Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 07-27 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HFNNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 27, 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:00 p.m. hu Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . ROLL CALL Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson, Book and Hawes. Also present !lore Director of Public Works James Merila, Superintendent of Engineering James Hoska, Administrative Assistant Mary Harty, Building Official Will Dahn, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (PLANNING COMMISSION) 6-13-78 Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Book '-Lo approve the minutes of the July 13, 1978 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. PRESENTATION BY PLANNING CONSULTANT Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was a presentation by BRW, Incorporated. The Secretary introduced Mr. Bill Weber and Mr. John MacNamara, and stated that they were members of the staff of Bather, Ringrose, Wolsfeld, Jarvis, Gardner, Inc., who would be working on the Brooklyn Center Com- prehPnsive and Critical Area Plans. Mr. Weber presented the Commission with a time/task chart for the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Plan, an outline of the planning tasks, and a schedule of upcoming reports to be delivered to the planning staff by the Consultant. He briefly discussed the elements of the Comprehensive Plan and Critical Areas Plan and the flow of the various projects. He also introduced Mr. Peter Jarvis, Presi- dent of BRW, ,and the principal in charge of the Brooklyn Center project. Mr. Weber continued, explaining that the first task was inventory activities for both the Comprehensive and Critical Areas Plans. He briefly discussed the elements to be inventoried under each -project. Mr. MacNamara discussed the Housing Plan. He explained that an analysis would be made of the existing housing stock of the City, and that the housing in the South- east Neighborhood would be analyzed in depth. He stated that, after the analysis was completed, recommendations would be made for the use of available funding resources such as community development grants, HUD grants, and Metropolitan Council funds for housing rehabilitation. Mr. Jarvis asked the Commission for input on special problems areas which they .would like to see addressed. 7-27-78 -1- Chairman Engdahl stated he was concerned with the land use impact on 53rd Avenue of the new freeway overpass. The City Engineer stated that BRW had also been retained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to do an Environmental Impact Statement on Highway 169, and that some of the information obtained in this report could be used in the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jarvis briefly explained the nature of the study. Chairman Engdahl stated he was also concerned with the impact of the Critical Area regulations on the residential property in the Critical Area. Mr. Jarvis explained that one of the major ob- jectives of the consultant would be to assist the City in maintainingand im- proving its residential areas. Commissioner Jacobson stated she was concerned with development and redevelop- ment along Brooklyn Boulevard, particularly north of 63rd Avenue, and with Crystal Airport. Commissioner Hawes stated he was from the Southwest Neighborhood and. was inter cted in review of the Twin Lake shoreline and surrounding area. He continued that he was particularly concerned with the vacant I-2 (General Industry) area located at 50th and France Avenues North. He stated he would like to sPe a down-zoning of the area considered. Commissioner Book stated he was interested in an updating of City policy and the Zoning Ordinance regarding the General Industry area in the south of the City, including Howe Fertilizer and the Joslyn Pole Yard. He continued that i-4 should be determined whether or not those uses were compatible with the �.urrounding areas and with the uses permitted in the I-2 Zone generally, or whether they were nonconforming uses and should eventually be phased out. He continued that he was also interested in taking another_look at the property in the City which had not been developed as it was zoned,including the R-3 (Townhouse and Garden Apartment) zoned property at the southea<_•,t corner of .�t.l. 694 and Highway 100. A discussion ensued relative to the role of the Planning Commission in Compre- hensive Planning. Mr. Jarvis stated the Commission had two major roles in the planning process: 1) information giving and 2) direction giving. He explained that the Planning Commission will be used throughout the planning process as a pounding board and for policy advice. Chairman Engdahl suggested that the onsultant could work with the Southeast Neighborhood Advisory Group in develop- ing plans for the Southeast Neighborhood. The Secretary explained that the Southeast Neighborhood Group could be used as a sounding board after analysis and recommendations had been prepared. Mr. Jarvis added that meetings could be held of the group throughout the planning process. The Secretary reviewed the August 1977 joint meeting of the Advisory Commissions and the City Council to discuss the role of the various Commissions in the Com- prehensive Planning process. He stated the various Commissions could be used as _ sounding boards for those parts of the plan which dealt with elements and issues with which each Commission was concerned, The City Engineer emphasized that the City staff would be used heavily throughout the Planning process, but that it was hoped that the outside, perspective of the Planning Consultant would provide the City with fresh ideas. Mr.