HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03-29 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
MARCH 29, 1979
CITY HALL
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman
Hal Pierce at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Hal Pierce, Commissioners William Hawes, Molly Malecki , George Lucht and
Nancy Manson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren,
Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, and Building Official Will Dahn.
The Secretary reported that Commissioner Erickson was out of town and unable to
attend this evening 's meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (March 15, 1979)
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Lucht to approve the minutes
of the March 15,, 1979 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor:
Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Lucht, and Manson. Voting against: none.
The motion passed. Commissioner Malecki abstained as she was not at that meeting.
APPLICATION NOS. 79009 and 79010 (Steve Nelson)
Following the Chairman's explanation, the irst items of consideration were Appli-
cation Nos. 79009 and 79010 submitted by Steve Nelson. The Secretary stated that
the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval under Application No. 79009
to combine the LvnbrooK parcel , the Jpanjers parcel and the Mlendennalls outfuts
into two lots to be known as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 , Lynbrook Bowl Addition. He
explained that the area under consideration is bounded on the west by Camden Avenue,
on the south and east by North Lilac Drive and on the rurth by 65th Avenue North.
He explained that this application was tabled by the Planning Commission on March
15, 1979 to work out some inconsistencies between the preliminary plat and the
applicant's site plan; to include the City's approximate 148 ' x 286 ' parcel on
the corner of 65th Avenue and North Lilac Drive; and to provide an additional 5
feet of roadway right-of-way in the vicinity of the existing buildings. He ex-
plained that the staff has met with the applicant regarding the inclusion of the
City-owned parcel in this plat. He pointed out that the estimated costs to in-
clude this parcel seemed to be extremely high, and it was felt that the applicant
should not be required to bear the entire replatting costs at this time. He
pointed out that in further subsequent meetings with the applicant, it was agreed
that the City-owned parcel should be included in the plat, and that the City
would be participating in the costs associated with the additional platting
request.
The Secretary noted that the applicant has submitted the revised preliminary plat
including all of the other requested revisions, and that the plat seems to be in
order.
A brief discussion ensued relative to the proposed plat with the Superintendent
of Engineering and the Secretary responding to various questions by the Commission.
The Superintendent of Engineering commented that MN/DOT plans to upgrade a portion
of North Lilac Drive in the vicinity of Camden Avenue, and that they propose to
make these improvements in 1980 or 1981 . He added that it is felt that an up-
grading of North Lilac Drive would be needed in the relatively near future with
the improvements proposed for the Lynbrook site.
3-29-79 -1-
He commented on participation in the costs for such an upgrading and noted that
MN/DOT would not participate in the costs for any necessary roadway upgrading of_
North Lilac Drive.
The Secretary pointed out that a subdivision bond is often required in instances
where property is platted and new roadways would be put in. He pointed out that
in this instance there is a roadway already in existence and that a subdivision
bond to guarantee roadway improvements and curb and gutter would not have to be
posted if the applicant would be willing to petition the City for the necessary
roadway improvements.
Commissioner Theis arrived at 8:00 p.m.
Further discussion ensued relative to the possibility of providing a roadway
configuration other than what is currently in- existence. The Secretary noted
that at the March 15 meeting there had been a suggestion that the City vacate a
portion of North Lilac Drive lying between the State Highway right-of-way and
the existing buildings and possibly serve this area with a cul-de-sac. He ex-
plained that it does not seem feasible at this time to accomplish this because
of a need for providing access to the Chippewa Park Apartments off Camden Avenue
and the location of an already existing curb cut to that complex. He noted that
the drive-through area does, at this time, serve a purpose for fire protection
reasons and other safety considerations as well . He added that it would be
possible in the near future to pursue this idea further, but such ,a concept would
involve participation on the part of the adjacent property owner. He added that
he felt the Commission could proceed to review and recommend approval- of the plat
in question, and that other roadway and access designs could be reviewed which
would not have a major impact on the plans submitted by the applicant."
Thp Carrptary nrncapd,Pdl to rpvipw Annliratinn Nn . 7gnln which is a rpotipst fora
VUI IU11V\. 11 V11) 1.IIti JUUUIY IJ1V11 VI UIIIU no, 1 \.yUl l 1.il11+111.J 1 Vja di g
—A—, UVU-1 iU t.IVII•
He pointed out that a 50' roadway dedication is required all along North Lilac
Drive to provide the necessary right-of-way for a marginal access roadway. He
noted that because of the location of the existing Lynbrook Bowl and Spanjers
building which are currently about 16 feet from the existing North Lilac Drive
roadway, the applicant is requesting a variance so that only a 35' roadway right-
of-way be provided in this area. He pointed out that the required 50' dedication
would be provided in the area where it is feasible.
