Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 11-29 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS of THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN r AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 29, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Hal Pierce at 7:42 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, and 'Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 8, 1979 The Secretary offered two wording. changes on pages 3 and 4 of the minutes to the November 8 , 1979 meeting and Commissioner Malecki on Page 1. These being duly noted, there was motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes of the November 8 meeting as corrected. Voting in favor: Chair- man Pierce, Commissioners Malecki, Hawes, Theis.; Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against:- none. The motion-passed unanimously. PUBLIC- HEARING ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman Pierce explained to those present that the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council and that all final decisions are made by the City Council. He then opened the meeting for the continuation of the public hearing to review the 1980 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Carl Russert, who lives at 6300 France Avenue North, asked what was being planned for Brooklyn Boulevard. Mr. Bill Weber, the City's Planning Consultant with Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis and Gardner, responded that Brooklyn Boulevard was the subject of a major study within the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that Brooklyn Boulevard, more than any other street in Brooklyn Center, forms an image of the City. He added that it functions as both a major thoroughfare and also as the location of local shopping and office facilities. He then reviewed the recommended conceptual alternative for pro- posed land uses along Brooklyn Boulevard. He began by stating that at the south end of Brooklyn Center, the industrial use of property on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard should be allowed to continue, but specified that the manufacture of fertilizer should be phased out in the forseeable future. From forty-ninth Avenue to Highway 100, he recommended that the City protect and maintain the single family residential character of the Boulevard. North of Highway 100 , he acknowledged the continuation of Commercial/retail uses around Brookdale on the east and single- family residential on the west up to 58th Avenue North, with the exception of a new service/office area from Northport Medical Clinic to the new Brooklyn Law Center on the west side of the Boulevard. He described the area between 58th Avenue North and 62nd Avenue North as a transition zone and recommended that this 11-29-79 -1- area be allowed to convert to a service/office use over time. He recommended the expansion of the retail node at 63rd Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard to include the block west of Chowen, north of 62nd Avenue and south of 63rd Avenue North. Except for the existing Shoppers City at the northeast corner of 63rd and Brooklyn Boulevard, Mr. Weber recommended a mid-density residen- tial housing pattern from 63rd Avenue North to the 'Freeway. North of the Freeway, Mr. Weber recommended that the present automobile dealerships be allowed to continue. He recommended strengthening of the retail node at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard and a mid-density residential pattern from 70th Avenue to the north City limits. Mr. Russert said that he did-not' want to see a Burger King erected adjacent to his back yard. Mr. Weber assured him that that would not happen if the land use proposals in the draft Comprehensive Plan were adopted and enforced by the City. Mrs. Pat LaBelle of 3319 - 61st Avenue North asked where office uses would be located and how far away from the Boulevard this type of use would extend. Mr. Weber answered that offices are generally recommended to be one block deep along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor on one acre lots with a minimum width of 150 feet. He explained that to allow commercial development under the existing 75 foot wide lot width requirement would simply allow for more curb cuts, more signs and more traffic problems along the Boulevard. Jack Lescault of 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard explained that he operated as a chiropractor out of his home and had planned on converting his property to a commercial use when a private covenant on the property expired in 1980. Now, he complained, the City would require him to buy an acre of land in order to be a legal commercial development. The Secretary responded that Mr. Lescault had bought his property on specu- lation, that it is currently zoned Rl and that no commercial development of his property is contemplated under the existing Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Lucht commented that if the applicant were to request a rezoning at this time, it would be denied since the current Comprehensive Plan does not call for commercial development at his location. The Secretary added that to rezone against the Comprehensive Plan is an instance of "spot zoning" and would be illegal. Mr. Lescault answered simply that he is anxious over the new site requirements for commercial developments being proposed in the Comprehensive Plana Mr. Weber then reviewed some examples of possible townhouse and office development along Brooklyn Boulevard. He showed with the aid of graphics that it would be impossible to put the size of development that both developers and the City would want on an area of land only one lot deep. He also explained that larger developments would consolidate access points onto the Boulevard and thereby help to better manage traffic. Mr. Larson, of. 6012 Ewing Avenue North, asked whether the consent of property owners is needed before this conversion takes place. Mr. Weber answered that unless the City were to use its condem- nation power (which is very unlikely) the properties involved would have to be transacted between a willing buyer and a willing seller. 