-Jarvis responded that it was always the Consultant's objective to interject fresh ideas, but that .., the major intent was to develop usable. products. He stated that it was the Con- ; sultant's objective to be "pragmatically innovative". He continued that the Consultant would meet with City staff 14 to 15 times throughout the process, and that the next major meeting will be :review of the inventoried items. -2_ 7-27-78 Chairman Engdahl asked whether anyone in the audience had any questions or comments concerning the Consultant's presentation. There were no comments from the audience. Chairman Engdahl thanked the Consultant staff for the presentation. APPLICATION NO. 78032 (R.L. Johnson) The next item of consideration was Application No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson. The Secretary explained the application was for a rezoning of the property located on the west side of the 7200 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard from R3 (Townhouse and Garden Apartments) to C2 (Commerce) . The Secretary showed a transparency of°°the area and reviewed the application. He Stated the application had been considered by the Planning Commission on June 15, 1978 and that a public hearing had been held at that time. He continued that the application was tabled for review by the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group, which had reviewed the application on June 29, 1978, and submitted minutes of its meeting to the file. He stated the Group had favored a split zoning of the property with the southerly portion of the site being zoned Cl and the northerly portion %coned C2 to accommodate a restaurant. He added that the Group had also made recom- mendations regarding the proposed site layout. The Secretary continued to review the major issues involved in the rezoning. He stated. that the proposed C2 (Commerce) zoning was not consistent with the Compre- hensive Plan which calls for multiple zoning and Service/Office Commercial zoning along Brooklyn Boulevard. He stated that Section 35-208 states that zoning classifications must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that, therefore, it would be necessary to amend the Comprehensive Plan if the application were approved. the Secretary stated that, while the applicant had provided the Commission with conceptual development plans, those plans were incidental to a rezoning. He ex plained that there is no "contractual " basis for the City holding the developer to a specific use once the land is zoned to a particular classification. He pointed out that, if the property were rezoned to C2, it would be subject to all of the permitted and special uses in the C2.zone. The Secretary also reviewed the, Rezoning Criteria contained in Section 35-208, and stated the Commission should evaluate the application against those criteria. He stated that "spot zoning is defined as a zoning decision which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and does not relate to the Comprehensive Plan or to accepted planning principles, and that Section 35-208 (2) states that rezoning proposals shall not constitute "spot zoning.' The Secretary concluded by stating that upon evaluation of the application against the Rezoning Criteria, denial of the application was recommended. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. R. L. Johnson, the applicant. Mr. Johnson stated that his primary reason for requesting the C2 zoning was economic, in that the proposed restaurant was necessary in order to finance the proposed office building. He stated that he had been working on the development plans for the project, taking into consideration the recommendations of the Neighborhood Group. He showed a conceptual model of the development and pointed out that he would be willing to install berming for a sound barrier °and would do anything possible to minimize the impact on the neighboring R3 zoned property. He stated that the proposed Sambo's Restaurant was a low profile restaurant, and that he had an agreement with a dental clinic to occupy the tenant portion of the office building. 7-27-78 -3- I - Mr. Johnson continued that Brooklyn Park was currently only about one third de veloped, and that with the future development of Brooklyn Park, the traffic on Prooklyn Boulevard would increase regardless of whether his property was commerci- ally developed. He also pointed out that the property directly across Brooklyn Boulevard had been rezoned from Rl to Cl and that he was being assessed for utilities being made available to that property. Chairman Engdahl stated that a rezoning could not be based upon a development proposal , and that the Commission must consider all of the permitted uses in the C2 zone. The Secretary commented that the Cl development across Brooklyn Boulevard from the subject property was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and added that there might be merit to rezoning the subject parcel to Cl or R5 (Multiple-Family Residential ) classification. Commissioner Hawes stated that he favored a split R3/C2 zoning for the property and asked if the Sambo 's Restaurant could be contained in the proposed office building. The applicant responded that the Sambo's Restaurant would have to be ireestanding. The City Engineer addressed the issue of traffic generation on . ,rooklyn Boulevard. He explained that the R-3 traffic generation was calculated at 56 trips per acre which would result in 273 trips for this parcel . He con- �6nued that C-1 generation is calculated at 250 trips per acre, and C-2 at 500 trips per acre, which would result in a total of 700 and 1400 total trips, re- .pectively, if 2.8 acres of the property were developed as the applicant proposed i',e explained that this illustrated the impact a C-2 development would have over L.n R-3 development on traffic generation on Brooklyn Boulevard. Chairman Engdahl questioned whether the only access to the site would be from Crooklyn Boulevard. The City Engineer responded that was the only possible access. Chairman Engdahl also questioned the existing land uses to the north •f the property in the City of Brooklyn Park. The City Ergi neer res,poiAed :hat a small restaurant was located directly north of the property acid u car dealership was located north of the restaurant. Commissioner Hawes questioned whether the applicant proposed aeditional parking in the City of Brooklyn Park. The applicant responded that'he owned the ad jacent parcel in the City of Brooklyn Park and would propose to use it for park- ing in order to allow the