The Secretary commented that the applicant has indicated that both the Lynbrook
and the Spanjers building, when constructed, were in conformance with all City
codes, restrictions, and regulations. He explained that subsequent to that time,
the physical surrounding's have been changed to conform to State acquisition of
land and the installation of major highway and interchange. He pointed out that
the applicant feels that to conform with conditions beyond his control would be
an extreme hardship and deprive him of the reasonable use of his land.
The Secretary next reported that Section 15-112 of the Subdivision Ordinance
allows the City Council to authorize variances from the subdivision regulations
when an undue hardship may result from strict compliance. He pointed out that
in granting any variance, the Council shall prescribe only -conditions that it
deems necessary to, or desirable for, the public interest. He stated that in
making these findings, the Council is required to take into account the nature
of the proposed use of land, the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number
of persons to reside or work in the proposed subdivision and the probable effect
of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions in the vicinity. He next
reviewed the Standards for Granting a Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance
which include that there be special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property, such that the strict application of the provisions in the ordinance
would deprive the applicant of a reasonable use of his land; that the variance
3-29-79 -2-
is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial right of the
petitioner; and that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the
property is situated.
APPLICATION NOS. 79011 , 79012 and 79013 (Steve Nelson)
The Secretary continued by reviewing three other applications submitted by Mr.
Nelson. He stated that the applicant, under Application No. 79011 , is seeking
site and building plan approval to remodel and combine the existing Lynbrook Bowl
and Spanjers building into an approximate 690 seat restaurant, cocktail lounge
and bowling establishment by adding a common entry area between the two buildings
which would include space for an office, storage, a nursery, restrooms and rooms
for dining and cocktails. He pointed out that this application, as well as Appli-
cation Nos. 79012 and 79013, were also tabled by the Planning Commission on March
15 so that the site plan would accurately reflect the property lines indicated
on the proposed plat; to add berming along North Lilac Drive and Camden Avenue;
and to develop recommended language dealing with .a variance request. He pointed
out that the applicant has submitted the necessary revisions and the site and
building plans are in order.
The Secretary next reviewed Application No. 79012 which'consists of a variance
to allow construction to enlarge and combine buildings that do not comply with
existing setback regulations. He pointed out that the applicant also seeks a
variance from the 35' setback requirements along North Lilac Drive and the 25'
side corner yard setback along Camden Avenue North. He reported that presently
the buildings that face North Lilac Drive are approximately 16 feet from the
current street right-of-way and would be 11 feet with the additional street
dedication being provided with the proposed plat. He noted that the Spanjers
building is approximately 20' from the Camden Avenue right-of-way rather than
the 25' required by the current Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary further stated
that the proposed building addition that would link the two buildings would be
bell -nt th". Swm- nvict
;nn tillilAinnc and uiniilrl not annraxiata an
ex i s i,i rly GUIIU i L1U11. Vne IIU LeU Uld L W I LII I tZoptl.L LU LIIC Jpaiij,ef'J uu i i U i OV!s uiviiy
Camden Avenue, the applicant proposes to square off the building with an addition
that would continue, but not aggrevate, the existing 20 ' setback.
The Secretary reported that the applicant has submitted a letter indicating that
when the buildings were built, Spanjers in 1955 and Lynbrook Bowl in 1956, they
did comply with existing ordinance standards. He added that since that time,
State Highway land acquisition and the installation of a major highway and
interchange have changed the physical surroundings and conditions such that the
buildings in question do not meet setback requirements. He reported that the
applicant contends that an undue hardship would result if he were required to
conform with the existing regulations which would mean that the front portion of
the Lynbrook Bowl and the front and side portions of the Spanjers building
would have to be removed to comply with the current regulations. He added that
the applicant also contends that the situation is unique and distinctive because
it was caused by the taking of the property for a public purpose. The Secretary
also reported that the applicant claims that the variance, if granted, would
not be detrimental to the public or injurious to other land, primarily because
it would be maintaining existing setbacks and not aggrevating an already existing
situation on the property.
The Secretary then reviewed Application No. 79013. He stated that the applicant
is requesting a special use permit for live entertainment in the lounge and
entertainment space next to the full service restaurant. He pointed out that
the entertainment would involve show groups with dancing available. He next
reviewed the Standards for Special Use Permits contained in Section 35-320
Subdivision 2 of the City Zoning Ordinance.
