Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 06-28 PCM 4 MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION June 28, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. The Secretary informed the Commission that Commissioner Manson had called him before the June 14, 1979 and indicated that she would not be at the June 28, 1979 meeting. He also stated that Commissioner Lucht had called earlier in the day saying that he would be late to this evening 's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - June 14, 1979 Commissioner Erickson noted that he had made the motion for denial of Application No. 79037 at the June 14 meeting. Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO 79030�Brooklyn Center Industrial Park) The Secretary introduced the first business item, site and building plan approval to construct three speculative buildings totalling approximately 140,000 square feet on a 13 acre site, located on Freeway Boulevard westerly of Schmitt Music. He pointed out that the parcel is bounded on the south by Freeway Boulevard, on the west by vacant industrially zoned property, on the east by the Schmitt Music site and on the north by Shingle Creek. The Secretary explained that the appli- cation was tabled at the June 14, 1979 Planning Commission meeting and that at that time the Commission directed the applicant to submit revised plans providing for a 140 ft. separation between two of the buildings for a paved loading dock and driveway area. The Commission also directed that the plans be modified to provide a 50 ft. setback for the building facing Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary noted that the applicant has submitted a new plan incorporating these changes. The Secretary then showed the Commission the plans of the site which provided for a staggered location of the two buildings such that the 140 feet can be maintained with a minimum reduction in building area. The Secretary also reviewed for the Commission the fact that the applicant proposes a natural ground cover along Shingle Creek Parkway at the northerly portion of the site. He also pointed out an existing 25 ft. sanitary sewer easement which runs in a southeasterly direction at about the center of the site from west to east for approximately 635 feet and then heads southerly towards Freeway Boulevard. Commissioner Theis inquired as to moving the curb cut at the west edge of the site in order to serve both Shingle Creek Plaza and the property to the west. Mr. Beisner stated that the property to the west would not be developed before 1980. The Secretary added that he did not see a problem with widening the driveway later to serve both properties as long as there was common ownership. In response to Commissioner Hawes, the Secretary stated that if the property were sold he still did not see a problem with arranging a common access agreement. 6-28-79 -1- Commissioner Theis asked how much building area was lost as a result of widening the paved loading dock and driveway area. Mr. Beisner answered that only 2800 square feet of building area had been sacrificed, with the remaining area being subtracted from open space. Commissioner Erickson asked whether calculating parking requirements for 15% office usage would be adequate. Mr. Beisner answered that office usage and other speculative industrial buidings was less than 10% on average and so he did not see any problem. Chairman Pierce asked the Superintendent of Engineering about the drainage on the site. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that most of the water would be retained on the site, which is preferable, and that the remainder would flow chiefly toward Freeway Boulevard. The Commission then discussed the question of widening the proposed curb cut at the west end of the site when the property to the west was developed. Chairman Pierce asked whether a bituminous curb would be the most feasible alternative in the interim. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that he did not think there would be a problem cutting through a concrete curb. Chairman Pierce asked the applicant whether any plan existed for the site to the west. Mr. Beisner answered that no plan existed at present, but supposed that it would probably be occupied by an L-shaped building facing Freeway Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue North. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79030 (Brooklyn Center Ind. Park Motion by Commissioner Erickson seconded by Commissioner Theis to recoranend approval of Application No. 79030, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The 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. The building shall be equipped with an automatic extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to a central monitoring service in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 5. All outside trash -disposal equipment and/or rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 6. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all driving and parking areas. 7. An underground irrigation system shall be provided in all sodded and planting areas to facilitate site maintenance. The irrigation shall not be required in areas by Shingle Creek where natural ground cover will continue to exist. 8. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to the requirements of Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 6-28-79 -2- 3 9. A standard utility maintenance agreement approved by the City Engineer shall be executed prior to the issuance of permits. 