southerly part of the site to remain in its .natural state as a buffer between the commercial and residential uses. The Secretary and.:the City Engineer responded that the application could not be reviewed as including the property in Brooklyn Park, but that such a proposal would come under future site and building plan approval . Chairman Engdahl stated that the required public hearing had been held at the June 15, 1978 meeting, but recognized there were individuals in the audience who might have questions of the applicant. He recognized Mr. Larry Bradford, 7220 Perry Court East, who stated that people in the audience had comments regarding the application but no questions, and asked that their silence not be taken for indifference. No one else spoke relating to the application. Commissioner Malecki questioned whether it would be appropriate to consult the school district regarding the rezoning. The Secretary repsonded that it was not the Commission's policy to refer rezoning requests to the school district. Commissioner Book asked whether the proposal was to rezone the entire property from R-3 to C-2, but the development proposal was a split C-1/C-2 use. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. 7-27-78 -4 d 1 C ( 5 { G c ntainpd in Section 35-208 and the proposal would not protect the existing land u,es injthe area. Commissioner Book commented that recornnendation of denial of this application wlpuld not necessarily mean the end of consideration of rezoning of the property. I DIPECT ESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78032 (R. L. Johnson) F lowi ,g further discussion there was a motion by Commissioner Book, seconded b Commissioner Jacobson to direct the staff to prepare a resolution recommending t e denial of Application No. 78032 submitted by R. L. Johnson. Voting in favor: C arimarh Engdahl , Commissioners Malecki , Jacobson and Book. Opposed: Commissioner Hawes who stated he felt rezoning of the property should be considered. The motion passed. ' Cbrmnissioner Theis arrived at 9:10 p.m. APPLICATION NO. 78046 (Pamela Langren) t e next item of consideration was application No. 78046 submitted by Pamela tangren+ The Secretary explained the application was for a special use permit ;or a home occupation for the property located at 6224 Regent Avenue North. The S cretaty showed a transparency of the av�ua and explained that the application w s for ',a beauty shop operation in the basement of the home. He stated the ap- p icantlhad submitted a letter explaining the operation, and the proposed hours o- operation. He continued that the applicant would be the only operator. iie Secretary explained that the key consideration in any special home occupation i a determination that the proposed use is clearly secondary and incidental to ;., ;P primary use, which is residential . Chairmanh Engdahl recognized Pamela Langren, the applicant. Mrs. Langren presented . luor plan of her house showing the location of the proposed beauty shop and h?r State license for the Commission's review. In response to a question from r, airman Engdahl regarding the parking,she stated there was room at the top of h�r driveway for two cars to park side by side, and single car parking on the .-�st oflher driveway. She continued that her operation would be by appointment o ly and that there would be a maximum of two parked cars related to the special u e at any given time. She continued that her proposed hours were from 1 :00 p.m. t 9:001p.m. on Monday and from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Thursday and Friday. P JBLIC, FARING C airman Engdahl announced that a public hearing had been scheduled, and recognized M% Bernard Hill of 62 0 Regent Avenue North. Mr. Hill stated he had no objections t the home occupation, but he did object to additional traffic generation and P rkingin a residential area. He stated there were many cars in the neighborhood i ready,, and his concern would be with additional traffic generation. He asked the Commission to consider granting a temporary special use permit which could be reviewed and revoked if there were any traffic problems. Chairman Engdahl respond- el that a special. use ermit is reviewed on an annual basis and can be revoked at a y time if there are 3roblems- associated with it. The Secretary reviewed the r commended conditions of approval and noted that provision for off-street parking uld bo a requirement. The applicant stated that she intended to distribute a flyer to her customers which would inform them that customers would be taken by a point6ent°only and tat they were to use her driveway for parking. C airman Engdahl recognized the resident of 6218 Regent Avenue North who asked if t e proposed special h me occupation would affect the real estate value of her h me. Chairman Engdahl responded that he was not aware that a home beauty shop v ich w 's clearly an incidental use and a limited operation, would affect the r al es ate value of tie neighboring properties. He recognized Building Official 11 Dahln, who explained that the maximum signery permitted for a home occupation s 21-2 sq. ft. -27-78 -5- The Secretary explained the revocation process for a special use permit and stated that traffic and parking would be reviewed when the permit- was reviewed. ` The applicant reiterated that she would enforce the -off-street parking provision-. r CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING No one else spoke relating to the application. Motion b; Commissioner Book seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. j Commissioner Jacobson explained that, during hPr, years on the Planning Commission,` there had never been any complaints on a beauty shop home occupation, or revoc,,- tion of such a special use permit. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 78046 (Pamela Langren) Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 78046 subject to the following conditions: . 1 . The permit is issued to the applicant as operator and is nontra nsf erabl e.. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations, and violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. A copy of the current State operator's license shall be kept on file with the City. 4. All parking related to the special use shall be off-street parking on appropriate space provided;by the applicant. 5. Hours of operation shall be: 1 :00 p.m. to o:00 p.m. Munday; 9;00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Thursday and Friday, Commissioner Theis questioned whether the applicant would be able to increase the number of hours. The Secretary responded that in order to increase the number of hours, an amendment to the special use permit would be required and new public hearings would be held. Following further discussion, vote was taken. The motion passed unanimously. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 9:30 p.m. and resumed at 10:00 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS: Site and Building Review Procedures In other business, the Commission discussed alternatives to review of site and building plans by the Planning Commission and City Council . The Secretary stated that it was anticipated that much of.the Commission's time in the upcoming months would be spent with the Comprehensive Plan development. He added it was also anticipated that because of the nature and age of the community, and because of recent experience, that more Corrmission' time would be needed to review a variety of variance requests. He continued that one way to reduce the Commission's work7 load would be to eliminate Commission site and building plan review. He explain- ed that there are a number of different communities which handle such review on a staff basis rather than a Commission and Cou,ncil .basis. The Secretary explained that a procedure could be developed.whereby routine site and building plans would be reviewed by a staff committee consisting 'of, for example, the Director of Planning and Inspection, the Director of Public Works., and the Building Official . He continued that developers could hclv the right to appeal the staff review to the Planning Commission and Council .il I 7-27-78 4_ i A extensive discussion ensued. Commissioner Book questioned whether such a revision of the review procedure would require amending the City Charter. The S cretary responded that amendment may be necessary and that the City Attorney would be asked for an opinion on the matter. Chairman Engdahl stated he welcomed any reduction in the review of standard applications. Commissioner Book questioned whether there would be a problem with public hearings. The Secretary responded that public hearings are not required o site and building plan review. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes he stated than public hearings were required on all Planning Commission applications except site and building plan review and appeals. Chairman Engdahl stated he would like further review of the proposed review procedures and suggested that the Commission could be provided with a report of staff site and building plan approvals. Commissioner Theis agreed with the need for reducing the number of standard applications for review, but stated he was Micerned that staff may come under pressure from developers that an application routine and would not have to be reviewed by the Commission. The Secretary responded that guidelines would be developed for the types of applications which w uld :be reviewed by stuff and stated that "routine" could be clearly defined. G 'mmissioner Hawes commented that he would be in favor of eliminating review of v riances for additions to noncomplying structures, particularly in the Southeast N ighborhood. The Secretary stated that variances required public hearings, and c mmented that he foresaw more of that type of application in the future. Commissioner Theis inquired as to which other communities in the area did not review site and building plans on the Planning Commission and. Council level . He sated that he felt that site and building plan review was a favorable aspect of k oklyn Center. Planning Aide Laurie Thompson responded that the Cities of New type, Crystal , and Brooklyn Park do not have formal site and building plan review processes. Chairman Engdahl stated he was in favor of reviewing alternatives to Commission site and building plan r.eview.. Commissioners Malecki , Book, Jacobson, and Hawes( a reed with Chairman Engdahl that reduction of the Plannin Commission workload I eliminating site and building plan review was desirable Commissioner Jacobson a ded that she felt this was desirable particularly in vie of the current increase i construction. Commissioner Theis stated he favored ret ining site and building p an review at the Commission level . MEETING SCHEDULE Tie Secretary stated that the schedule had been revised in order to avoid Planning Commission meetings the Thursday before the City Council meeting. It was the g neral consensus to approve the revised meeting schedule. 0 TLOTS Tie next item of consideration was review of draft definit ons of "outlots." The S cretary briefly reviewed the matter stating that, while here are parcels in the City which are legally described as outlots, the Zoning Or finance does not specific- a ly define the term. He explained that the major conside ation for including the t rm in the ordinance definition section would be to clarify the status of existing a d future outlots. I I 7-27-78 -7- A- discussion ensued. It was generally recognized that an out-lot either represented a parcel which exceeded the ordinance minimum standards and was subject to future Subdivision or was less than the ordinance minimum standard .and was, therefore, unbuildable. Commissioner Theis questioned whether any of the common areas included In the townhouse plat were described as outlots. The City Engineer reviewed the different townhouse projects in the City and stated the common areas were all described with a lot and block designation. rollowing further discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to direct the staff to prepare a resolution amending Section 315-900 to inrlL!de the term "outiot. ADJOURNMENT { Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at t 11 :00 P.M. ti i rma 7-27-78 -8-