3-29-79 -3-
A discussion ensued relative to. Application Nos. 79011 , 79012 and 79013. Chair-
man Pierce noted that the recommended conditions of approval for site and building
plan do not include any wording regarding signery. He suggested that any approval
acknowledge that signery is subject to the City's Sign Ordinance and is not a part
of site and building plan approval . He noted that an additional light in the
northeast corner of the parking lot was missing from the plan reviewed on March
15, and that this lighting should also be indicated on the approved plans.
Further discussion ensued relative to the plans with it being pointed out that
the Lynbrook Bowl operation currently has a game room and that it might be worth-
while to provide bicycle parking on the site as was required for other sites
having such facilities.
Chairman Pierce noted that the public hearings had been held on March 15; 1979
regarding the plat, (79009), the variances (79010 and 79012) and the special use
permit (79013) . He inquired if anyone else had anything further to add. No one
spoke relating to the applications.
The Secretary commented that it is suggested, as a means of minimizing the vari-
ance request in the area along North Lilac Drive, that any approval of the vari:
ance be subject to certain conditions. He pointed out that it is recommended
that there be no on-street- parking permitted on either side of North Lilac Drive
in the area where only a 35' right-of-way is being provided. He added that it
is recommended that there only *be emergency exits permitted on the side of the
building that is adjacent to North Lilac Drive and that there be no entrances,
sidewalks or other amenities which would encourage pedestrian access to that
protion of the building.
Chairman Pierce next recognized the applicant, Steve Nelson, who stated that he
understood and concurred with the various recommendations made regarding the
I Ji..�i i��JV a. D.....1 b.�J .n n.•r.v. Leo•-1 r_� -rob!nm iii}
�� s
r1UCIJ. J lam. UU.JV4 VIIM . wi. w uy. ...w �. vv+r. ...�.... ....' ... ...
bicycle parking associated with the game rooms, they wuuid be wiiiiriy i.0 add
bicycle racks if it was felt they were necessary.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79009 (Steve Nelson)
Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Ma ecki seconded
by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 79009 submitted by
Steve Nelson subject to the following conditions:
1 . Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the
City Ordinances..
3. Final plat shall include an approximate 148' x 286' parcel
owned by the City of Brooklyn Center located on the southwest
corner of 65th Avenue North and North Lilac Drive.
The motion passed unanimously.-
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79010 (Steve Nelson)
Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval
of Application No. 79010 submitted by Steve Nelson noting that the Planning Com-
mission has taken into account the nature of the proposed use of land, the exist-
ing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the
proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon
traffic conditions in the vicinity and finds that:
3-29-79 -4-
1 . There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the
property such that strict application of the provisions of
this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable
use of his land.
2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoy-
ment of a substantial right of the petitioner.
3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious 'to other property in the territory
in which said property is situated.
The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79012 (Steve Nelsons
Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend the
approval of Application No. 79012 submitted by Steve Nelson noting the following:
1 . The variance request is consistent with the Standards for
Variances contained in the Zoning Ordinance, particularly
with respect to uniqueness, hardship and the fact that it
would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
2. The proposal for which the variance is sought is consistent
with the City's Comprehensive Plan recommendation for the
Northeast Neighborhood.
3. The proposal for which the variance is sought is consistent
with uses acknowledged in the C2 Zoning District.
4. Grantina of the variance is sub.iect to the tollowinq conditions:
a. There shall be no on-street parking permitted at
any time un either side of North Lilac Drive in
the area where only a 35' right-of-way is being
provided.
b. Only emergency exits will be permitted along the
side -of the building that is adjacent to North
Lilac Drive. No entrances, sidewalks or other
amenities which encourage pedestrian access to the
building in this area will be permitted.
The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION APPROVING APPLICATION NO. 79011 R'S�tWeN.Wlsm)Motion by Comm ission Hawes seconded by cht to recommend approval
of Application No. 79011 submitted by Steve Nelson subject to the following
conditions:
1.. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the
Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to
issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, and utility plans are subject to review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
permits.
3-29-79 -5-
3. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in
an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be
submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements.
4. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire exting-
uishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be
connected to an approved central monitoring system in accordance
with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances.
5: All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened
from view.
6. All landscaped areas shall be treated with sod and shall be
equipped with an underground irrigation system to facilitate
site maintenance.
7. Plan approval acknowledges a lower level in the building entrance
and connecting link which is to be used for storage purposes
only. Any other proposed use will be subject to further review
by the City.