11-29-79 -2- Mr. Earl Reitan of 6049 Ewing Avenue North, called the proposed development policy for Brooklyn Boulevard "piecemeal" and recommended that the City promote offices and not retail uses along the Boulevard. He encouraged larger office complexes which would take up at least an entire block. He asked what happened to the 1966 Comprehensive Plan which, he said, was more in line with his suggestions. The Secretary answered that the City still operates under the 1966 Comprehensive Plan. He explained that the currently proposed Comprehensive Plan was mandated by the 1976 Metropolitan Land Planning Act and that most of the pro- posed Plan deals with the City's participation in regional systems, such as roads, sewers, airports and parks. He added that the Brooklyn Boulevard Study is one of the more local elements of the Plan and that the Plan as it relates to Brooklyn Boulevard does not vary significantly from the 1966 Plan. He cited the transition zone along Brooklyn Boulevard from 58th Avenue to 62nd Avenue as an example of a proposed change. He stated that this area is no longer considered viable for single family residential uses and that a change to service/office uses seems to be the best alternative. He also pointed out that the City does not enforce private covenants and that conversely those covenants do not affect the City' s power to zone. As to the accusation that the proposed plan sponsors piecemeal development, the Secretary argued that it would have just the opposite affect. Under the present Zoning Ordinance, office developments would be allowed on 75 foot wide lots now occupied by individual resi- dences. This could, if developed in such a manner, leave the same number of curb cuts along the Boulevard, which would cause increased traffic movements, and have an adverse impact on the roadway. He explained that site design requirements would protect residences adjacent to commercial developments and that widening commercial districts to a full block in depth would add to the buffer area between commercial and residential by making use of the street. He also pointed out that under the proposed Comprehensive Plan, fast food restaurants would be defined as 'convenience food restaurants" and would fall under the same restrictions as presently apply to drive-in restaurants , which means they cannot abut R1, R2 or R3 property, even at a street line, and would be a special use. Mrs. Eleanor Sledz complained that Burger King is a horrible nuisance, expecially since the addition of the drive-up window. She stated that she did not think the City could stop fast food restaurants from moving in along the Boulevard. The Secretary explained . that Burger King was not a special use when it was approved and that the City had no choice but to allow it as a ,permitted use. ! Mr. Fast of 6013 Brooklyn Boulevard complained that traffic along Brooklyn Boulevard made it very difficult to enter the Boulevard from his home and complained also about the amount of 'noise coming from the Boulevard. The Secretary explained that the traffic and the noise were among the reasons that the land along Brooklyn Boulevard is not considered viable for single family residential use. Mr. Fast suggested that an alleyway be con- demned so that people living along the Boulevard could use the alley to gain access to their properties. The Secretary answered 11-29-79 -3- that it was against the City's policy to condemn land for such a purpose, but that it might be possible for such a project if the City were petitioned by affected property owners. An un- identified woman asked how condemnation proceedings would work. The Secretary explained that no land is being considered, at least at this time, for condemnation along the Boulevard. He went on to explain that under condemnation an offer is made to the property owner and that if it is not accepted, a hearing is established regarding a determination of value. The proceeding would examine both whether the offer for the property and the purpose for the condemnation were fair. He also explained that if a private developer were to buy up the land, he would have to pay the seller a price which the seller would willingly accept. Mr. Shallbetter, 3224 Mumford Road, stated that he generally agreed with the proposed Comprehensive Plan and asked when it would officially be adopted. Mr. Weber responded that it would not be adopted until at least September of 1980, explaining that it would have to be reviewed by neighboring cities and the Metropolitan Council before the City Council would officially adopt a Comprehensive Plan. Mrs . Pat LaBelle, of 3319 - 61st Avenue North, asked whether the City would allow curb cuts on Beard Avenue North adjacent to the Brookdale State Bank facility at 5920 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary answered that the City is considering, cul-de-sacing 59th Avenue just east of the bank entrance and is trying to avoid. the use of local streets by commercial uses. Mrs. LaBelle stated that the traffic on Beard Avenue is getting worse since the Bank': moved in. Ron Blake, Chairman of the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group, next spoke to the Planning Commission and stated that the City should have made a better attempt to contact the residents living near Brooklyn Boulevard which are subject to the changes proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. He argued that the City could have spent some of the money it has paid to the Planning Consultants on the cost of notifying these local residents and complained that it was not his responsibility to personally mail notices to people being affected. As a result of the City not notifying residents, he said, word is getting around about the Comprehensive Plan by rumor which leads to distortions. A lengthy discussion then ensued concerning the City's notifi- cation requirements and methods. Commissioner Theis commented that local citizens have a responsibility to read the local papers and be aware of governmental issues which may ''affect them. An unidentified woman living on Chowen Avenue North expressed concern about enrollment declines in Brooklyn Center's School Districts and stated that if residences were moved out along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor, this would aggrevate those declines. 