10. A joint access approved by the City Engineer, shall be provided on the westerly portion of the site to provide access to the subject site and to the industrially zoned parcel immediately to the west. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Hawes and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO 79023 (Brooklyn Center Industrial Park) The next item of consideration was a request by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park to rezone from R3 to I-1 , a 72 acre portion of Outlot E, Twin Cities Interchange Addition. The Secretary pointed out that the land in question lies adjacent to Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway north of Interstate 94. Under the current request, he said, the remaining 122 acres of the 20 acre site would remain R3 for development of up to 100 townhouse units . The Secretary noted that the application was tabled at the May 10, 1979 meeting and referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. Commissioner Theis attended the meeting of the neighborhood group, on June 7 at City Hall, and has submitted minutes for the proceedings, he said. The Secretary reported that the consensus of opinion of those who attended was that the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway would not be suitable for residential development. He also stated that there was a general concern expressed that the townhouses constructed not be subsidized with federal money. The Secretary stated that staff is at a loss to see the merits for the neighbor- hood, the City, or even the applicant, of an I-1 zoning. He indicated that while a residential use at the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway may be less than optimal , an industrial use presents even fewer ad- vantages. The applicant, he said, argues without tangible support, that the development of the 72 acres in question for industrial use will somehow guarantee a quality owner-occupied townhouse development on the rest of Outlot E. However, he reasoned, logic would suggest that an industrial development bringing truck traffic and possibly other annoyances would make the sale of townhouses more difficult and increase the likelihood of a less desirable residential development. The Secretary also questioned whether the land in question would support the use for which it would be zoned. He pointed out that of the 72 acres proposed for rezoning to I-1 , over 42 acres would be devoted to a landscape buffer area with underground sprinkling system. This, -he said, is based on a 100 ft. buffer between I-1 and R3 uses and a 50 ft. setback off major thoroughfares - Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. Based on these constraints, he main- tained, the site is only able to accommodate one 45,000 sq. ft. industrial building. This, he said, is only about half the land use efficiency being obtained on the average in the rest of the Industrial Park. The Secretary con- sidered this an inefficient use of land. Only as a prelude to further rezonings of land to the west, he stated, does this proposal seem to serve the applicants interest. r The Secretary also argued that the proposal seems premature at this time. He noted that there is more undeveloped I-1 land than R3 land in the City at present (if The Ponds Development is considered to be developed) and that the demand for townhouses is growing. The Secretary stated that the development option afforded by the existing zoning does not seem to have been pursued vigorously. He sug- gested that the applicant pursue the idea'of developing a quality mid-density complex on the wester 12'2 acre portion of the site first and then possibly 6-26-79 -3- propose a less intense use, such as Cl , on the eastern T2 acres if accompanied by a specific development proposal that would offer maximum protection for, the neighborhood. The Secretary considered such a course to- be the most acceptable to provide buffering to a mid-density '^esidential development. The Secretary concluded that the requested I-1 zoning should be denied because the proposal is not consistent with the ordinance Rezoning Evaluation and Review Guidelines for the following reasons: 1 . The rezoning proposal, does not demonstrate clear public need or benefit. The applicant has not shown that the I-1 rezoning proposal would assure that the remainder of the 20 acre site would be developed as zoned. 2. The I-1 zoning is not considered compatible with the R3 use to the west: 3. The parcel in question does not seem to allow the efficient use of land under the I-I zoning restriction. 