8. The final plat for the property in question shall be filed prior
to the issuance of occupancy permits for the remodeled restaurant
area.
9. The applicant shall petition the City for roadway upgrading for
North Lilac Drive or submit the necessary bond for street and
curb improvements prior to the issuance of permits.
10 Plan app val is cxclusilv.c o f all r4gnC_n
IV• Plan u�,.Nr3ru1 IJ \rnVIbIJ1Yl. VI MI I Jlyll�.I, 1111IV11 IJ vuv��.vv VV '.
Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances.
11 . The applicant shall provide an appropriate bicycle parking area
on the plan.
12. Additional parking lot lighting, of the same type provided in
the plan, shall be provided on the northeast corner of the
parking lot.
The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79013
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to recommend approval
of Application No. 79013 submitted by Steve Nelson noting that the special use
is consistent with the Standards for Special Use Permits and is subject to the
following conditions:
1 . 'The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator*
of the facility and is nontransferable.
2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances,
and regulations involving live entertainment and violation
thereof shall be grounds for revocation.
3. The hours of operation for live entertainment shall coincide
with on-sale liquor license regulations.
The motion passed unanimously.
3-29-79 -6
APPLICATION NO. 79014 (Robert L. Johnson)
The next item of usiness was consideration of Application No. 79014 submitted by
Mr. Robert L. Johnson. The Secretary stated that the applicant is seeking re-
zoning from R3 (Townhouse/Garden Apartments to Cl (Service/Office) and C2 (Com-
mercial ) of an approximate 8 acre tract located in the 7200 Block, west of
Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that the property is bounded on the north by
the Brooklyn Center/Brooklyn Park municipal boundary, on the east by Brooklyn
Boulevard, on the west by Shingle Creek and on the south by the Creek Villa
townhouse neighborhood. The Secretary reported that the same applicant, under
Planning Commission Application No. 78032, had requested a rezoning for most of
this same area to C2 during the summer of 1978. He explained that that appli-
cation had been denied by the City Council because of the undesirable precedent
of rezoning the entire area to C2. The Secretary further reported that the
City Council , after denying the rezoning request, had directed the Planning
Commission to study the feasibility of considering a split zoning, Cl for the
southerly portion of the site and C2 for the northerly portion of the site, in
light of the following consideration: Cl zoning to the south could be compatible
with existing adjacent zoning in Brooklyn Center; C2 zoning on the northerly portion
could be compatible to adjacent land uses in Brooklyn Park; .the. split zoning might
provide a buffer between the R3 property (Creek Villa and The Ponds) and the com-
mercial properties in Brooklyn Park. He added that the Council also requested the
Commission to look at the feasibility of rezoning to Cl , a potentially landlocked
parcel to the west, lying easterly of Shingle Creek.
The Secretary next reported that the staff had made a report to the Planning
Commission on December 8, 1978 regarding the feasibility of such a rezoning.
He stated that the City Council , on December 18, 1978, after reviewing the
matter, had directed that a rezoning proposal comprehending a Cl and C2 rezoning
be accepted for review. He reported that this application is in response to that
direction,
the secretary then reported that the app 1 iCdr1t nay i nd icct Led Lilt deb i r-C, 1 I L;ie
rezoning requests are approved, to eventually develop a restaurant on the CZ
property to the north and Service/Office uses on the remainder of the parcels
to be rezoned to Cl . He noted that the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory
Group, when reviewing the C2 rezoning request unaer Application No. 78032 on
July 5, 1978, had recommended a split -Cl/C2 zoning for the parcel . He stated
that in light of this recent recommendation, it was not felt that this matter
would have to again be referred to that Neighborhood Group for their review and
comment. He indicated that the Neighborhood had been notified of the current
proposal , and has been encouraged to participate in the scheduled public hearing
this evening and to comment as to whether they feel there is a need for further
review by their Neighborhood Group.
A brief discussion ensued relative to the rezoning request with the Secretary
pointing out that the rezoning, under Application No. 78032, which was considered
during the summer and fall of 1978, was considered to be inconsistent with the
City's Comprehensive Plan because the proposal_ comprehended a C2 use for all
of the property in question. He noted that it was felt that to rezone this
area all to C2 was not an acceptable concept. He briefly reviewed the staff
report which had been presented to the Planning Commission and City Council
in December of 1978 regarding a split zoning. Commissioners Hawes stated that
he favored the rezoning request and had supported a split C1/C2 zoning when
Application No. 78032 was considered.
