Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 04-26 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 APRIL 26, 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 Pierce, Commissioners Malecki., Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, and Planning Assistant'Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (April 12, 1979) Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Lucht to approve the minutes as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioners Malecki and Theis abstained because they were not at that meeting. APPLICATION NO. 79020 (James Speckmann) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item to be considered was a request for site and building plan approval by Mr. James Speckmann on behalf of Brooklyn Properties. The Secretary explained that the applicant intends to construct a 14,850 sq. ft. law office on the former slaughterhouse property . located at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard. He pointed out that the site is bounded on the east by the Brcoklyn Boulevard frontage road; on the west by Northport Drive; on the north by two single tamely residential properties and on the suui.'ri uy iiie C-1 zoned property including the two single family homes occupied temporarily by CEAP. The site includes the former slaughterhouse parcel , approximately 167' x 291 ' , and an area approximately 25' x 165' which is part of the Library Tevrace Addition that includes the Library property. The Secretary noted that the area in question was rezoned to Cl under Application No. 78058 in December of 1978. He added that the owners have indicated they have a purchase agreement for the 28' x165' parcel now belonging to the Library and that this would be part of the area replatted. The Secretary reviewed certain aspects of the site and building plan. He pointed out that 74 parking spaces would be required based on the ordinance formula of one space for every 200 feet of gross floor area. The applicant, however, has calculated his parking needs for the site to be approximately 59 spaces. He indicated that the plan submitted shows 60 parking spaces with a Proof of Parking for 14 addition spaces. The building, "e said, is required to be set back 50' from the property line abutting Brooklyn Boulevard as per the ordinance. Also, the required 15 ft. greenstrip and building setback where C-1 and R-1 abut at a property line is shown in the plans. He explained that the plans also indicate a 6 ft. high opaque wood fence would be placed at staggered intervals to provide the required screening along the north property line. The Secretary briefly discussed the landscape plan which comprehends retaining as many trees and plantings on the site as possible. He reviewed the various berms and plantings proposed. 4-26-79 -1- In response to a question from Commissioner Theis, the Secretary indicated that no screening from the homes across Northport Drive was required or indicated in the plans. Commissioner Theis inquired if parking had to be added to the site, and whether there would be enough space available to provide. sufficient berming along with that parking. The Secretary responded that the plans as presently drawn would seem to indicate that space was available. r Superintendent of Engineering James Noska arrived at 7:50 p.m. Chairman Pierce asked whether the proposed site plan met all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary answered that the proposed plan meets the Zoning Ordinance Standards. The Secretary next pointed out that the applicant plans to retain as many plant- ings on the site as possible, that handicapped parking stalls are indicated on the south side of the building and reviewed the planned use of the various floors in the building. Commissioner Theis asked why the amount of parking provided was geared to the applicant's needs as opposed to the requirements for other Cl uses. The Secretary responded that such a wavier of the parking requirement is done often when the applicant can show that the parking requirement be reduced, and as long as the potential exists for installing the required parking if the City considers it necessary. In °answer to Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary pointed out that an underground sprinkling system has been provided on all sides of the site. The Commission then discussed with the Superintendent of Engineering the flow of drainage on the site and the need for additional catch basins to handle drainage to (";a southwest. Mr. Speckmann then answered Questions from the Commission. In response to Commis- -;nnnv. Hai.inc Mr Cnorirm?nn c_tatrid that thin Pntrarn:P nn thin. e _ t side of the building was a required fire exit. Chairman Pierce asked whether the applicant felt the parking provided was adequate for the users' needs. Mr. Speckmann re- plied that the attorneys who will be using the first floor of the building are usually out on business and that both attorneys seldom have two clients in to see them at the same time. . He added that certified public accountants were ex- pected to occupy the upper floor and they were not expected to generate a great deal of traffic. Commissioner Hawes asked whether a specific location on the site had been designated for trash. Mr. Speckmann answered that this would be placed at the northwest corner of the building. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79020 (James Speckmann) Motion by Cot;:-iissioner Erickson seconded-by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 79020 submitted by James Speckmann for an office building at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard 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 the 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. 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. 4-26-79 -2- 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 accord- ance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. All landscaped areas are to be treated with sod and shall be equipped with an underground irrigation system to facilitate'.. site maintenance. 6. Any outside trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened from view. 7. Plan approval acknowledges the deferral of 14 parking spaces based on the applicant's parking plan which indicates that the ordinance required parking spaces can be provided. 8. The property is subject to replatting as required by Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. The property is subject to final plat approval prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht, and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 8:07 p.m. and resumed at 8:18 p.m. Commissioner Manson arrived at 8:10 p.m. REPORT BY THE PLANNING CONSULTANTS FROM BRW ON THE UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN After the recess, the Secretary introduced Bill Weber and John McNamara of BRW to make a presentation to the Planning Commission and assembled citizens on various aspects of the updated Comprehensive Tian. He eniphcts izeu that the purpose of the.meeting was to inform the Planning Commission, Neighborhood Groups and other City Advisory Commissions as to the planning recommendations being submitted. He added that all of the information presented by the Planning Consultants at the meeting would be available to any in the Neighborhood Groups, the City Advisory Commissions and any other interested citizens who desire it. Brooklyn Boulevard Study Bill Weber began the presentation by reviewing the Consultants ' report on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stressed the importance of what he termed the "transition zone", citing it as the most difficult problem in the study. Managing the changes foreseen in the plan, he said, would be a most difficult problem for the City. He proceeded to review the Brooklyn Boulevard study and stated that there were three types of areas along Brooklyn Boulevard which presented varying challenges: 1 . Those areas where the permitted use should change; 2. Those areas which should be developed; 3. Those areas which should be maintained. Mr. Weber reviewed the various uses in place along Brooklyn Boulevard as they arranged themselves into general categories. He recommended that the area at the extreme southern end of Brooklyn Boulevard remain for industrial use. Resi- dential uses should predominate on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard south of Highway 100. North of Highway 100, residential use should continue on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard to 55th Avenue North with Brookdale on the east. He 4-26-79 -3- recognized the area on the west side of Brooklyn- Boulevard from 55th to 58th . Avenues North as a transition area which could go to service/office uses. He cited the large tract of land available for highrise office use at the northeast corner of 58th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. On the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard north of 58th, he recommended mid-density residential use. Howard Oien, of 6919 Oliver Avenue North, asked about the recommendation to leave single family residential on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard, just north of Highway 100. Mr. Weber answered that he did not recommend removing RI use from that area because of the single family homes immediately west of the lots abut- ting the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road. He added that at the previous meet- . ing, the Planning Commission had recommended that this area be kept residential . Mr. Oien explained that he owned a house in that area and wanted to convert it to an office. In returning to the discussion about the transition zone, Mr. Weber pointed out , that the return on land investment is greatest with a townhouse development next only to an office development. He recommended strengthening of the retail area at 63rd, but also recommended that no further retail development be allowed north of that point to the freeway. In that stretch he recommended more mid density, owner/occupied, residential use. North of the freeway, he pointed out, the existing auto dealers are an appro-. priate use in this area. The service/office uses, however, should perhaps con- vert to retail uses, he said. North of 69th Avenue to the City limits, he recommended more mid-density residential development. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Weber stated that he did not recommend any apartments to be developed along Brooklyn Boulevard, but rather e„r!ouraged owner/occupied units such as townhouses. TRAFFIC OPERATION IMPROVEMENTS Mr." Weber then reviewed various traffic control improvements which would improve traffic flows at five specific locations along the Boulevard. In the-retail -area surrounding 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard, he recommended that, wherever" possible, access to areas of commercial development be via local streets. He recommended a median to be constructed in the area north of the freeway to elimi- nate left turns at intersections. He also recommended left turn lanes at the intersection of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard. At that point, Leo Hanson, 4911 Brooklyn Boulevard, complained about the level of traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard and expressed concern about the future growth of that traffic volume. Mr. Weber answered that the volume of traffic on Brook- lyn Boulevard, south of Highway 100, is likely to go down in the future because of the upgrading of Highway 94 and Highway 169 to the east. Mr. Hank Bogucki, of 7000 Quail Avenue North, asked about the suggestion that traffic signals be installed at the intersections of 68th and 70th Avenues North. Mr. Weber re- plied that these suggestions were based on traffic movements at these inter- sections and that continuing studies should be made of these intersections to determine whether such signals are, in fact, needed. Mr. Bogucki asked why the consultants did not recommend a median for the full length of Brooklyn Boulevard., Mr. Weber answered that such a median would not be warranted at all locations. The City Engineer pointed out that left turn signals do exist at the intersection of 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and that the State is consider- ing the interphasing of signals all along the Boulevard for improved traffic management. Mr. Bogucki cited the fact that some areas of the country require driveway turn-arounds for residences on major thoroughfares. The Superintendent of Engineering added that since Brooklyn Boulevard is actually a State road, the City cannot do work on the highway itself, it can. only suggest that things such as medians be installed. 4-26-79 -4- Mr. Weber continued with various recommendations for other locations along Brooklyn Boulevard. In general , he recommended that curb cuts onto Brooklyn Boulevard be eliminated wherever possible and that access be provided via cross streets or common curb cuts whenever possible and that traffic movements along the Boulevard be continually monitored in order to determine at what point signalization of intersections is appropriate. He also recommended improved lighting at retail nodes and suggested that a .program of low interest loans to homeowners along Brooklyn Boulevard to subsidize landscaping improvements be considered. - Chairman Pierce asked whether the lighting at retail centers was the City's perogative or the State's. The Superintendent of Engineering said that lighting was a City matter. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hawes, -Mr. Weber recommended that wherever feasible, access to Brooklyn Boulevard be channeled via 69th or 63rd Avenue. The Secretary concurred in this recommendation citing a number of complaints about the traffic impacts of new developments along Brooklyn Boulevard. as a result of the numerous curb cuts allowing many inter- ruptions in the traffic flow. Chairman Pierce asked whether extending the median to south of 59th Avenue would be a good way to control traffic. The Secretary responded that it would improve traffic flow, but pointed out that the access to many businesses and residences would be impacted. If a median were extended, some median cuts might be necessary, but should only be allowed where common access points are created . The Planning Consultants then showed a number of slides depicting the aesthetic characteristics of the Boulevard. They had praise for the fine homes along Brooklyn Boulevard and for the quality. development at Westbrook Mall . However, in the neighborhood of 69th Avenue North the Consultants found many distractions and a cluttered appearance of the small shops in the area. They indicated a need to develop some additional control of signs and recommended that overhead wires be placed underground whenever possible. At the end of the presentation, lrV11Y 111JJIVIICI NaWE. QJACU YYIIC I,IICI I,IIC �JI VUICIIIJ VI Siyila yc (CJUILCU II VIII L. IQI.I. that -every business has its own individual logo. Mr. Weber responded that this was not necessarily the problem; that in Brookdale every tenant has its own logo, but that they are all consistent in design and size and therefore have an aesthetically pleasing effect. - John McNamara pointed out that signage controls may vary. from neighborhood to neighborhood depending on local needs. SPECIAL' DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Bill Weber discussed a number of difficulties presented by the evolution of land use along Brooklyn Boulevard between 58th Avenue and 61st Avenue North. If land from the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard to the next north-south street to the west were zoned for commercial use, he asked, what impact would office or town- house development have on the traffic movements on Brooklyn Boulevard and on neighborhood streets to the west? Mr. Weber displayed two major scenarios which contemplated on one hand, commercial developments in this stretch of Brooklyn Boulevard, and on the other, townhouse developments. Mr. Weber summed up his presentation by stating that the primary objectives for Brooklyn Boulevard were 1) to reduce curb cuts and 2) to control and unify signage. The City, he said, has three options. It can do nothing and thereby allow small developments to proliferate up and down the Boulevard with question- able impact on aesthetic and traffic aspects. of the Boulevard. Two, it can amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a minimum lot width of 150 feet in the Cl zone when fronting a major thoroughfare, also a minimum lot size of one acre. This, he stated, would encourage slightly larger developments and would make traffic engineering a simpler task. The third alternative, he said, would be for the City to buy critical tracts of land in order to control the nature and scale of development. This option, however, would have the greatest monetary and political impact. 