Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 06-27 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 STUDY SESSION JUNE 27, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:37 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Nancy Manson, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioner Malecki had called to say that she would be late if she could make the meeting at all. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JUNE 13, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the June 13, 1985 Planning Commission as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Manson, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Ainas. The motion passed. EARLE BROWN FARM REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT PLAN Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the discussion of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Program and Tax Increment Plan. He explained that the Planning Commission is required by law to comment on the Land Use implications of the proposed redevelopment program and tax increment plan for the Earle Brown Farm. He noted that rezoning of land and amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan is implied by some of the development scenarios in the plan. He noted particularly the possibility of high rise residential development north of Summit Drive on land that is presently zoned I-1 and is recommended for high-rise office development in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary also referred the Commission to sections of the report dealing with public improvements and stated that the Commission should comment on them as well. The Secretary added that the proposals for reuse of the Farm are not cast in concrete. He stated that the Earle Brown Farm Committee has recommended that proposals be solicited for the reuse of the Farm. The Secretary explained that one proposal that is already under consideration is for high-rise residential development in the area south of the Farm. He noted that this would require an amendment of the City's Comprehensive Plan and rezoning of the land. The Secretary stated that a positive recommendation of the proposed redevelopment program and tax increment plan would indicate a willingness to look at residential use in this area, but would not necessarily prejudge any future request for a rezoning. Brad Hoffman, Administrative Assistant in the City Manager's office, noted that the new draft of the redevelopment program and tax increment plan included a financial analysis of the tax increment district. He asked whether there were any questions regarding the draft proposal. Commissioner Bernards asked what would happen-if Deil Gustafson, the present owner of the property, did not accept the City's offer by Saturday, June 29, 1985. Mr. Hoffman answered that the City would probably walk away from the project. He added that he expected Mr. Gustafson to accept the offer by that time. 6-27-85 - - -1- Commissioner Bernards asked whether the Brooklyn Center School District had taken a position on the redevelopment and tax increment plan. Mr. Hoffman stated that the School Board had not officially taken a position at this time, but added that he thought the Board was reasonably comfortable with the proposal. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the School Board expected future benefits to justify the loss of revenue. Mr. Hoffman answered in the affirmative, noting the likely increase in school aids to offset the loss in property tax revenue. The Secretary explained that although the City would be acquiring 15 acres of land, ib would only retain the area around the historic site itself and that the rest of the land would be sold off for development. Mr. Hoffman added that the tax increment plan uses fairly pessimistic numbers in assessing future costs to the City and likely revenues. He stated that the actual payback of the tax increment bonds might be quicker if costs are lower and revenues are better than expected. Commissioner Manson asked whether the City would own the office building expected on the land to the west of the Farm site. Mir. Hoffman answered in the negative. He stated that development of that land could be controlled through a deed restriction, however. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the City was plowing new ground with this tax increment plan or whether it was similar to what has been done in other cases. Mr. Hoffman responded that other cities have used tax increment financing for the purpose of historic preservation. Commissioner Bernards noted the general purpose of tax increment financing was to rehabilitate blighted areas. Mr. Hoffman acknowledged this, but added that blighted areas have been considered to include deteriorating historic structures in the past. Chairman Lucht asked whether the zoning of the land would specify what ;structures could be built. The Secretary stated that the precise types of buildings would not be controlled through zoning, but rather through a contract to sell the land to future developers. He stated that this consisted essentially in a form of contract zoning. He also added the possibility -of the City adopting a planned unit development which could be applied to the property and more closely control development of the land. There followed a brief discussion regarding the mixture of uses that were possible under planned unit development zoning that would not normally occur under single purpose districts. Mr. Hoffman noted that residential use has not been contemplated in the middle of this large commercial area, but that it would be beneficial from a traffic standpoint because of the diffuse traffic pattern of high-rise residential development. Mr. Hoffman then went on to discuss a number of details regarding the finances of the tax increment plan including its advantages over general obligation bonding with respect to capitalized interest costs. Commissioners Bernards asked whether the term of the tax increment district is 25 years. Mr. Hoffman answered that the tax increment district could legally run for 25 years, but added that there was no intent at this time to go beyond 10 years which was the expected time to pay off the original redevelopment program. Mr. Hoffman explained that, for any additional expenditures to be authorized in the district, the redevelopment program and tax increment plan would have to be amended and the entire public hearing review process would start over. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the tax increment financing plan was a good plan from a financial standpoint and asked who was on the Earle Brown Farm Committee. Mr. Hoffman listed about a dozen citizens from the community who are on the Committee. Commissioner Manson asked for clarification of a typographical error on page 5 in reference 200,000 square feet of retail development. 6-27-85 -2- The Secretary stated that historic preservation in this case would mainly be in terms of the building exteriors, not in terms of the actual use of the buildings. He stated that it was necessary for the City to acquire the buildings and restore them before they fall down. Commissioner Malecki arrives at 8:14 p.m. There followed a discussion as to the nature of the action the Planning Commission should take on the redevelopment program and tax increment plan. Regarding potential land use, Commissioner Manson stated that she could not see the area as good for young families with children, although she would not rule out other nonfamily residential use. Mr. Hoffman agreed stating that it is the developer's intent to build senior housing on the site with services offered to the residents more extensive than is the case in Brookwood. The Secretary added it is his understanding that the type of housing to be built could be restricted through a planned unit development zoning of the property. Chairman Lucht also noted the traffic advantages of residential development in this area. The Secretary pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan does call for historic preservation of the Earle Brown Farm and that the redevelopment program and tax increment plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that respect. He stated that the change in land use had not been comprehended in the City's Comprehensive Plan. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF EARLE BROWN FARM REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TAX INCREMENT PLAN There was motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of the Earle Brown Farm Redevelopment Program and Tax. Increment Plan, acknowledging the inconsistency of the proposed plan with the City's existing Comprehensive Plan. The motion also noted that the Planning Commission is willing to consider modifications to the City's Comprehensive Plan at the time a specific development proposal is brought forward. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. Commissioner Bernards stated that he was not opposed to a possible rezoning of a portion of the land for high-rise residential. He did state, however, that he had reservations regarding the projects envisioned in the plan, with the impact on School District No. 286, on the cost of the project and the ongoing maintenance costs and finally, with the general practice of the City being involved in the real estate business. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMB a. Village Properties Variance The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to a letter from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and attached drawing which showed acquired and excess right-of-way adjacent to the Evergreen Park Apartments property. He also referred the Commission's attention to a letter from Ken Solie outlining a new proposal for the variance sought under Application No. 85016. Finally, the Secretary also referred the Commission to footnote 10 of Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for a setback of less than 50' from a major thoroughfare if there is present a noise wall or berm constructed by MN/DOT. He explained that the applicant and the Department of Transportation had tentatively 6-27-85- -3- agreed on the construction of a 6' high noise wall rather than a berm in the area adjacent to the apartment property. He stated that one of the questions the Commission should comment on is whether a 6' high wood fence would be considered a noise wall as that term is used in the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary further explained that the applicants now wish to relocate the 7212 building as before, but to leave the easterly four units on the end of the 7206 building. He noted that because of the noise wall requiring less right-of-way than a berm, the future right- of-way line for Highway 252 would be 41' from the existing 7206 building without any units taken off. He stated that the applicants now wish to leave the four units on the 7206 building and seek a density variance of two units for 80 units total (the total land area available to the apartment complex being greater because of the additional right-of-way to be turned back by MN/DOT): The Secretary then returned to the question of whether a 6' high wood fence should be considered a noise wall as allowed under footnote 10 of Section 35-400. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there were any objective standards for such noise walls. The Secretary stated that he was not aware of any, but stated his own feeling that a 6' wood fence is not adequate as a noise wall. Commissioner Sandstrom wondered whether the wall should be made higher whether the setback was 41' or 50' . The Planner then briefly explained the density side of the application. He reviewed the land area that would be left after the Highway Department,gave back excess right-of-way and concluded that 77 units could be allowed. He stated that the three additional units sought by the applicants meant that the land area available was only 96% of what is normally required rather than the 98% that was achieved under the previous original proposal. He also discussed the possibility of reducing the number of units in the project by rebuilding the lower floor of the 7212 building after it is relocated. He stated that this lower floor would probably not survive intact and would have to be rebuilt more or less from scratch anyway. The Planning Commission then reconsidered the question of what is a noise wall. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt the 6' wood fence meets the simple wording of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Manson stated that she did not feel that it met the intent of a noise wall because it did not sufficiently mitigate dust, noise, etc. as outlined in the ordinance. The Planner agreed noting that, in the case of a two storey structure, a 6' noise wall would be very ineffective. He added the possibility of building modifications which would reduce the impact of noise on the residential units. Mr. Ken Solie agreed that that could be done as in building wing walls onto the end of the 7206 building. Commissioner Nelson stated that he saw no difference between the finding that a 6' high wood fence is a noise wall and granting a permanent variance since both would allow the building to be less than 50' from the right-of-way line. The Secretary pointed out that another option is to require the applicant to take the four units off the 7206 building and meet the setback requirement. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt it would be a hardship to require that the four units be removed from the building. The Secretary stated that the applicant would have to work out that financial problem with the State. There followed further discussion regarding acceptable noise wall dimensions. Mr. Solie asked that the City define what size noise wall they require in order to have a reduced setback and that he and Mr. Cowan would go back to the State and inform them what was required. The Secretary stated that the main question is whether 6' is high enough for a noise 6-27-85 -4- wall. Commissioner Nelson stated that the Commission would have to get information on the structural possibilities of reducing the number of units on the first floor of the 7212 building or whether the same number of units would be preserved. Mr. Cowan stated that they would not know whether the first floor could be kept intact until the building has been picked up by the base of the second floor. Chairman Lucht stated that he felt the noise wall should be at least 12' high in the area where a substandard setback existed and that he would allow a density variance for up to 78 units. The applicants explained that their calculations as to the land area that would be available indicated that no density variance was needed for 78 units and that they requested a density of two units for a total of 80 units. After further discussion, it was agreed that the density variance would be allowed for 80 units if the 7212 building could be moved in its entirety, but that if it could not, the normal allowable density would have to be observed. Commissioner Manson suggested that the fence be stepped up from 6' to 12' rather than simply increase in height at one point. MOTION ACKNOWLEDGING 12' WOOD WALL AS A NOISE WALL There was a motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to acknowledge that a 12' wood wall would meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for a noise wall in cases where a reduced setback can be allowed. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malpnki, Manson, Ainas, Sandstrom, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. LETTER FROM BROOKDALE CHRISTIAN CENTER Chairman Lucht then read to the Planning Commission a letter from Pastor Cilke of the Brookdale Christian Center updating them on the problems that had been brought up at the Planning Commission public hearing for the new gymnasium expansion at the Church. The letter related how most all of the concerns had been answered since that meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:26 p.m. 1 C airma 6-27-85 -5- 1 1