Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978 12-21 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 DECEMBER 21 , 1978 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8:10 p.m. by Chairman Gilbert Engdahl . ROLL CALL Chairman Engdahl , Commissioners Jacobson, Book, Hawes and Theis. Also present were Director of Public Works James Merila, Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Aide Laurie Thompson. APPROVE MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 1978 and DECEMBER 7, 1978 Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Theis to approve the minutes of the November 16, 1978 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Hawes to approve the minutes of the December 7, 1978 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA PLAN Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of business was a public hearing on the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan. The Secretary ex- plaired that a public hearing had been held on the first portions of the Critical Area Plan, The Inventory of Existing Conditions , Development Constraints and Op- portunities, and Goals and Policy Guidelines, had been held at the November 16, 1978 meeting. He stated the purpose of tonight's hearing was to discuss the Critical Area Plan and Implementation Program, and to clarify the first portions of the Plan. He explained that the Planning Commission would make a recommendation regarding the document to the City Council . Upon approval by the City Council , the document would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council and the Environmental Quality Board. He showed a transparency of a map of the City with an overlay in- dicating the Critical Area Corridor. The Secretary next read the Preface to the document and reviewed the Goal and Policy Guidelines. He pointed out the existing zoning of the properties in the Critical Area on the land use map and noted that no new zoning or land use classi- fcation was proposed for any property in the Critical Area. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Bill Weber, who represented the Planning Consultant, BR14 Incorporated. Mr. Weber also noted that there were no changes in land use recommended by the consultant. He briefly reviewed the maps of the Critical Area and explained the location of the existing land uses. Mr. Weber explained that the Critical Area Plan encourages pedestrian and bicycle access to the River. He explained that-the major access to the riverfront was through River Ridge Park and also discussed a proposed bike path. The bike path is proposed to follow Lyndale Avenue from 53rd Avenue to River Ridge Park, follow the roadway underneath the I-694 bridge to 66th Avenue and then follow 169 along the regional trailway and enter the Hennepin County trailway system at 69th' Avenue. 12-21'-78 -1 In reviewing the Critical Area Plan, Mr. Weber also explained that a major upgrading was proposed for U. S. Highway No. 169. He explained that BRW, Inc. had In re- tained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to conduct a study regarding U. S. 169 and the proposed North Crosstown. He also explained that the projections for the year 2000 indicate a need for the roadway to be upgraded to a four lane, 45 m.p.h. facility. He showed conceptual drawings of the roadway which included three northbound traffic lanes and three southbound traffic lanes from 66th Avenue to 69th Avenue, at grade, with a service road along the east side. He explained that the consultant recommended a four lane facility with a service road on the east side including heavy landscaping and bicycle trailways between the highway .and the service road. He stated traffic signals were recommended for the intersections at 66th Avenue, 69th Avenue, and 73rd Avenue.- He explained that such a roadway - would be approximately 220 ft. in width and indicated a shaded area on the Critical Area Plan which represented such a right-of-way. He also stated that the consult" advocated expanding the roadway to the west, and that it would be necessary to acquire existing properties within that area. He concluded by stating that the Environmental Impact Statement and alternative route study were still in the pre- liminary stages, but at this point it looked as though the roadway would be located along the existing corridor of U. S. 169/Lyndale Avenue through B:rodklyn Center. Also included in the Critical Area Plan is the planned completion of Willow Lane in order to allow the development of adjacent properties and to facilitate local north-south movement in the .neighborhood, and a bicycle/pedestrian path crossing the Mississippi River, possibly suspended from the Interstate 694 Bridge, to transport bicyclists from River Ridge Park to the bicycle trail along :East River Road in Fridley. Mr. Weber reviewed the implementation schedule -contained in the plan and noted potential funding sources. The Secretary clarified the 169 upgrading issue.. He stated the plans presented this evening were-conceptual only, and that approval of the Critical Area Plan does not constitute final approval of the roadway upgrading. He explained that the studies dealing with the matter have not yet been completed, and that the matter is noted in the Critical Area Plan because the upgrading is scheduler) to take place in the future, and will have an impact on the Critical Area. He commented that incorporating this conceptual idea into the Critical Area Plan does not mean it is "cast in concrete." He explained that the Comprehensive Plan will contain a transportation section and that under the Comprehensive Plaming process, more definite plans and policies would be developed. He noted that there would be more hearings held on this matter in the future. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes, Mr. Weber stated that Humboldt Avenue was still an alternative route under consideration for the 169 align. The Secretary commented that Humboldt Avenue, Xerxes Avenue and West River Road were all proposed alternative routes, and that the consultant was viewing the entire area from the environmental standpoint. He also commented that in Brooklyn Center, West River Road appears to -be the only feasible alternative for the 169 route. Commissioner Engdahl inqu,,red whether a proposed bike path along West River Road would be constructed if the 169 route were moved to another location. . Weber responded that the bike path would remain along nest River Road. The City Engineer commented that the City had received an indication from the committee studying the matter such that any route location other than West River Road was unlikely. He explained that the traffic travelling north-south to and from I-694 was projected at 40,000 to 50,000 cars per day. He continued that since the plans for the Freeway at Humboldt Avenue- do not include a complete cloverleaf, this would mean extensive revisions to the Freeway plans. He also explained that the existing cloverleaf at West River Road could be modified to handle that amount of traffic. 12=21-78 -2- The City Engineer also commented that a survey taken had indicated that while the residents of each affected neighborhood would prefer the highway in a different neighborhood, 60Z of those who completed the survey preferred the West River Road route. He pointed out that the concern is to handle the existing and projected rth-south bound traffic with the least possible impact on the area. In response to questions from Chairman Engdahi , the City Engineer explained that 169 would follow the I-94 right-of-way to its junction with 694 and then would follow the existing Lyndale Avenue right-of-way. He explained that old Lyndale Avenue from 53rd Avl-nue to 57th Avenue would revert to the City at the time of construction of I-94. He explained that the street would be upgraded, and sidewalk, a bicycle/pedestrian trail, and water main would be installed at that time. The Secretary commented that because of development to the north in Brooklyn Park and Champlain, the traffic projections for West River Road north of the Freeway warranted upgrading of the roadway even without the construction of the proposed !Worth Crosstown. The City Engineer explained that the Department of Transportation currently has plans to upgrade 169 from 66th Avenue to 73rd Avenue, but the intent is now to complete the full upgrading in conjunction with construction of the north river crossing. Commissioner Hawes inquired whether the City of Brooklyn Park had decided against the Humboldt Avenue route. The City Engineer stated that the decision had not yet been made in Brooklyn Park and that Humboldt Avenue was still a feasible route. He explained that if Brooklyn Park determines to use Humboldt Avenue, that new Highway 169 would start at 73rd and West River Road and cross to the west and tie in with the Humboldt Avenue Corridor in Brooklyn Park. He pointed out that because the river curves to the west north of Brooklyn Center, Humboldt Avenue is very close to the River at the location of the future river crossing. Commissioner Book inquired as to the feasibility of suspending'a pedestrian/bicycle trailway under the I-694 bridge. Mr. Weber responded that the City of Fridley was ptaiin ng tine salake crossing. TiiZ City Engineer explaInEU that an upgrading of t"2 bridge is planned in the future, and that the trailway could be added with the widening of the bridge, or it could be constructed as a separate structure. He commented that in order to make the crossing take place, a great deal of work on the part of both Brooklyn Center and Fridley was necessary. In response to questions from the Commissioners, the City Engineer stated that the proposed trail would follow the Great River Road trail along West River Road from 69th to 66th Avenues, that the bikers and pedestrians would use traffic signals at 66th in order to cross West River Road, and that the trailway would continue under- neath the I-694 bridge. He also stated that the trailway would follow the Highway and not local streets. Chairman Engdahl inquired as to the maintenance of the proposed trailway. Mr. Weber responded that it would be the City's responsibility to maintain it. In response to a question from Commissioner Book regarding funding, the City Engineer stated that if the Federal Government approves the conceptual master plan for the trailway, money could be available for construction next year. Also, in response to a question from Commissioner Book, the City Engineer explained that funds which originally had been appropriated 'for the construction of I-335 were now available for other projects, and that construction of the north river crossing and the upgrading of 169 have the highest priority. He continued that the widening of the 694 bridge has the highest priority after the 169 upgrading. 