking to the west of the middle building were converted to buffer area, would the new parking offset this loss and the variance, therefore, have to be adjusted. The Secre- tary answered that the variance was from the overall parking re- quirement based on square footage of the respective buildings. He explained that the employee parking on the west side of the middle building is not used very much by employees at this time. He stated that any conversion of the area to buffer space would still keep part of the area paved for access by trucks around that side of the complex. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether Howe Fertilizer would have enough parking for themselves. The Secretary answered in the affirmative. He stated that, to his knowledge, there hasn't been 2-17-83 -1- a parking problem at Howe, Inc. ' Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Tom Howe stated that the points made in the City. Attorney's letter were - agreeable to Howe, Inc. Chairman Lucht stated that lie felt the stipulation agreement covered the concerns of. the Planning Commission. Tom Howe stated that .he felt the legal questions regarding the ex- pansion were dealt with by the agreement The Secretary asked whether the Planning Commission had any problems with the findings _which the City Attorney's letter required the City to make in order to enter into the legal agreement with Howe, Inc. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not have problems with the - findings. He-stated ,that he felt the profitability of Howe, Inc. is not affected by the acquisition of the right-of-way parcel. ACTION RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE STIPULATION AGREEMENT AND FORWARDING THE APPLICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Ma ecki to recommend acceptance .of a stipulation agreement along the lines suggested by the City Attorney's letter of February 10, 1983 and to forward Application No. 83001 to the City Council without further recommendation. -Voting in favor; Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 83006_ (Car-X Muffler Shop) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business,' a request by Car-X Muffler Shop for site and building plan and special use permit approval to construct a conveyor-type car wash on the south side of the parcel of land at 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard. He reviewed the con- tents of the staff report (See Planning Commission Infrmation_.Sheet for Application No 83006 attached) . The Secretary also stated that the Engineering Department has .received traffic counts from the Minnesota Department of Transportation indicating raw traffic counts in excess of 36,000 vehicles per day on the section of Brooklyn Boulevard between I-94 and 69th Avenue North. He added that this level of traffic was recorded prior to the opening of the freeway to Minneapolis and that traffic on that section of the ,boulevard has increased noticeably since - that time. Commissioner Malecki asked whether there was any plan to have a median on this area of Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary answered that the idea of a median in this section of Brooklyn Boulevard had been dis- cussed for some time, but that no specific plan exists to install a median. He added that the State intended to turn Brooklyn Boulevard over to the County and would probably not make such improvements before it dial so. Regarding the operation of the proposed car wash, Commissioner Simmons asked whether the employee would collect the money. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Simmons stated that she did not feel that stacking vehicles two wide in a 17' driving lane was realistic. In response to a question from Commissioner Versteeg, the Secretary explained that there is no explicit standard for parking or stacking for car washes He stated that a survey of other Hennepin County Municipalities indicated that a half-hour of stacking time is generally sought;by a number of communities. Commissioner Versteeg 2-17-83 -2- r _ asked whether car washes come to the 'Car Wash Association for approval before coming to the Planning Commission. The Secretary stated that he did not think so and that whatever the Association preferred, with respect to a particular car wash, should not necessarily affect the judgment of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sandstrom asked how someone would get out of the line, if there were a breakdown. The Secretary answered that the site plan really does not provide space for such an eventuality. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he thought it would only be a single line of stacking, not a double line. Chairman Lucht asked whether a special use per-mit could be revoked if the standards were not met once the business was built. The Secretary stated that that might be a possibility, but that he did not recommend approving a' use which did not appear to meet the standards for a special use permit to begin with. Chairman Lucht asked what would be done with the building if the car wash didn't function. The Secretary answered that it would probably be put to an auto-related use. He stated that staff, in reaching its recommendation, did not make any economic judgments about what would work and what wouldn't. He stated that the staff simply feel that this particular use will not fit on the amount of land available and that it had not been demon- strated by the applicant that the proposal would work without causing traffic congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Lucht then called on the applicant to speak. Mr. Brian Cook, Manager of the Car-X Muffler Shop at 6810 Brooklyn Boulevard pointed out that the narrow drive on the south side of the building (17 ' wide) could be widened by