Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03-01 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 March 1 , 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning- Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 8:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Manson, Erickson and Theis. Also present were Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, Director of Planning and Inspect- ion Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Gary Shallcross . APPROVAL OF MINUTES- February 15, 1979 Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes, Manson and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 79001 (Kenneth Bergstrom - Rezoning from C2 to R4) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was Application No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom. The Secretary reviewed for the Commission. the proposed rezoning from C2 to R4 of the approximate 8 acre tract located in the 1300 block south of 69th Avenue North. He explained that the property is bounded on the west by the Humboldt Square Shopping Center; on the nor.th, by 69th Avenue North and the City's public utilities building; on the east by' single family resid- ential homes facing Emerson Avenue North; and on the south by a number of Ra multi- pIe fdmiiy residenLid I dweiiinyt,. The SecreLavy sLaLed h t h aPP � - itia� tabled by the Planning Commission following a public hearing on January ll , 19/9 and referred to the Northeast Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. He reported that the Neighborhood Group met on February 8, 1979. and submitted a report regarding their recommendations. He stated that the Neighborhood Group is opposed to the rezoning request on the grounds that there are already too many apartments in the Northeast Neighborhood and that the construction of more apart- ments on the subject property would have an adverse effect on residential property values in the area. He further stated that the group saw the request benefiting only the property owner rather than the community. The Secretary then outlined for the Commission the extent of apartment development in the Northeast Neighborhood. He explained that presently the Northeast Neighbor- hood contains 1 ,327 multiple family residential units or 37.7% of all multiple family residential units in the City. He added that 626 multiple family units or 17.8% of all the multiple residential units in the City can be found within 1 ,000 ft. of either side of Humboldt Avenue, between 65th Avenue North and 70th Avenue North. He also reviewed the Evaluation Criteria for Rezonings, stating that re- .zonings must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and should not constitute "spot zoning" which is defined as a decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or accepted planning principles. the Secretary went on to state that the current rezoning proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan which calls for a site at the center of the Northeast Neighborhood to be retained as commercial for purposes of ultimate development as a neighborhood business center. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan recommends that single family residential development be the predominant characteristic of this neighborhood. 3-1-79 -1- Commissioner Malecki arrived at 8:15 p.m. In conclusion, the Secretary noted that although the zoning designation of the land as C2 was perhaps unnecessary in the light of the fact that the Humboldt Square Shopping Center adequately serves the neighborhood and that there is other vacant C2 land in the Northeast Neighborhood, the proposal to rezone the land in question for multiple family residential development would be into-nsist ent with the Comprehensive Plan's stipulation that the Northeast Neighborhood be predominantly single family residential . The Secretary recommended that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending denial of Application No. 79001 sub- mitted by Kenneth Bergstrom for the following reasons: 1 . The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation that single family residential development be the predominant characteristic of the Northeast Neighborhood. 2. There is substantial vacant multiple residential zoned property in the Northeast Neighborhood. 3. There is no perceived public need or benefit in the proposal in the light of the already large number of existing multiple residential structures in the immediate vicinity. 4. The proposed rezoning does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner of the property in question. Commissioner Erickson inquired whether Mr. Bergstrom had made formal application for rezoning to Rl in 1977. The Secretary replied that such an application had been made and that the Planning Commission met in 1977 to consider the matter and fical + wi't'h ±ha inrnncictAnriac of the rmmnrahencive Plan: concluded that Humboldt r_.._._._ J....0 t_l d i4.. 1,.4.oril.00U-4 a co=ccrccial nnn+t�v.• and .-ed that Jt�UQIC QU.CyUQ LGIy JChVCU 1,116 IICihj.11uV111VVN u.a u vvnun..� ..Sul <.�.11.,..� , �... a......v R1 zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan .recommendation .that the neighborhood be predominantly single family residential . The Planning Commission in 1977 recommended a resolution to the City Council for rezoning the Bergstrom property from C2 to Rl . The Secretary reported that the record indicates in 1977 that the City Council was inclined to rezone the property, but requested the applicant to submit a plan indicating how the proposed Rl area would be screened from the Humboldt Square Shopping Center. That screening plan, however, was never submitted by the applicant, and a year later the rezoning proposal was withdrawn at the applicant's request. Commissioner Hawes asked who would be responsible for providing a greenstrip and screening if the Tand in question were to be developed under the C2 zoning desig- nation. The Secretary answered that it would be incumbent on the new C2 develop- dent to provide such screening. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, the Secretary stated there would be no screening requirement between the C2 de- velopment and an R4 development, ..but there would be screening requirements where an R-4 development abuts R1 property. Commissioner Hawes voiced the concern that since land is expensive, houses on this site would have to be high priced to be profitable, and this might prove to be a problem because of the already developed C2 use west of the site. The Secretary explained that the staff generally does not address the economic feasibility of development, but rather must approach such a proposal from the standpoint of planning principles and specific provisions within the Zoning Ordinance. The City Engineer commented that this area had been reviewed in terms of costs for providing utilities and other necessary improvements, and that it would seem that an R1 development is._economically feasible. 3-1-79 -2- r Chairman Pierce then invited comments .on the proposed rezoning from persons in attendance. Mr. Adler of 6733 Emerson Avenue North rose to state his dissatis- faction with the Commission's review of the proposal . He argued that the Com- mission seemed to be concerned only about buffers and fences while the people that live on Emerson Avenue North are concerned with correcting drainage problems. He stated that the purpose of the Planning Commission should be to protect the . people that are already residing in the area, and that what they need is the water problem addressed. Mr. Adler went on to describe the drainange problems in the areas as a result of the clay shelf. Chairman Pierce replied that buffers and fences were requirements that would be required for a new development. He also stated that development of the site would improve the drainage condition. The City Engineer added that a similar situation existed in the development on Aldrich Avenue North. In that case, he explained, a drain tile in addition to normal storm sewers had alleviated the problem. Chairman Pierce inquired whether the applicant had arrived. The Secretary replied that he had not and that in a phone conversation held that day, the applicant ad- mitted he was considering withdrawing the application. Chairman Pierce stated the record shculd show that Mr. Bergstrom, or a representative were not present during the review of this application. Commissioner Lucht arrived at 8:30 p.m. The Commission generally concurred that C2 zoning for the site was perhaps not the most desirable, but that in light of the number of apartments in the Northeast Neighborhood, R4 development was even less desirable. Commissioner Manson pointed out that there is already enough vacant land zoned for multiple family residential development in the Northeast Neighborhood already. Therefore, she argued, the rezoning is simply unnecessary. At that point, the Secretary offered for the Commission's consideration, a re:suiuLiun with a formal iisLiny of reasons for recommending denial of the proposed rezoning. While the Commission was considering the resolution, Commissioner Theis asked whether development would affect the level of the ground water table as well as the drainage of surface water. The City Engineer answered that development would have some effect on ground water levels depending on the extent of sub- surface drainage facilities provided. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 79-1 Member Richard Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 79001 SUBMITTED BY MR. KENNETH BERGSTROM The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member George Lucht, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Hal Pierce, Molly Malecki, Richard Theis, William Hawes, Nancy Manson, George Lucht, and Dan Erickson. Voting against: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:47 p.m. and resumed at 9:25 p.m. 3-1-79* -3- SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (Section 34-140) The Commission then considered a proposed amendment to the Sign Ordinance, Section 34-140 2 (b) , relating to Directional Signs . The Secretary introduced the proposed ordinance amendment, describing the dilemna in which the City presently finds it- self when attempting to regulate directional signs. By ordinance definition, he stated, a directional sign is one of which the primary function is to provide locational directions. An identification sign, on the other hand, is defined as a sign, the primary function of which is to identify an establishment located on the premises where the sign is located, or to which the sign is affixed. In zoning districts Cl , CIA and R3 through R7, he pointed out, identification signs are permitted provided they do not exceed a maximum area of 36 sq. ft. nor a height of 10 ft. above the ground. He stated that it seems inconsistent that a directional sign could be as large as an identification sign in these zoning districts and not have any height limitation. He went on to note that a survey of a number of exist- ing directional signs indicates that the vast majority do not exceed 16 sq. ft. in area. He stated that the policy of the Department of Planning and Inspections. is to encourage directional signs no greater than 16 sq. ft. in area because it is felt that directional messages can be adequately provided on such a sign. He pointed out that another inadequacy of the present ordinance is that it permits . only freestanding directional signs. It is felt that directional signs indicating such things as shipping and receiving, no parking, fire lane, etc. , should in certain circumstances be allowed on wails. The Secretary and Building Official Will. Dahn then carried on a lengthy discussion" with the Commission concerning various examples of directional signs which seem to go beyond the intent of the ordinance. The Secretary argued that while needs vary, the intent of the ordinance seems to be that directional signs should clearly be secondary signs. The present ordinance does not give adequate basis for reg- i0atino directional sin_ns . He oointed out that while 16 so. ft. may not be appm- �.,. F.. ill ni. d-3.1 ...+'.-0nr �4.n /lity LI�r- �n nnn� n� cno�ifir limi'1M,+A,nnC- An FJi Ill V\. i Vi a l 1 ccn -Illy c-- I l.J, 1+11\. V 1 M, IIU 111 11�.�.v V 1 ..