3-29-79 -7-
Chairman Pierce then recognized Mr. Robert Johnson, the applicant, who commented
regarding the westerly parcel that has been added to the rezoning request. He
pointed out that he is seeking Cl zoning for this parcel and that it is his
intent to donate the property to CEAP who intends to build on that site. He
introduced Mr. Ed Theisen, Chairman of the CEAP Board of Directors, who commented
relative to CEAP's plans to utilize this area for the eventual construction of
their headquarters.
Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing and
recognized Mr. Louis Terzich, a member of the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory
Group. * Mr. Terzich spoke in favor of the rezoning request and noted that the
current rezoning proposal was consistent with the recommendation made by that
group in July of 1978.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce inquired if anyone else wished to be recognized for the purposes
of a public hearing. No one spoke relating to the application. Motion by Com-
missioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing on
Planning Commission Application No. 79014. The motion passed unanimously.
APPLICATION NO. 79015 (Robert L. Johnson)
The Secretary reported that Mr. Johnson is seeking preliminary plat approval ,
should the rezoning request comprehended under Application No. 79014 be recom-
mended. He explained that the request involves the combining of part of Outlot
F, The Ponds Addition and part of Lot 19, Auditors Subdivision No. 57 into Lots
1 , 2 and 3, Block 1 , R. L. Johnson's 1st Addition. He pointed out that three
lots would be created, all having access onto Brooklyn Boulevard.... He noted
that a drainage, utility and access easement of 50 feat either side of the
center line of Shingle Creek would be provided. He noted that this easement
would he comnarahle to the one ohtained alona Shinale Creek on the east side of
Dvvvi�l j Dcu.cvard '.'ih�" +h_,+ nv.nnnrt'y --a-s ml ++^A 7Mcit fMl
..., w N. „r .� ..w r. ..
The Secretary reported that the parcel to the extreme west of Brooklyn Boulevard
would have an arm extending to Brooklyn Boulevard to provide access onto a public
street as required by City Ordinances. He stated that it is anticipated that
this area, with the proper legal agreements and restrictions, could be used as
a common access to serve all three lots in the plat. He noted that the access
would be a private, rather than a public access, and the plat indicates an area
30' in width. He pointed out that it might be more desirable if this area were
50 feet rather than 30 feet with portions of this area to be used for green-
strips and also for the storage of snow during the winter time. The Superintend-
ent of Engineering commented that the area could provide access to all ,'parcels
in the plat and there would be the need to establish necessary agreements for
each of the parcels to utilize this area. He commented further on the desir-
ability to provide 50 feet in the area, rather than the 30 feet indicated on the
plat. _
A brief discussion ensued relative to the applicant's intention to utilize a
parcel in Brooklyn Park to serve the C2 parcel in Brooklyn Center. The Secretary
pointed out that the applicant has indicated this desire, but added that it would
be necessary to dedicate the parcel in Brooklyn Park for use by the C2 parcel in
Brooklyn Center through a deed restriction or some other legal encumbrance prior
to permitting such an arrangement. He indicated that this would be a matter that
would have to be carefully reviewed at the time any site and building plans were
considered for development of the C2 parcel .
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce opened the meeting for purposes of a public hearing on Planning
Commission Application No. 79015. No one spoke relating to the application.
3-29-79 -8-
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
ommissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Tclose the public
otion Y passed unanimously-
hearing
on Application No. 79015. The motion p
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO, 79014 (Robert oner Hawesoseconded
Fo owing further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner
No. 79014 submitted
by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of App
Robert L. Johnson comprehending C2 zoning to the north and Cl zoning to the
by R
south and west, noting the following considerations:
1 . The property in question is uniqueebcially zonedspropertyn
between Shingle Creek and the comm
to the north in Brooklyn Park.
2. Approval of the rezoning acknowledges the C2 zoning on the '
north as being an extension with, the
existing commercial 9
3. Approval of the rezoning is not to imply that there is a
need for additional C2 rezonings along Brooklyn Boulevard:
4. The C2 rezoning to the north can be adequately buffered from
the
the less dense residential uses to which
concurrent Cl rezoning of the remainder of the property
is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79015 (Robert ioner Malecki)seconded
Fo owing a brief discussion, there was a motion blication No. 79015 submitted by
by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of App
Rnbprt 1 , inhnenn ,iihiprt to the fnilowino conditions:
1 . Final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. Final plat is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the
'.City Ordinances.