the elimination of the sidewalk adjacent to the building to a width of 18 ' 811 . He stated that he realized the space ' available for the car wash was small. He explained that he had re- viewed with the planning staff other potential uses and those did not seem to work either. He stated that he came across the Hanna Equipment Company, which produces car wash equipment and investigated the possibility of a car wash with the staff. Regarding the stacking problem, Mr. Cook stated that the conveyor inside' the car wash could be speeded up to relieve the problems of stacking should they occur out on Brooklyn Boulevard. He added that there is not room for sale of gasoline or for vacuum cleaners which add to the stacking time. He also stated that he has not seen the car wash himself, but that his father has. � . Commissioner Malecki asked where the employee would be stationed. Mr. Cook responded that the employee would be stationed at the en trance to the car wash on the east side of the building. Chairman Lucht, noting that the equipment can handle up to 150 cars per hour, explained that this would be 2h cars per minute. He pointed out that left turns onto Brooklyn Boulevard in this location often take 2h minutes each. He questioned whether the site would have the ability to get cars off the property quick enough when stacking increased. Commissioner Sandstrom reiterated his question regarding the break- down of the ,equipment. Mr. Bob Childers, of Hanna Equipment Company, explained. that there is no possibility of equipment breakdown unless the hydraulic system were to break down, in which case, the car wash 2-17-83 -3 would be out of business. He stated that the Planning 'Commissi©n was comparing apples with oranges. He stated that the proposed car wash was different from other car washes surveyed in the Metro area, in that it would not offer gas or other services. He explained that, the equipment has the capacity to wash 150 cars per hour, business would not normally be 150 cars - per hour. He stated that this was a peak volume which was experienced for only five to ten minutes out of the year. - He stated that the establishment would place a sign at the exiting point for right turns only. Com- missioner Malecki questioned whether left turns could be prevented. Commissioner Simmons added that requiring right turns would require more employees and that there is not enough land for additional parking for those employees or for the use altogether. Mr. Childers again stated that there might be a peak of 500 to 600 cars on a particular Saturday, but that the year round average would be 150 to 200 cars per day. Chairman Lucht stated that it has been his experience, at the Brookdale Car Wash,,- that the people waiting in line for both gas and a car wash have to wait to get their gas because stacking for the car wash is backed up. Therefore, he concluded, eliminating the gas pumps would not reduce stacking for the car wash. Commis- sioner Versteeg asked whether the car wash would be shut down if cars were not able to get out onto Brooklyn Boulevard and backed up onto the property. Mr. Childers stated that it could be a problem, but that he did not think stacking would be a problem. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Hearing none, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissoner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Chairman Lucht then polled the Commissioners as to their feelings regarding the appli- cation. Commissioner Manson stated that she was concerned about traffic generally in the area and noted the Vickers gas station as a use causing problems. She stated that left turn movements are particularly a problem but did not feel left-.turns could be pre- vented effectively with the proposal. She also stated that she has noticed more traffic along Brooklyn Boulevard in this area, since the opening of I-94 and could not recommend a use that would add to the congestion in this area. Commissioner Versteeg stated that he did not feel the car wash would work because of the left turns out onto Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that the insurance agency at 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard is very 'difficult to get out of to make a left turn and explained that that business only generates a few left turns per day. He _stated that the car wash would be a much worse problem at an even busier location on Brook- lyn Boulevard. Commissioner Sandstrom agreed with these comments and noted the problems of making a left turn onto Brooklyn Boulevard from the Standard Station at 60th and Brooklyn Boulevard. Commis- sioner Ainas also noted the problems of making left turns out of the Big Wheel Auto Parts. Store just north of the Car-X property. He stated that unless no left turns could be guaranteed, he did not feel the car wash could be allowed. Commissioner Simmons stated that there were sure to be customer 2-17-83 -4- problems (eg. people who are not satisfied with their car wash would want to talk to the employee and thus, causing a backup in the stacking) . Commissioner Malecki stated that she felt the site was simply not large enough for the business. Seeing that the Commission would recommend denial, Chairman Lucht asked whether a resolution had been prepared recommending denial. The Secretary recommended that the application be tabled until the March 3 meeting when a resolution would be brought before the Planning Commission to act upon. ACTION TABLING APPLICATION NO. 83006 (Car-X Muffler Shop) Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom second by Commissioner Versteeg to table Application No. 83006 and direct staff to prepare a reso- lution of denial for the March 3, 1983 meeting,. Commissioner Malecki stated that the resolution should state that Standard (d) is not met. Commissioner Simmons stated that it should also be made clear that the space available is too small for the proposed use. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Versteeg. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS Tie Punning Commission recessed at 9:10' p.m. and resumed at 9:29 p.m. The Assistant City Engineer left during the recess. OTHER BUSINESS (Tax Increment Financing I Plan. for Elderly Project) The Secretary then introduced Brad Hoffman to review the tax increment financing plan for the elderly housing project at the southeast quadrant of I-94 and Highway 100. The Secretary explained that State law re- quires that the tax increment financing plan be reviewed by the_P1an- ning Commission. He stated that the Planning Commission should make comments relative to the Comprehensive Plan, but that until the Com- prehensive Plan is amended, a conflict exists. Herecommended looking at the tax increment plan on March 3 along with the other Planning Commission applications. Mr. Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager, ex- plained that a public hearing had been called by the City Council to review the tax increment financing plan at its February 28, 1983 meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission should ask the City Council to reserve judgment on the tax increment financing plan until its review of the tax increment plan and the proposed project is complete. Mr. Hoffman briefly reviewed the boundaries of the tax increment district. He explained that the present taxes on the property were $4,000.00 and that they would be $12,000.00 if the property owned by the State was in private ownership. He stated that the taxes after the project was completed would be $160,000.00 per year. This represents an increase of $148,000.00 per year in taxes which will go to finance the write-down on the land and other expenses. Com- missioner Simmons asked how long it would be before the debt was retired. Mr. Hoffman answered that it could be up to 15 years if a worst case scenario is assumed. He stated that this would be based on repayment of $130,000 .00 per year,_ rather'than $148,000.00 and that there would be no inflation to increase the taxes generated by the property. He stated that realistically the debt should be paid off in 10 to 12 years. He then reviewed the statement of costs on page 12 of the tax increment financing plan. These included: 2-17-83 -5- acquisition, public improvements, legal expenses, engineering and surveying costs, miscellaneous and capitalized interest. He stated that the costs are estimated conservatively and may not amount to the $950,000.00 projected in the tax increment financing plan. Commissioner Simmons 'noted that the objectives of the project include providing housing for persons of low to moderate income. She asked whether people would be screened to determine whether they are, in fact, low to moderate income. Mr. Hoffman answered in the negative. He explained that low to moderate income means 80% of immediate income in the Twin Cities area, which is 80% of approximately $27,000.00 per year, for a family of four. Commissioner Simmons stated that although the objectives state that the project is to provide for low to moderate' income housing, the fact that no screen- ing will take place makes that objective questionable. Mr. Hoffman stated that 20% of the rental units must be set aside for low to moderate income families under the requirements of State law. Chairman Lucht stated that one of the reasons the project is being undertaken'by the City is that the City does not want to have the problems associated with HUD projects. Commissioner Simmons stated that she is concerned that the same thing would happen in Brooklyn Center as has scandalized Minneapolis, where high income persons were getting low income housing financed under a tax increment district. Commissioner Sandstrom agreed. He stated that tax increment financing should be used for lower income people if the rest of the taxpayers are footing the bill. Chairman Lucht stated that the project would be sold on a first-come, first-served basis . Commissioner Sandstrom and Commissioner Simmons both stated that screening would be needed . in order to .ensure that housing is provided for low to moderate income people. Commissioner Sandstrom questioned who 'would benefit from the tax increment financing plan: residents of the project or the developer. Commissioner 'Ainas stated that the tax increment plan g does benefit the developer, but that without the TIF; plan, the land would sit vacant and no one would benefit. Mr. Hoffman also explained that .there are enough title problems surrounding the land that it would be difficult for any private developer to develop the property without any assistance from the City. There followed a discussion primarily between Commissioner Simmons ` and Mr. Hoffman as to how the project would accomplish benefits for the citizens of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Hoffman explained that the main benefit of the project would be that existing housing, occupied by elderly residents, would be bought by first time home 'buyers who would take better care of the property and bring school age children into the school district, Commissioner Sandstrom expressed his concern regarding providing housing for low income people who have the least alternatives when it comes to housing. Mr. Hoffman stated that the project is not really geared to low income people, but rather to moderate income people. Chairman Lucht' stated-that he did not feel high income people would buy these units which would be in the $60,000.00 range. Commissioner Simmons stated that, as far as she could see, the pro- vision of low income housing is not really an objective of this project. Mr. Hoffman stated that he was sure there would be low income elderly persons moving into the project. Commissioner Simmons stated that she wanted honesty in the objectives. She also stated that if the City is 'gong- to be financing such a project, it should see that low and moderate income people do benefit from the project. Mr. Hoffman reviewed an example of a woman who has an 2-17-83 -6- income of $4,000.00 to $5,000.00 a year, but who lives in a home worth $90,000 .00 and would like to buy a condominium in the project. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that a $90 ,000.00 house would not be bought by a first-time home buyer. Mr. Hoffman stated that the majority of people moving into the project would be from the South- east Neighborhood where houses are not as expensive He stated that one of the primary benefits from the project is that new families moving into this housing would maintain the housing better than elderly residents. Commissioner Simmons observed that the buyers were not limited to Brooklyn Center. There followed a discussion regarding the provision of housing for low income persons. Mr. Hoffman stated that low income people are not buying housing, but have to rent. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that rents are going up so that low income people cannot even afford to rent. Chairman Lucht stated that the people in the neighborhood would not accept a low income housing project anyway. . Commissioner Simmons asked why the tax increment financing plan then states that this is an objective. Chairman Lucht stated that there were multiple objectives of the project and that it was a complex matter of meeting the various objectives at the same time. Commissioner Simmons and .Commissioner Sandstrom stated that Objective No. l (provision of housing for low and moderate income people) does not seem to have. a very high priority and that this objective should be listed further down if it is not a high priority. Commissioner Ainas asked whether r it ,would be necessary to prioritize the Bill of Rights. Commissioner Versteeg recommended protecting a number of the units for Brooklyn Center residents only. Mr. Hoffman answered that that was not legally possible, but that an effort is being made through the marketing of the units to 'appeal to Brooklyn Center residents first and, therefore, enhance the likelihood that Brooklyn Center residents will move into the project in greater numbers. The Planning Assistant pointed out that one of the benefits of the pro- ject would be that, as younger families bought homes in Brooklyn Center to replace those sold by Brooklyn Center residents, this would bring more students into the school district and would bring per pupil student aids from the State government into the City. He also stated that the elderly moving into the project would tend to be low income people since older people tend to have less of an income, at least after they are retired. Commissioner Simmons stated that the project would amount to donating 15 years worth of taxes to the developer. She questioned whether this was worthwhile. She asked whether taxes from the project might be declining after 15 years. Commissioner Sandstrom asked who would be maintaining the property. Mr. Hoffman answered that Brutger Company, the developer, would maintain the property. Chairman Lucht stated that he did not feel that it was up to the Planning Commission to review the statement of objectives, but simply to review the extent to which the project was consistent or inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Simmons stated that she felt the project would get off to the wrong start if objectives were stated which were not really objectives. Com- missioner Ainas pointed out that low income people would have less problem getting into an apartment because of the Section 8 Rent Assistance which assures the owner of the building a rental payment. DISCUSSION ITEM (Manufactured Housin ) T e Secretary then briefly reviewe with the Planning Commission 2-17-83 -7- changes in the State Statutes which require municipalities to allow manufactured housing on the same basis that it allows site- built housing. He pointed out, however, that communities may also regulate housing by width of structure, requiring foundations, and other possible regulations under the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the Planning Commission has to Took at whether it wants to apply new regulations to all single-family housing, being careful to take into account existing structures. In answer to a question from Commissioner Simmons regarding re- quiring foundations, the Secretary stated that staff have not thoroughly researched the matter, but he stated he would be some- what surprised if there were any homes in Brooklyn Center without a foundation. He stated that if anyone wanted to put a mobile home on a single family parcel of Land, the City would have to let them, but could require that it have a foundation, a certain width, and a minimum pitch of roof. There followed a brief discussion on some possible regulations which the, City could adopt to limit the type of housing in the Rl district. Commissioner Simmons suggested that a minimum roof pitch be looked at. Commissioner Ainas suggested that a ratio of length to width be looked at. He stated that such a ratio has been used in other communities. Commissioner Manson asked whether an 181- wide house would fit on a 40 ' wide lot. The Secretary stated that such a house could fit on a 40 ' wide lot. He stated that the house could be as wide as 20 ' with two 10' side yard setbacks or 25 ' if one side of the house had only a 5' setback. ADJOURNMENT Motion -Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:47 p.m. airman 2-17-83 "8_