4. The rezoning would result in the expansion of a zoning district not warranted by the Comprehensive Plan. Additional undeveloped I-1 property is located in the immediate vicinity. There is no perceived need for additional I-1 zoned land in this area. 5. The proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner of the parcel . Chairman Pierce then called on the applicant to speak to the proposal . Mr. Beisner noted that previous proposals for rezoning of this area have been denied, although he could not explain why. He pointed out that it is generally agreed that residential use is not appropriate at the corner of Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. He also maintained that Brooklyn Center Industrial Park does have a master plan for the Industrial Park. Mr. Beisner said that people are afraid of subsidized housing. He stated that the Industrial Park could.have built such housing on the site, but that they were interested in being cooperative with the neighborhood. He then reviewed previous conceptual plans for the area. He indicated that the site must be developed either for rental or for sale, not a mix. Previous ideas for use at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North, he said, included apartments, then office buildings and now finally, an industrial building. Mr. Beisner maintained that Brooklyn Center Industrial Park could make more money off rental units than by selling townhouses. He said that he was trying to satisfy a number of groups: the neighborhood, the City, the School Board (which is interested in 100 new families entering the area), and the owner of the land. He acknowledged that a Cl or CIA use at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North would cause visual pollution to the neighborhood to the west. As to the efficient use of the land, he said, it is the City which requires the large green area. In conclusion, he stated that he thought the School Board, the City and the neighborhood would be satisfied with the I-1 zoning. He mentioned the fact that he has tried to discuss the proposal with everyone involved and that while not everyone would be' 100% satisfied, most people would be perhaps 75% satisfied. . Commissioner Malecki arrived at 8:15 p.m. 6-28-79 -4- Chairman Pierce inquired whether Brooklyn Center Industrial Park owns the Earle Brown Patio Homes remaining to be built. Mr. Beisner admitted that he was not sure, although he didn't think so. He acknowledged that the Homeowners Associ- ation Agreement for the Earle Brown Patio Homes indicates that Brooklyn Center Industrial Park is the owner. If so, he said, the Farm would try to tie those houses in with the townhouses to be built,to the east. Looking over the conceptual plan presented by Mr. Beisner, Chairman Pierce inquired whether it met all ordinance requirements. There was a brief examin- ation by the Secretary. The Planning Assistant pointed out that the conceptual plan takes no account of the 100 ft. buffer required between I-1 and R3 uses. This buffer area cannot be used for driving, parking, or any other use, but must be a maintained green area. Mr. Beisner responded that the precise line drawn to indicate the proposed zoning districts was not cast in concrete and that they would be willing to accept a different 72 acre configuration. Chairman Pierce questioned whether the City could rezone land in concept without specific bound- aries. The Secretary stated that the Zoning Ordinance must be amended to show precise areas belonging to particular zoning districts. Mr. Beisner again stated that the line could be redrawn. Commissioner Theis asked whether any information regarding restrictive covenants had been gained from the Monday night Council meeting. The Secretary answered that the City Attorney had said that the zoning cannot place such covenants on the land, but that owners can. The Secretary continued that if Mr. Beisner is looking for direction regarding a recommended use for the land, that direction is given by the Comprehensive Plan which recommends an R3 use. He argued that I-1 is not a good buffer between a residential development and the rest of the Industrial Park. He clarified that City staff had never recommended that I-1 zoning on the parcel and that his recommendation at this time would be to de- velop a quality mid-denisty residential complex on the easterly portion of the site before looking at any rezoning of the area by Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North. Chairman Pierce inquired what the traffic count was at Xerxes Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that at present it is between 12,000 and 15,000 cars per day. Commissioner Hawes asked whether stop signs had been considered for that intersection. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that even signals had been considered, and in answer to Commissioner Theis indicated the same for the corner of 69th Avenue ,forth and Shingle Creek Parkway. Commissioners Hawes asked whether truck traffic would be allowed on Xerxes Avenue North. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that since it is a MSA road,- it would be allowed. Mr. Beisner again stated that the line could be changed in order to have the most efficient use of land. Commissioner Lucht arrived at 8:28 p.m. Commissioner Theis, speaking on behalf of the residents in the area, stated that the single family homes in the area were in favor of the industrial concept. Mr. Dilley of the Earle Brown Patio Homes Association stated that the residents of the townhouse association had switched their recommendation to denial of_ the rezoning request because of the way they were treated by the applicant relative to site improvements. Commissioner Theis noted that the neighborhood was in- terested in controls over the development and assurances that it would be of high quality. He commented, however, that the Planning Commission could not assure such things. The neighborhood meeting, he said, indicated that people in the area were in favor of the industrial rezoning. The meeting did not really discuss the alternative of service/office or retail use, he said. 6-28-79 -5- He observed that once the rezoning takes place, the leverage which the City would have over