11-29-79 -4- The Secretary commented that in both the hearings on the Com- prehensive Plan the only aspect touched on was Brooklyn Boule- vard. He pointed out that the rest of the City is covered by the new Comprehensive Plan and invited comments on these other areas. He explained that the proposed Plan builds on the 1966 Plan and that the original Plan is not discarded upon adoption of the new Plan. Ron Blake of the West Central Neighborhood Advisory Group asked whether a higher governmental body would require that the Plan be implemented if private redevelopment did not take place within a period of five to ten years. The Secretary answered that higher levels of government would not require the implementation of the Plan by the City since that is not the function of the Plan. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan is a document which tells the Metropolitan Council how Brooklyn Center fits into various Metropolitan systems. rt also tells a developer what the City is looking for and gives City officials a guide as to what to approve in various locations. The initiative, he said, would remain with the private sector. He also stated that the City cannot legally violate its Comprehensive Plan, that it must zone property in accordance with the Plan or amend the Plan through a legal procedure similar to a rezoning. Mr. Blake asked if developers do not come in, will the status quo remain without the City forcing a change. The Secretary answered that that was correct and cited properties along Brooklyn Boulevard zoned for office use which presently have residences on them and have not been converted since the adoption of the 1966 Comprehensive Plan. He explained that those residences are now non-conforming and cannot expand. He ex- plained that the City does not intend to rezone property in con- junction with the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan as it did in many cases with the adoption of the 1966 Comprehensive Plan. RECESS T e Planning Commission recessed at 9 :57 p.m. and was resumed at 10:27 p.m. by Chairman Pro tem Bill Hawes. Chairman Pierce left the meeting during the recess. When the Planning Commission resumed, the Secretary told the Planning Commission that many changes to the Plan had been pro- posed by staff to the Planning Consultant. He mentioned that a major change would be the addition of the neighborhood breakdown given in the original Comprehensive Plan. He also noted that Housing Maintenance inspections at the point of sale would not be advocated as strongly in the proposed document. He cited the fact that the City Council has- already expressed its feeling that such an ordinance may not be needed at this time, would in- volve much staff time, and may force difficult conditions on homeowners who. want to sell;,their property. He added that the City could possibly be liable for damages if a home that it in- spected turned out to have some code deficiencies that caused injuries. 11-29-79 -5- There was a brief discussion regarding point-of-sale inspections. The Secretary explained that Minneapolis hires certified in- spectors and simply makes a disclosure of the findings rather than requiring code compliance as is the case in St. Louis Park. The Secretary also stated that the Comprehensive Plan would in- clude a statement about airports which was left out of the draft submitted to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Theis pointed out that Point E on Page A-10 of the Flood Plain Ordinance prevents the increase in runoff or de- crease in absorption on properties within the Flood Plain. He stated that this would probably stifle development in those areas. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that there are various ways to retain water on a site and that development could go forward if adequate means to control drainage were implemented. Commissioner Erickson stated that he hoped the City would have a number of Brooklyn Boulevard Studies and maps available for the public once the Plan has been approved by the City Council. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis, Hawes, Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against`: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS The Secretary pointed out that the terms for Commissioner Malecki, Theis and Hawes, would expire at the end of the year and acknow- ledged their interest in being reappointed for another term. The Secretary informed the Commission that he had received a request by Budgetel Motel and Thrifty Scot Motel to amend the City's Ordinance to allow "live in" resident managers inmotels. He noted that the concept was considered during the review of the Budgetel plans, but that further review was recommended prior to any Ordinance Amendments. The Secretary stated that he saw some positive advantages to such an arrangement including. maintenance and safety advantages. ' Commissioner Erickson stated that the Commission may want to consider providing for resident managers at mortuaries. He added that he agreed with the Secretary' s comments and asked that staff prepare a draft ordinance amendment. Chairman Pro tem Hawes asked how many people would be comprehended under such a provision: the manager, the assistant manager, the manager and his family? The Secretary speculated that it would not encompass the assistant manager, but would allow a manager and his family to reside at a motel. The Secretary asked the Commission if it would be willing to shift its December 20 meeting to December 13 in order to give consideration to a preliminary plat proposed by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park'. Commissioners Malecki and Erickson stated that they would be late to the meeting if they could attend it 11-29-79 -6- at all. Commissioner Hawes stated that he would be unable to make the Planning Commission meetings on December 6 and December 10. It was the consensus of the Commission to hold its second meeting in December on December 13th rather than December 20th, and to consider a preliminary plat submitted by Brooklyn Center Industrial Park. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Lucht to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tern Hawes, Commissioners Malecki, Theis , Manson, Lucht and Erickson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11: 15 p.m. hairman 11-29-79 -7- r ,