3. The preliminary plat will be revised to indicate the necessary
access easements along Shingle Creek.
RECESS g r m. and resumed at
The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission recessed at 9:40 p.
10:15 p.m.
PLANNING CONSULTANT'S REPORT REGARDING BROOKLYN BOULEVARD that of a report
The Secretary introduced the next item of usine-� on the agenda,
by the Planning Consultant regarding a Brooklyn Boulevard study.
Wolsfeld,
Chairman Pierce then recognized Mr. Bill Weber, of the`irrBrooklynsBoulevard study
Jarvis and Gardner (BRW) who distributed a copy is one
to the Planning Commission. He stated d bhaBRWhduBingkthe Comprehensivestudy
Plan review
of many studies that will be Constar Y in December
process. He explained that BRW f existing ephysoicalnfeatures rofsthe Brooklyn
with an inventory and analysis of
Boulevard Corridor; an analysis of .existingd and 1prrojectet
dtraffic movement Corridor;
and an inventory and analysis of the
capabilities of Brooklyn Boulevard. He addeanah�andscapin looked t number
g alongtheBoulevard.
of other items such as parking, structures,
3-29-79 -9-
,
Mr. Weber noted that between 25,000 and 30,000 `cars a day travel Brooklyn
Boulevard between Highway 100 and the north city limits and that during evening
rush hour as many as 5,000_ vehicles per hour utilize Brooklyn Boulevard in the
same area. He noted that the traffic volumes south of Highway 100 to the south
city limits are somewhat less'. He added that the church and greenhouse uses
along Brooklyn Boulevard at T. H. 100 seem to provide a good buffer for the other
residential uses.
Mr. Weber stated that the general image of th*e Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is a
mixed one. He noted that there are residential uses -along Brooklyn Boulevard, both
at the extreme north and extreme south portions, while there is heavy commercial.
areas at Brookdale and across Brookdale along Xerxes Avenue. He pointed out that
other heavy commercial areas include the area around 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard
as well as 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that Service/Office uses and
mid density and single family residential areas are also interspersed along the
corridor area. He further stated that he felt Brooklyn Center needs to form some
well founded policy to establish transition areas between these uses. He pointed
out that the areas of high redevelopment potential include the 69th and Brooklyn
Boulevard area, the area where the Chrysler dealership is located as well as the
area across from Brookdale. He noted, also, that the vacant parcel at the northeast
quadrant of Brooklyn Boulevard and County Road 10 is an area recommended for in-
tensive development as an office use.
With respect to commercial development along Brooklyn Boulevard between Highway 100
and Interstate 94, Mr. Weber stated that there are certain characteristics of a
linear pattern of independently developed, auto oriented commercial uses which may
cause some problems. He noted that the individual points of and
Brooklyn Boulevard from each development causes traffic-related access
along to ..
Brooklyn Boulevard, and that individual freestanding and competing signs for each
dPvalnnment also raiises problems alona the Boulevard. He added that there ma.y.
v......�} of nn�v.hi n(� IICG C_ around
V f 11�.. t 1�,. �.{{,.
y p.0.,t.J V 11 V.I V F M I E..� v. .....w• ✓ -.
these commercial areas, particularly if the residential ___
sufficient buffering from the commercial area and is notplocated inea position for
Potential redevelopment to a commercial use.
Mr. Weber next reported that four alternative concepts of possible physical develop-
ment have been formulated in order to portray the range of courses which the City
Of Brooklyn Center could pursue in the continued development and redevelopment of
land within the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. He explained that he would review
two of the alternatives which represent both ends of the spectrum regarding de-
velopment and redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard. He explained that the first
alternative is one which is closest to the existing development along Brooklyn
Boulevard, while the other is a more ideal approach to developing Brooklyn
Boulevard and is one more likely to be used at a earlier stage in development.
He noted that the other two alternatives are close in concept to the other two
alternatives and fall somewhat in between the approaches.
