Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 08-29 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 AUGUST 29, 1985 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:31 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mike Nelson and Wallace Bernards. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairman Lucht noted that Commissioners Lowell Ainas and Carl Sandstrom had called to say that they would be unable to attend and that Commissioner Nancy Manson had called to say that she would be late if she could attend at all. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 15, 1985 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to approve the minutes of the August 15, 1985 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS a. Churches as a Special Use in the R5 Zoning District The Secretary reviewed with the Planning Commission the status of an ordinance amendment to allow churches as a special use in the R5 zoning district. He explained that the City Council had voted not to approve a rezoning of the parcel at the southwest corner of I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard to C1, but rather to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow churches as a special use in the R5 zoning district so that the Church on the Move could locate on that parcel, which is zoned R5• The Secretary explained that the City Council had voted 3 to 1 in favor of the ordinance amendment at their last Council meeting on August 26, 1985, but that the City Attorney had advised the Council that a 4 to 1 vote was required to set a public hearing for the ordinance amendment. He stated that one Council member requested that the ordinance amendment be referred back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Secretary then reviewed a memo he had written to the City Manager outlining various options and possibilities for the parcel at the southwest corner of I-94 and Brooklyn Boulevard. He noted that, under the R5 zoning, multiple-family housing is a possibility since it would be a permitted use. The Secretary stated that the City Council had expressed some concern regarding service uses which would be allowed in the C1 zoning district. He noted further the concerns regarding access and traffic which make the parcel difficult to develop for any use. The Secretary stated that staff prefer that any development of the property have minimal impact on the traffic flow in Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary continued to review the options set forth in the memo including 8-29-85 -1- rezoning the property to C1, to R3, or even to R1 or R2 and allowing churches by a special use permit under any of these zoning districts. He noted that making a church a special use in the R5 zoning district would also allow the church to be built on the property, but would leave open the possibility for higher density housing which was not recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary noted that a rezoning to R3 would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but was not pursued originally because religious uses are not permitted as a special use in the R3 zoning district. He explained that churches are already permitted in a C1 zoning district and that that was why the C1 zoning was suggested by the staff and pursued by the applicant as the appropriate rezoning request. The Secretary concluded by saying that the ordinance amendment to allow churches by special use in the R5 zoning district was, therefore, before the Planning Commission for comment. Commissioner Nelson asked what problem the Council was concerned about with respect to service uses. He asked whether traffic was their main concern. The Secretary stated that he did not see service uses as a real problem for that property though they would probably not be appropriate on a parcel of that size. Commissioner Nelson suggested that rezoning the property to R3 would solve the problem of concern regarding service uses since service uses are not really allowed in the R3 district. The Secretary agreed. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt the property was not really attractive for service uses anyway and stated that he felt the fears of the Council regarding service uses were unfounded. He expressed concern regarding the possibility of litigation if Option d of the Secretary's memo were pursued, namely to amend the ordinance to allow churches as a special use permit and then rezone the property to R3 later if the church did not go forward. The Secretary acknowledged this, but stated that he did not feel it would be appropriate to start another rezoning process at this time. Commissioner Bernards asked whether Foundation Stone Ministries is patient enough to wait for the City to allow a church in that location. The Secretary answered in the affirmative, but added that the church wanted to start building this fall. Chairman Lucht stated that he could not understand the reasoning for preferring the R5 zoning over a C1 zoning for the property. The Secretary pointed out that one of the concerns was that the four lots to the south of the proposed church site are zoned R5 and would continue to be so zoned after the church was built. He stated that there may be difficulties in redeveloping these lots, though staff had developed a conceptual layout that showed the property could be reasonably developed for an office use. The Secretary also noted the problems with a restrictive covenant that covers the lots to the south and could prevent these lots from being used in a commercial manner. Chairman Lucht stated that he still preferred the C1 zoning for the property. Commissioner Bernards agreed. Commissioner Ma.lecki stated that she could not reconcile the R5 zoning of the property with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Nelson stated that an R3 zoning of the property with churches as a special use would probably be a good compromise. There followed a brief discussion regarding procedures and the problems of commencing a rezoning to R3. There was also a discussion of traffic problems related to the site and the advantages and disadvantages of an office use of the property. The Secretary noted that an R3 or an R5 zoning of the property offered the City more control since office uses would be a special use and their traffic impact could be better controlled. He added, however, that access to the site would always be limited to Brooklyn Boulevard and that there would always be traffic problems with any use of the property. 