the development would be lost. He added, therefore, he would prefer to withold the rezoning until some of the townhouses were built, but indicated he was not opposed to some kind of rezoning. Mr. Beisner said that he wanted to avoid working up a total plan for the area and then to have the rug pulled out from under him by not having the property rezoned. It would take too long to develop a specific plan, he said, and in the meantime Brooklyn Center Industrial Park would not have its rezoning. He asked for direction as to what would be allowed. Commissioner Hawes stated that the intersection is probably not good for resi- dential , but agreed with the Secretary that an I-1 zoning would not be good either. Mr. Beisner countered that the corner is not good for retail or office either, and since it is not good for residential , it must be used for industrial . Commissioner Hawes stated that it would not be suited for industrial without a variance. Commissioner Malecki stated that she agreed with the position recommended and that taken by Commissioner Hawes. She noted that no assurances could be given in conjunction with the I-1 rezoning that would guarantee a quality development. Commissioner Hawes suggested a recreational use at the corner of Xerxes Avenue i'dorth and Shingle Creek Parkway as part of the residential development. - Commissioner Theis asked Mr. Beisner which would be developed first, the town- houses or the industrial building. Mr. Beisner answered that he would prefer that they be built simultaneously, but that townhouse financing was not available. Chairman Pierce commented that some types of industrial uses might be compatible, but that the configuration of the land does not seem appropriate and that the proposed conceptual plan placing truck docks adjacent to the residential area is undesirable. Commissioner Hawes pointed out that the City has relatively plenty of R3 and I-1 vacant land, but very little Cl land and asked Mr. Beisner whether this would not be a good indication that there is a need for more Cl land. Mr. Beisner answered that the need for Cl land in the City generally could not be taken as an indication that any particular parcel would be suitable for service/ office use. Chairman Pierce called for a motion on the rezoning proposal . Commissioner Theis stated that he would prefer that reason No. 2 be stricken from the list of reasons for denial since he did not want to close the door to I-1 use forever. Commis- sioner Lucht responded that he could not see any reason to rezone the land to I-1 . He stated that Xerxes Avenue (North is the best buffer between the Industrial Park and the residential development to the west, and that an I-1 use would never be appropriate for the land in question. He preferred to see the entire parcel remain R3 and be developed as such. He noted that a common area, could be developed with the townhouses to assure adequate protection at that corner. In response to a comment from Commissioner Erickson, Commissioner Theis pointed out that the minutes to the neighborhood meeting were an indication of the neighborhood's feelings, not that of the advisory groups, since only one advisory group member had been present. Commissioner Malecki agreed with Commissioner Lucht that I-1 zoning at the corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North was not appropriate. 6-28-79 -6- Commissioner Theis commented that the application was not only for I-1 , but also for CIA. Mr. Beisner asked if the land would be rezoned to CIA as a result of the denial of the I-1 zoning. The Secretary answered that that would not be the case. He noted that the applicant had indicated at the May 10, 1979 Commission meeting that the Service/Office zoning was undesirable and, for that reason, it is no longer being considered. The Secretary added that the CIA proposal has not really been discussed further by the Commission or the Neighborhood Advisory Group and that what comment does exist on the record indicates people in the area would be opposed to a zoning without a height limitation. Commis- sioner Theis asked the Secretary if a Cl zoning for the land in question would be appropriate. The Secretary responded that the City has, on a number of occasions, indicated its preference for the development of the entire 20 acre parcel as mid-density residential . He pointed out that a Cl rezoning of the easterly area might be considered appropriate to buffer a townhouse development from the rest of the Industrial Park. He agreed with Commissioner Lucht's observation that a townhouse development could be designed so that recreational and large common areas could be located in the vicinity of Shingle Creek Parkway and Xerxes Avenue North to provide protection, or a buffer, for the residential development. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79023(Brooklyn Center Industrial Park) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 79023, rezoning of 72 acres of Outlot E, Twin Cities Interchanne Addition to I-1 and/or CIA for the following reasons: 1 . The rezoning proposal does not demonstrate a clear public need or benefit. The applicant has 'not shown that the I-1 proposal would assure that the remainder of the 20 acre site would be developed as zoned. 