Mr. Weber stated that under the first alternative, the be
there would be no significant changes in land use with the suggestion
pattern and would strengthen the collection of service businesses near 69th
Avenue North, the retail businesses near 63rd Avenue North, and the services
businesses along the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 62nd and 59th
Avenues. -He explained that this alternative recommends that mid density housing
be used when developing or redeveloping land parcels into existing residential
areas, that being between' 70th Avenue and Shingle Creek and between the 63rd
Avenue retail area and Interstate 94. He added that this alternative. s will
Mr. Weber stated that less intense commercial facilities are recommended for land
areas along Brooklyn Boulevard in two locations: one, immediately west of the
Brookdale area and, two, the .eastern side of the rnrririnr hntuloon rQ4,k nna CO-a
He next reviewed another alternative concept which attempts to force more
integrated uses into various nodes. He explained that the development concept
'comprehends the enlargement of the community retail area around 63rd Avenue to
include the land now underutilized by the automobile dealership immediately south
of the Boulevard Center. He added that this strengthened retail center would be
separated from the Brookdale complex by the development within the corridor of
mid density housing on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that commercial
areas north of Interstate 94 would retain their present characteristics of com-
munity service use and auto-related commercial uses. He next pointed out some of
the features of this concept which include: the continuation of the retail and
service uses in and around Brookdale Shopping Center; the preservation of existing
low density single family neighborhoods south of T. H. 100, as well as west and
northwest of Brookdale; the continued use of the Howe Fertilizer site as an in-
dustrial area; the intensive development as an office use of the vacant land north-
east of the 58th Avenue intersection; strengthening the emerging sevice/office
pattern east of the Boulevard between 58th and 63rd Avenues; the reinforcement
of existing commercial developments near 63rd and 69th Avenues; the continuation
of auto-related commercial uses immediately north of Interstate 94; and mid density
residential infill development along Brooklyn Boulevard. Commercial uses north
of Interstate 94 would retain their present characteristics of community use and
auto-related commercial use.
Mr. .Weber then reviewed the recommended conceptual alternative for Brooklyn
Boulevard. He stated that this alternative for the continued evolution of the
Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor recognizes the constraints which certain existing
- developments have placed upon the City's options for change within the Corridor.
He added that working within these parameters, this alternative attempts to
strike a reasonable balance between the status quo shown in the first alternative
and the close-to-ideal situation portrayed by the second alternative. He added
that the recommended conceptual alternative was designed with the following
objectives in mind:
1 . lAnLd111111Ci1L UI l.Ufl1l11t:Il. la1 ialiu uaEa wt t.it ltt %,tcuI Iy uu l'rti.A
sectors of the Corridor by preventing the evolution of a .
"strip" of retail and service businesses from T. H. 100 to
the northern city boundary.
2. To preserve the smooth flow of traffic along Brooklyn Boulevard.
3. Protect adjacent residential neighborhoods from undue negative
environmental influences generated by development along
Brooklyn Boulevard.
4. To minimize disruption during redevelopment to residential
character in areas along Brooklyn. Boulevard which are
recommended to remain residential .
5. Provide an adequate amount of land designated for commercial
use within the Corridor to meet reasonable future community
needs for goods and services
6. Enhance the image and appearance of the .Corridor.
Mr. Weber stated that three principle retail nodes are recommended by this
alternative: the Brookdale Shopping Center, the 63rd Avenue area, and the 69th
Avenue area. He noted that the latter two represent expansions of existing com-
mercial developments. He pointed out that land presently being utilized by
single family homes is recommended to be redeveloped into new or more intense
retail uses.
3-29-79 -11-
Mr. Weber stated that less intense commercial facilities are recommended for land
areas along Brooklyn Boulevard in two locations:. one, immediately west of the
Brookdale area and, two, the .eastern side of the Corridor between 58th and 62nd
Avenues. He explained that the recommendation for less intense commercial uses
west of Brookdale is designed. to compliment retail uses east of the Boulevard.
Regarding the area between 58th and 62nd Avenues, he stated the recommendation is
in response to established service/office developments in that location. He noted
that if it were not for this developmental precedent in the 58th to 62nd Avenue
area, medium density residential land uses would, in all likelihood, have been sug-
gested. He added that a medium density residential use would better compliment
the low-to-medium density residential development across Brooklyn Bouelvard from
this area and more clearly demarcate the commercial land uses located both to the
north and to the south of that location within the Corridor.
Mr. Weber then stated that the recommended alternative concept also proposes
several well-defined residential locations to be preserved and intensified along
the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, and that their future uses should follow certain
guidelines which include the following: the most southerly residential areas
should retain their low-density character; the residential area north of 58th
Avenue should be allowed to evolve to a somewhat more intensive use through eventual
redevelopment with townhouses, two and four family homes (owner occupied is favored)
and commercial land uses should be disallowed; and the residential area immediately
south of Interstate 94 and that area north of 69th Avenue commercial node should
receive infill development and redevelopment with mid-density housing, not allowing
commercial uses to stray into these residential areas to detract from the character
which is being sought.