�+ directional signs. The Building Official suggested that the Sign Ordinance could restrict the height of directional signs to 10 ft. or one story, whichever is least. " Setting the maximum at 10 ft. is a good way, he pointed out, to get all directional signs at a uniform height. In relation to height of signs, the Commission also discussed clearance signs. The Building Official explained that most trailer trucks require at least 12' 6" of clearance, and that, therefore, any clearance which was less than 13 ft. would require a sign. Chairman Pierce pointed out that loading dock signs would normally be higher than 10 ft. Commissioner Hawes added that such signs placed over the dock doors might be necessary in areas with a number of trucks. In summarizing the Commission's feelings on the subject, Chairman Pierce stated that 16 sq. ft. seemed to be an ample size, and that as far as height is concerned, signs should not be above the first story. Commissioner Hawes pointed out thRt this would allow some very high signs at warehouses which are one story, but 25 ft. high. Commissioner Lucht did not see why the directional sign would need to oxceed 13 ft. The Building Official suggested that a maximum of 15 ft. or one story, whichever is less, could effectively set a workable maximum height. Commissioner Theis asked whether freestanding signs would also be allowed to be 15 ft. in height. The Secretary responded that a 10 ft. height limit would cover the vast majority of freestanding signs. The Building Official interjected, however, that the definition of freestanding signs includes canopies which quite often need to have clearances of higher than 10 ft. Chairman Pierce suggested that canopies could perhaps be 'treated separately. The Secretary stated that the Commission's thoughts on the matter would be noted and that another proposed ordinance amendment would be submitted at a later date. 3-1-79 -4- BROOKLYN PARK REZONING The Secretary then informed the Planning Commission that the Brooklyn Park Plannin g Commission is reviewing a proposed rezoning of property on the border of Brooklyn Center in the area of 73rd Avenue North and West River Road, The proposed rezoning would be from essentially sinqle family zoning to zoning allowing two-family dwell- _ings and townhouses by special use permit. The Planning Commission of Brookl n Park, the Secretary said, would take note or any concerns expressed. by the y Brooklyn Center Planning Commission. Commissioner Theis asked what zoning designation had been given to the land on the Brooklyn Center side of the boundary. dominantly RI with some R4 just south ofh the eboundary ronp the ewestaside ofsWest River Road. Commissioner Erickson asked how large an area the proposed rezoning in Brooklyn Park entailed. The Secretary answered that the proposal was for an area of 12.66 acres. He added that his primary concern was over the generation of traffic into Brooklyn Center as a result of a higher density development. Chairman Pierce asked what was Park 's Secretary outlined the principal usestallowedrinkthe Brooklyn 4 zoning. The the lot requirements for single family, duplex and townhouse developments. Theand Commission then discussed the questions of access off 73rd Avenue North and the Possibility of widening 73rd Avenue North if traffic increased. Chairman Pierce called for specific concerns to be sent to the Brooklyn Park Pla;l- ning Commission. Commissioner Theis remarked that unless the rezoning were to contemplate apartment development, there would be no concern on the part of Brooklyn Center residents. Chairman Pierce stated that any open parking lot should be screened from Brooklyn Center residential , and that access via 73rd Avenue North should be upgraded. At the conclusion of the meeting the Commission discussed future agenda an a possible Saturday morning tour in the spring. Commissioners Malecki andeErickson stated that they would be unable to attend thA moo+i. ^-c _ HuJUURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor: Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Pierce, ,Erickson. Voting against: none. The Planning Cbmmission Hawes p. p.m. Chairman i 3-1-79 -5- Member Richard Theis introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 79�-1 RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION NO. 79001 SUBMITTED BY MR. KENNETH BERGSTROM WHEREAS, Application No. 79001 submitted by Kenneth Bergstrom proposes rezoning, from C-2 (General Commerce) to R-4 (Multi-Family Residential), of property in the southeast quadrant of 69th and Humboldt Avenues North described as Lot 2, Block 1, Hi Crest Square Addition; and WHEREAS, the Commission held a duly called public hearing on January 11 , 1979 when testimony regarding the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the item was referred to the Northeast. Neighborhood Advisory Group which, in minutes of a meeting on February 8, 1979, recommended against the rezoning; and WHEREAS, the Commission further considered the matter on March 1 , 1979, and reviewed the request in terms of the Comprehensive Plan criteria for the area, and in terms of the Rezoning Evaluation Policy and Review Guidelines contained in Section 35-208 of the City Ordinances; NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Brooklvn Center Plannina Advisory rnmmicclnn +n recom end to- tkm ri+v rnllnrii +ha+ Anr,li'a+inn.. hIn 7011M a+lhr..'++-A ��.......�� .... .... ..v.........•.v vv v.... v . .r� vv M..v• . r.....r ...r... 1 . ..w bv.l ._.V• IdVVi J'M.J./1. I.t...V by Kenneth Bergstrom be denied for the following reasons: 1 . The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendation that single family residential development be the predominant characteristic of the Northeast Neighborhood. 2. There is substantial vacant multiple residential zoned property in the Northeast Neighborhood. 3. There is no perceived public need or benefit in the proposal in light of the already large number of existing multiple residential structures in the immediate vicinity. 4. The proposed rezoning does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner of the property in question. Pate C airman The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member George Lucht and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Harold Pierce, Molly Malecki , Richard Theis, William Hawes, Nancy Manson, George Lucht and -Dan Erickson. The following voted against the same: none. Whereupon said resolution was duly declared passed and adopted.