4-26-79 -5- Chairman Pierce asked whether smaller office uses could not share a common access. Mr. Weber agreed that they certainly could. A person in the audience voiced his preference for rezoning of all property be- tween Brooklyn Boulevard and the next street to the west to Cl use. Mr. Weber stated that the problem was one of land assemblage. He commented that for economic reasons, townhouse developments must consist of at least _15 units before a developer will undertake a project. Concern was expressed by a person in the audience that townhouse developments would have access via residential streets rather than Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Weber disagreed with that assumption. Commissioner Theis asked whether the residences behind the CiA zoned property at the northeast corner of 58th and Brooklyn Boulevard should continue. John McNamara answered that the lots in question were too large and represented too great a residential investment to be converted to office use. Chairman Pierce asked why the proposed land use plan showed the corner of 60th and Beard Avenues to remain Rl . Mr. Weber stated that if it were zoned up to Cl or C2, the resulting development would bring noise and traffic into the residential neighborhood. At the conclusion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study, the Secretary reiterated his invitation to various neighborhood groups and other interested citizens for in- put on the items to be studied.in the Comprehensive Plan. HOUSING John McNamara reviewed briefly some of the elements in the housing plan. He cited an inventory of single family and multiple family units. He noted that deterioration of some houses had begun in the southeast neighborhood. It was not an insurmountable problem as yet, but should be addressed without delay. He suggested that the local HRA could perhaps deal with the deterioration in the cmithaast nai.nhhnrhnod. Hp stated that the City has almost reacnea the 198u goals established by the Metropolitan Council for subsidized housing. Mr. McNamara explained that there are various types of subsidized housing, chief among them, Section 8 Housing. Section 8 Housing, he explained, can consist of either rent subsidies to individuals in existing housing units or as construct- ion subsidies for particular buildings to be used for low and moderate income housing. Mr. McNamara concluded his remarks by stating that the Housing Commis- sion would study the Housing Plan as submitted and bring input back to the Plan- ning Commission at the next meeting. PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN bill e er egan is remarks about the Park Plan by stating that it is difficult to improve on Brooklyn Center's Park System. He outlined five different types of Park elemtfits. 1 ) Neighborhood Parks 2) Community Parks 3) Nature Interpretative Parks 4) Recreation Parks and 5) Bike and Pedestrian Path System. The need at this point, he said, is not to acquire more land, but to maintain the parks that are already in existence. He stated that he was in complete agreement with the 1976 Parks and Recreation Plan and the 1978 Develop- ment Schedule for the Park System. He noted that the priorities of these reports placed neighborhood parks and the Central Park at the top of the list. Gene Hagel , the Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that one reason the amount of money anticipated for Central Park was so large was that the park was being developed from the initial ground work whereas neighborhood parks already had some facilities and the money anticipated for those parks represents addi- tional development. 4-26-79 -6- Mr. Bogucki asked how Mr. Hagel intended to place trailways across the Brookdale Shopping Center. Mr. Nagel responded that easements were being sought. A dis- cussion then ensued concerning the linking up of Shingle Creek trailway system with the trail system in Minneapolis. Mr. Weber recommended that the land by the water tower in the southeast neighbor- hood be purchased by the City for park purposes. Mr. Hagel responded- that the City might acquire some of the land in that area as a result.of tax delinquency. The Secretary expressed appreciation to all those who had come to the meeting that night to hear the proposals for the revised Comprehensive Plan. He en- couraged the Neighborhood Groups to consider the proposals laid before them at the meeting and to return with input to be considered at the study session in May. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Lucht to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commis- sioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Chairman ' 4-26-79 -7-