Mr. Weber then pointed out that a major office complex under this recommended
ZI ..... n-'. v v ra uA.ov GII%.VUi-uycv iv+ uic lwi L11UusL Sul ucr u1 JUt411 HVCIIUU aiiu DvUUKlyff
Souievard. He added that it is felt that the auto dealers by Interstate 94 will
desire to retain their present cluster arrangement and that, finally, industrial
land uses should be sustained at the southern most tip of Brooklyn Blvd. Corridor..
Mr. Weber then reviewed recommended public and private improvements and controls
for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor intended to help achieve a more functional
and aesthetically appealing roadway. He reviewed various recommendations regard
ing traffic operation improvements in four areas suggested for new development
and/or redevelopment which include the 69th Avenue retail area, the Halifax
Drive to Interstate 94 mid-density residential area, the 63rd Avenue retail area
and the 58th Avenue to 62nd Avenue area. Some of the improvements suggested
include limiting access to the areas of commercial development to local streets,
extending or constructing medians to channelize traffic flows, future studies
regarding signaiization in some areas, eliminating some driveways that presently
access onto Brooklyn Boulevard and combining or using shared curb cuts and other
such improvements. With respect to street lighting, Mr. Weber stated that to
improve the image and appearance of Brooklyn Boulevard, to lend additional defi-
nition to the Corridor's commercial areas and to increase traffic safety certain
street lighting facilities are recommended. He noted that it is felt the entire
length of Brooklyn Boulevard should be relighted using carefully selected and
aesthetically pleasing concepts. He added that in residential areas the lighting
should be designed to produce a somewhat lesser degree of illumination than that
provided in commercial sectors.
With respect to. landscape improvements, it is recommended that the ima9e and
appearance of Brooklyn Boulevard be upgraded by including landscaping of the
medians and publicly owned land along both sides of the roadways. He suggested
the use of coniferous plants as a means for screening as well . He added that
3-29-79 -12-
because public land areas constitute only a limited portion of the land along
Brooklyn Boulevard, it is important to encourage additional landscaping of
privately owned land as well. He pointed out that the City may wish to consider
a low interest loan program to private landowners along Brooklyn Boulevard to
assist and encourage the construction of earth and berms and the planting of
trees, shrubs and'fl-owers within setback areas.; He also indicated that existing
overhead wire should be located underground, if at all possible..
Mr. Weber concluded his report by indicating that the recommended conceptual
alternative also urges certain amendments and additions to existing public land
use and signage control . He explained that the property within the Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor which is presently zoned R-5 should be rezoned to the R-3
classifications to accommodate townhduses and garden apartments . He further
explained that medium density residential land uses will allow the eventual
conversion to a more intense, more economically functional use of land presently
utilized by single family homes without resorting to a commercial land use or a
high density residential use. He noted that indications are that commercial use
of this land or high density residential uses are generally not favored by com-
munity residents. With respect to the City Sign Ordinance, Mr. Weber also recom-
mended that the following amendments be considered:
1 . That the table of permitted freestanding sign areas in heights
be amended so that its allowable maximum sign areas be reduced
by 20%. He added that the maximum allowable sign height should
be restricted to 24 feet. He also indicated that the list of
'prohibited sign types should be expanded to include `tign design
incorporating any "chasing action", (used to create the
appearance of motion) or "scintilating action" (used to give
the effect of twinkling lights) .
Following Mr. Weber's presentation, a lengthy discussion ensued relative to the
report. there was much discussion regar•diny Liw area along the 6�°ookly�� Boulavu-J
Corridor between 58th and 63rd Avenues on the west side. It was teat tnat witn
the east side being recommended for less intense commercial uses and the west side
being recommended for mid density residential uses, may create some developmental
problems. It was pointed out that there may well be intense pressure to also
develop the land in this area along the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard for com-
mercial uses. , Mr. Weber explained that this area would be looked at in more
detail and that perhaps there were some methods to addressing this problem.
Mr. Weber indicated that BRW would next be presenting Land Use Plans, Trans-
portion Plans, Parks and Open Space Plans and Housing Plans . The Secretary in-
dicated that certain plans such as the Housing and Parks and Open Space Plans
should be referred by the Commission to the respective citizen advisory groups
for their input and comment.
REQUEST TO BE EXCUSED
Commissioner Malecki noted that she would be unable to attend the April 12
Planning Commission meeting and requested to be excused.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting.
The motion passed unanimously. The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission adjourned.
at 12:15 a.m.
Chairman
3-29-79 -13-
1
1