8-29-85 -2- ACTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECONSIDER C1 ZONING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend to the City Council that it reconsider zoning the parcel of land at the southwest corner of I-94 and Brookyn Boulevard to C1 and allowing churches as a special use, but alternately that an R3 zoning of the property could be considered as well since both zoning designations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. b. Convenience Restaurants in Major Shopping Centers The Secretary then briefly reviewed a draft ordinance to make convenience food restaurants a permitted use within shopping centers over 250,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. He noted the history of the special use permit approving Arby's in Brookdale. The Planner pointed out that the draft ordinance would not allow convenience food restaurants which are drive-ups or are located in the parking lot of a major shopping center to be considered a permitted use. He noted that only convenience food restaurants located within the principal structure would be permitted uses. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REGARDING CONVENIENCE FOOD RESTAURANTS IN MAJOR SHOPPING CENTERS Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to recommend approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow convenience food restaurants to be considered a permitted use when located within a shopping center with over 250,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Nelson and Bernards. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Retail Parking Formula The Planner then reviewed with the Planning Commission a report from the Urban Land Institute on parking at retail shopping centers. He noted that the report recommends that the number of parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross leaseable area increase as a center gets larger, whereas the City's existing ordinance allows the parking requirement to decrease as the center gets larger. The Planner explained that gross leaseable area was less than gross floor area and that this meant that the difference between the City's ordinance formula and that recommended by the ULI report was even greater. The Planner noted that there is noticeable excess parking in virtually every retail center in the City other than Brookdale at Christmas time. He stated that, if the City were to amend its ordinance to be more in line with the ULI report, the smaller centers would have some excess parking, but that Brookdale would not. The Planner also noted that the report addressed credits toward office use of retail space, theater use and restaurant use. He pointed out that the City's existing ordinance does allow a credit for restaurant uses within retail centers. He stated that he would bring back more information on the existing conditions in the City with respect to parking at retail centers and encouraged the Commission in the coming months to observe the extent to which excess parking exists during the Christmas holiday shopping season. There followed a discussion regarding what a change in the formula would do to existing retail establishments and how they would affect redevelopment of property. 8-29-85 -3- The Planner acknowledged that owners of existing retail establishments would probably wonder why the change had not been made years before, but that at least the change would be a benefit to them. He also stated that the change would facilitate a more intense use of property when it is redeveloped which would make tax increment financing more feasible. The Secretary pointed out that ordinance formulas are only averages and that some establishments will exceed the requirements and others will have parking leftover. He suggested that the Commission continue to consider the matter and that perhaps a formal ordinance amendment could be presented at some time in the future if the Commision were satisfied that the present ordinance was too restrictive. b. Earle Brown Farm Developments The Secretary then referred the Planning Commission's attention to a draft planned unit development (P.U.D.) ordinance which had been prepared by the City Attorney's office and offered it for Planning Commission consideration. He explained that the City has not finally closed on the Farm property, but that that should take place very soon. The Secretary went on to say that he was not sure whether the staff would propose rezoning part of the land south of the Farm to R7 immediately. He stated that the City's bond consultants have advised that the City sell bonds before January 1, 1986 or the City may lose the tax exempt status for the tax increment bonds. The Secretary stated that it has been the desire of the staff to take an appropriate amount of time in planning a redevelopment of the Farm, but that the financing options are pushing the City to make certain commitments before the first of the year. He stated that an office development may be proposed by Ryan Construction Company in the near future for the parcel of land immediately east of Earle Brown Drive and west of the Farm complex. Meanwhile, he commented, the residential aspect of the development program is more tentative at this time. _ He stated that the planned unit development ordinance would not only be used to regulate development in the Farm area, but in other redevelopment areas as well. _He added that the draft P.U.D. ordinance would be a matter of further staff and Commission review and discussion over the next few months. c. Year 2000 Committee Report The Secretary finally referred the Commission to the Year 2000 Committee Report distributed with the Planning Commission Agenda. He noted the basic portions of the report, especially a matrix on trends and issues facing the City in the coming years. He explained that the Year 2000 Committee had not been formed to solve problems, only to identify them and set a tentative agenda for addressing them. He noted that the report also discusses the role of the Advisory Commissions and of institutionalizing the long range planning perspective. Chairman Lucht stated that if the assessments made in the Year 2000 Report are correct, the Council and the various advisory commissions would see the document much more as time goes on since it will address problems that need to be addressed in the future. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The lanning Commission adjourned at 9:03 p.m. J v 8-29-85 -4-