2. The I-1 zoning is not considered compatible with the R3 zoning to the west. 3. The parcel in question does not seem to allow the efficient use of land under I-1 zoning restrictions. - 4. The rezoning would result in an expansion of a zoning district not warranted by the Comprehensive Plan. Additional undeveloped I-1 property is located in the immediate vicinity. There is no perceived need for additional I-1 zoned land in this area. 5. The proposal does not demonstrate merit beyond the interests of the owner of the parcel . Voting' in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis stated that he felt the motion did not deal adequately with the application. Commissioner Erickson stated that the application .had been dealt with adequately with the recommendation to deny the rezoning request. Commissioner Theis stated that CIA zoning was not given adequate consideration. Chairman Pierce asked if Planning Commission members favored a Cl zoning: Commissioner Lucht responded that he felt the land should remain entirely R3. He noted that the area can be .appropriately developed for townhouse use. Mr. Beisner asked for a poll of the Planning Commission's feelings regarding the best use of the land. Commissioner Lucht favored the existing zoning. All other Commissioners except Commissioner Theis stated the same. 6-28-79 -7- RECESS T-TieTTanning Commission recessed at 9:14 p.m. and resuemd at 9:31 p.m. APPLICATION- NO-. 79025 (Darold Modeen) The next item f consideration was a request by Jarold Modeen and the owners of the property between 5455 and 5549 Brooklyn Boulevard that their properties be rezoned from R1 to Cl (Service/Office) . The Secretary noted that the application was tabled at the May 10, 1979 Planning Commission meeting and referred to the Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group for review and comment. The Neighborhood Group, he said; met on May 29, 1979 at the Brooklyn Center Library. He reported that a number of local residents were present and by a vote of 12 to 10 advised against the rezoning proposal . He pointed out that Advisory Commission members and the interested property owners constituted 9 of the votes favoring the rezoning, while surrounding neighbors were not in favor of the proposal . The Secretary indicated that the staff considers the rezoning proposal premature at this time. He explained that while the Planning Consultants have recommended service/office use in this area in the updated Comprehensive Plan they have also acknowledged that the present ordinance requirements regarding lot width in the Cl zone are insufficient to prevent intermittent house conversions and are recommending 150' mimimum lot width requirements in Cl zones to enhance the likelihood of larger and more attractive developments, he recommended that the proposal be denied or deferred until : 1 ) The City's Comprehensive Plan and accompanying Zoning Ordinance are adequate and/or 2) A specific development plan for the area has been proposed. The Secretary pointed out that condition No. 2 is reaffirmation of the policy established by the City Council relating to the rezoning of the Brooklyn Center Library property under Application No. 76053. In that case, he said, the City Council deferred the rezoning of the old slaughterhouse property until a specific development proposal was made. The Secretary also recommended that any rezoning of land between Northport Medical Clinic and the Library to a C1 use include the Clinic in order to eliminate its nonconforming status. Chairman Pierce called on the applicant to speak on behalf of the proposal . Mrs. Modeen of 5545 Brooklyn Boulevard stated she would like feedback from the Plan- ning Consultants on the proposed use for the area. David Jensen, owner of the property at 5501 Brooklyn Boulevard argued extensively in favor of the proposal . He stated that he did not consider the proposal premature in light of recent rezonings of property in the area and in light of the Planning Consultants recommendation that the land be rezoned to Cl use. He admitted that the rezoning request was not backed by any specific development, explaining that the property owners could not afford such a marketing study. As to intermittent house con- versions, he said, any developer would have to receive City approval before such a conversion and would certainly be discouraged from such an attempt because of the various code requirements for commercial buildings. He confessed that there had been some confusion over the inclusion of the Clinic in the re- zoning request, but added that the applicants would have no opposition to the rezoning of that property to C1 also. The Secretary acknowledged Mr. Jensen's arguments,_ but replied that it would be better to defer the rezoning until the Zoning Ordinance were amended to require a larger lot width, th.ereby ensuring larger quality developments. He also pointed out that in the rezoning of the Library property, the slaughterhouse property had specifically been excluded because there was no development,proposal for it. 6-28-79 -8- Mr. Jensen argued the fact that the Northport Medical Clinic is not included in the rezoning is no reason to deny the proposal , since the rezoning of the slaughterhouse property also did not include the Clinic. He maintained that rezoning the property to Cl would do away with the hardship of the residents in the area who suffered under the existing R1 zoni.ng. He stated that he felt the rezoning request met the guidelines of the Zoning Ordinance. He also called on the Commission to differentiate the present rezoning request from that of the slaughterhouse property if the Commission chose to deny the rezoning. He finished by saying that the property owners could get very little for their land and houses under the existing zoning. A rezoning to Cl he said would rectify this. Commissioner Hawes asked when the Comprehensive Plan would take effect. The Secretary answered that the plan must be approved within a year by the City Council . Implementation of its recommendations, he estimated, would take up to a year and one-half. Mr. Weber of BRW, stated that amendments to the lot width requirements could be approved prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and that he saw no reason why the rezoning could not be approved if these changes were made. Commissioner Theis stated his concern that the present Zoning Ordinance would allow intermittent house conversions, but the proposed Zoning Ordinance amend- ment would eliminate that possibility. He cited this as one difference between the present request and the rezoning of the slaughterhouse property. Commissioner Lucht asked whether there was any advantage to deferring rather than denying the proposal . The Secretary explained that he did not see the merit of deferring the proposal , but felt the rezoning was premature until the Comprehensive Plan studies were finished, or until a specific development proposal was presented. Commissioner Lucht noted that if the request were approved, it would create six nonconforming parcels. The Secretary compared the present request to the exclusion of the slaughterhouse property from the Library rezoning on the basis of no development plan. Com- missioner Hawes agreed and recommended waiting until any lot width amendment is adopted. Commissioner Malecki asked whether the Zoning Ordinance could be amended prior to adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Secretary answered that while it was possible he recommended that all Zoning Ordinance changes be considered during review of the Comprehensive Plan. He added that to change the current Cl lot width requirement to 150 feet should also be accompanied by an analysis as to the effect this would have on other Cl zoned property already in existence. Chairman Pierce asked whether there was a lot area requirement in the Cl district. The Secretary answered that there is none. Commissioner Erickson stated that he would favor the rezoning after an Ordinance amendment might be adopted. Further discussion ensued concerning the proposed lot width amendment. Chairman Pierce asked the owners of the property along Brooklyn Boulevard whether they had been approached by potential developers . Mrs. Modeen stated that the Northport Medical Clinic had approached her as to the possibility of acquiring part of their lot. No other property owners reported any offers. Mrs. Gloria Byrnes, of 5348 Northport Drive, said that her opposition was best stated by the staff report. She advised a moritorium on rezonings until the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. Mr. Jensen stated that the proposal is no more premature than other rezoning requests which are not being delayed by Compre- hensive Plan review. He maintained that waiting for a development proposal is not necessary because existing tools are sufficient to avoid possible house conversions. 6-28-79 -9- Commissioner Malecki observed that the applicant is arguing for the same treatment as the slaughterhouse property, but noted that rezoning of the slaughterhouse property was deferred until a development proposal was brought forth. She also pointed out that small office developments and house conversions could not be denied provided ordinance requirements were ;aet once the rezoning takes place. Mr. Jens n again maintained that other ordinance �tcols are sufficient to control deveyopm nt. Commissioner Hawes observed that Mr. Jensen's property, which is in the middle, would likely suffer in value if the properties at the ends of the request con- verted first. In response to Mr. Jensen's concerns over the ability to sell his property. Commissioner Malecki stated that he could tell buyers the Planning Commission favors Cl zoning in the future. Chairman Pierce stated that he was reluctant to see six nonconforming parcels created by the rezoning. He cited another example of a Cl zoning along Brooklyn Boulevard which has not been developed under its current zoning and that an addition to the nonconforming structure on the site had to be denied because of its status. In answer to a question from Mr. Jensen, Commissioner Hawes stated that the Planning Commission would not consider a rezoning request accompanied by development proposal to be premature. Mrs. Byrnes interjected, however, that she would oppose Cl development at any time because it would affect her. Mrs. Olson of 5459 Brooklyn Boulevard, stated that the parking requirements would not allow more than three commercial buildings in that area. Commissioner Hawes assured Mrs. Olson that the Planning Commission is not bound to follow the neighborhood feelings in making its recommendations regarding rezonings. Mrs. Byrnes interjected that she expected Commissioner Hawes to listen to the neigh- borhood, but conceded that the neighborhood would have to have good reasons for denying the-rezoning. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79025 (Jarold Modeen) t,lotion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by .Commissioner Erickson to deny Application No . 79025, submitted by Jarold Modeen, requesting rezoning from Rl to Cl , noting that consideration is being given for a Service/Office use of this area in the updated Comprehensive Plan, but a rezoning at this time would be premature for the following reasons: 1 . Present ordinance requirements are not adequate to prevent intermittent house conversions and ensure larger quality office development. 2. There is no accompanying development proposal to indicate conceptually how the area would be developed. The request is, therefore, purely speculative at this time. Also, the Commission would consider a rezoning to a Service/Office use if a specific development proposal is put forth. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. In answer to a question from Mr. Jensen, The Secretary explained that the City is under a time table established to ensure that applications are dealt with promptly. Those requirements do not prevent the applicant from withdrawing the request or holding it in abeyance for a longer period of time prior to City Council review, but he recommended that the applicants allow the application to be considered by the City Council at this time, in order to receive their reaction to it rather than presume that the Planning Commission's feelings would be acceptable to the Council . 6-28-79 -10- VE PLAN - Inventory REVIEW OF COMPREHEi�SI of Public Facilities Mr. Bill Weber, of the Planning Consultant BRW, introduced his report on the existing inventory of physical facilities by stating that since the City is mostly developed at this point, the focus is on maintenance and minor additional growth. He stated that the population is not expected to grow very much and that in- dustrial development in the City is nearly complete. SEWER SYSTEM Mr. Weber stated that there were no significant problems. with the sewer capacity under present demand. The Superintendent of Engineering qualified that assumpt- ion by adding that if the City were to accommodate any wet "industries; the existing sewer capacity might have to be increased. Chairman Pierce asked whether there were any major sewer. problems. The Superin- tendent of Engineering answered that there are no significant -problems now, but that in 10 to 20 years_, replacement of lift stations may be necessary. Regarding the sewer lines, the Superintendent of Engineering projected that existing lines would be good for another 10 to 20 years. , Chariman Pierce expressed concern about paving. new streets and then a few years later tearing those streets up for in- stallation of new sewer lines. The Superintendent of Engineering responded that the life of roads is roughly 20 years and so a similar time horizon faced both sewers and streets. The Commissioner then discussed the flow of Brooklyn Park sewage through the Brooklyn Center sewer system. The point was made that increased demand from Brooklyn Park would require greater interceptor capacity in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Weber stated that he did not -think the expansion of capacity would be borne by Brooklyn Center residents and noted that there is only one interceptor along the south side of the City. Chairman Pierce asked whether Mr. Weber stated that he did not think the expansion of capacity would be borne by Brooklyn Center residents and noted that there is only one interceptor along the south side of the City. Chairman Pierce asked whether the Metropolitan Council is planning for one central treatment plant or is considering regionalization. He pointed out that the potent- ial flow seems significant. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that he was unsure of the Metropolitan Council plans. STORM SEINER Mr. Weber stated briefly that the present storm sewer system is adequate for the Uty's needs. The Superintendent of Engineering discussed briefly the interim municipal storm sewer connections with Minneapolis . Chairman Pierce commented that some marginal lands around the Twin Lake area are under water now whereas two to three years ago swampy conditions prevailed. The Superintendent of Engineering pointed out that rainfall has increased and the water table is up in the past two to three years. WATER SYSTEM Mr. Weber cited the recommendations of the previous Comprehensive Plan for in- creasing water storage capacity and constructing more water mains. He stated that those recommendations anticipate more growth than has occurred and that rather than follow through with those suggestions he would now recommend continued maintenance and minor additions to the system. Chairman Pierce asked whether there was a need for a water treatment system. The Superintendent of Engineering noted that most people have water softners and that they will be replacing them in the future. He stated that the decision on building a water treatment plant would have to make a comparison between the public costs of the plant vs. the private cost of replacing existing water softners. 6-28-79 �11- The Superintendent of Engineering also mentioned the potential for contamination in the Jordan layer, citing the problems in St. Louis Park at this depth. Chair- man Pierce wondered whether other types of uses, such as the Howe Fertilizer plant could cause eventual problems .in the City's water supply. The Superintend- ent of Engineering stated that he was not sure yet what impact drainage from the Howe site could '.ha've on aquifer recharge areas. LOCAL STREET SYSTEM Mr. Weber recommended only one minor addition to the local street system, the extension of Shingle Creek Parkway across Shingle Creek, He also noted that only 5% of the streets in the City were equipped with curb and gutter. High mainten= ance costs result, he said, because of the "cold mix" installed during the initial street paving. Repaving, he said, would be with a "hot mix" material with curb and gutter. Commissioner Hawes asked whether installation of curb and gutter would require more storm sewers. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that storm sewers would be installed as needed. The advantage of curb and gutter would be that water would be conveyed away from the pavement thus adding to the life of the street. Commis- sioner Hawes inquired as to funding sources . The Superintendent of Engineering answered that he was unsure at this time what funding sources would -be used to repave the City's entire street system. " Chairman Pierce asked what the thickness of MSA roads was. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that they are at least two to three inches and that they are often much thicker. Chairman Pierce asked what the load limit would be on a two to three inch bituminous mat. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that it would accommodate vehicles as heavy as garbage trucks. Chairman Pierce asked whether the walkways installed two years ago were paid for with proceeds from the municipal liquor store. The Superintendent of Engineering pointed out that the sidewalks were located mostly along MSA streets and that MSA funds were generally used in sidewalk improvements . Chairman Pierce asked about concrete streets. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that concrete streets were controversial and since they would have to eventually be covered with bituminous and there are complications with that. Commissioner Theis stated that he would like to see a cost analysis comparing cold mix and hot mix with curb and gutter. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that the life of a cold mix street is only 7 years. Chairman Pierce asked about the life of a concrete curb. The Superintendent of Engineering estimated this at 30 years. The Secretary then distributed to the Commission a memo from Brad Hoffman, the staff liaison to the Housing Commission. Mr. Hoffman reported a number of questions and objections to the proposed housing element of the Comprehensive Plan.. The Secretary asked Mr. Weber if he had any problems with Mr. Hoffman's report. Mr. Weber answered that he did not see any significant problems. He added that he and Mr. MacNamara could revise where necessary and resubmit the Housing Element. The Secretary stated his appreciation for the feedback and invited more. In response to the Secretary, Mr. Weber stated that all of the planned elements had been reviewed. The next step, he said, would be a review of the Implement- ation Plan including a listing of revenue sources. Commissioner Theis commented that the scale of capital expenditures varies from city to city and that comparison to other municipalities must take this into account. Commissioner Erickson asked whether long range planning was not already a part of the City's budgeting process. The Superintendent of Engineering answered that it was, but that funding for specific projects is still a big question. 6-28-79 -12- In response to a question from Chairman Pierce concerning a potential golf course, the Secretary reported that the City had picked up by donation, a tract of land at Shingle Creek Parkway and Highway 100. The Superintendent of Engineering indicated that the area might be large enough for a nine hole par three golf course. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary inquired of Mr. Weber what was planned for the July 26 study meeting, and told the Commission that the Planning office was being buried with applications. He asked the Commission to give him discretionary authority to schedule one or two business items on the study session agenda. Commissioner Hawes inquired as to who was responsible for cutting the grass on Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary answered that it was a State responsibility since it is a State road. The Superintendent of Engineering noted that there is a manpower shortage for this kind of work, but added that the County is responsive to requests from the City. The Secretary added that gasoline is another problem in grass cutting. The City, he said, is looking fora number of ways to save gasoline. The Secretary asked Mr. Weber whether the plan would be finished in August and Mr. Weber responded that it would. The Secretary stated that the Planning Commis- sion would have to hold hearings on the updated Comprehensive Plan for a couple of months and look more closely at the text. Commissioner Hawes asked whether people would have to be notified of potential rezonings. The Secretary answered that a notice regarding the Comprehensive Plan is published in the Brooklyn Center Post and that a general delivery to everyone in the City would be made. Commissioner Hawes stated that he would not be at the July 12 meeting. Commis- sioner Erickson indicated that he would not be able to make the July 26 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Hawes to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Lucht and Erickson. Voting' against: none. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :49 p.m. r CPS-e%e� ha rma n 6-28-79 -13 1 1