12-21-78 -3- Chairman Engdahl inquired whether anyone in the audience wished to comment relative to the Critical Area Plan. He recognized Ella Sander, 6737 Willow Lane, who in- quired as to the status of the 169 upgrading if .the North Crosstown were not con- structed. Mr. Weber responded that the upgrading of 169 is to take place concur- rently with the north river crossing, regardless of whether or not the north Crosstown is ever constructed. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Urban Sander, 6737 Willow Lane, who had a question regarding the proposed completion of Willow Lane. Mr. Weber responded that without connecting Willow Lane, it would be difficult to develop those vacant properties. Mr. Sander commented that there are other ways to develop the property and it was his concern that the area be kept as a quiet residential area without increasing traffic. The City Engineer explained that a cul-de-sac or a straight-through link would be alternatives to connecting billow Lane, but that the issue would have to be worked out with the property owners in the area. He explained that the proposed connection was conceptual in nature. Chairman Engdahl recognized Allan Brown, 7215 Willow Lane, who stated that he had concerns with River Ridge Park and noise barriers along the highway, and that those questions had been answered in the previous discussions. He also cammated that he felt the conceptual plans for 169 were good:. Chairman Engdahl next recognized Al Farmes, 7200 Willow Lane, who had several comments regarding the Plan. He stated that the third objective of the 'ississipp River Critical Area established by the E.Q.B. speaks to preserving and enhancing the natural , aesthetic, cultural and historical value for the public use. He stated he did not feel the 169 upgrading would accomplish that objective, especially since noise and air pollution would increase. He inquired whether the HunboUt Avenue route was now out of the question. The City Engineer responded that *Rile Humboldt Avenue needs upgrading now, it probably would not be upgraded to anything more substantial than a. four lane roadway. He explained that the interchange at Shingle Creek Parkway -in the I-94 plans would not have the capacity to handle 40,000 to 50,000 cars from the north while the full interchange already in glade at 169 would have the capacity to handle that amount of traffic. It was, there- fore, unlikely that the alignment would be changed from the present 169 area_ He commented that he recognized that the people living along Wiest River 'Road were opposed to the upgrading, and stated that the final decision on the route align- ment had not yet been made. In response to another question from Mr. Farmes, the Secretary explained that while the Critical Area Plan would be forwarded to the Environmental Quail ty Board in January, the Highway plans discussed this evening were only conceptual in nature, and that the Critical Area Plan has little bearing on those highway :plans. Mr. Farmes commented that 169 was included in the Critical Area, and it seemed to him that where it was expedient, the City followed the intent of the Critical Area Act, but where it was not expedient, did not follow it. Commissioner Book explained that -Lhe Environmental Impact Statement 'now being pre- pared was not yet completed, and that there would be hearings on the Draft State- ment at which all alternatives would be presented and the impact of each route discussed. He explained that prior to those hearings, a summary of 'the Draft.Statenwt would be available. He stated that Mr. Farmes ' point was well taken and :noted that the impact on the Critical Area, as well as efforts to mitigate that iaWu_ would be addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement. 12-21-78 -4- Chairwan Engdahl recognized Nick Warhol , 5429 Lyndale Avenue North, who commented relative to the proposed pedestrian/bicycle trailway along Lyndale Avenue., He in- quired as to how it was felt that this trailway would represent an upgrading of Lyndale Avenue. Mr. Weber responded that for the residents of the area, the trail- wan could be an enjoyable and safe bicycle and pedestrain route along the river. He stated the impact of the trailway would be minimal on the residents of Lyndale Avenue. Mr. Warhol stated that currently there were problems with people using the privately owned property along the river as a park, and that he felt the construct- ion of the trailway would only serve to increase those problems He also commented relative to the Comprehensive `Planning process and noted that during the planning process in the 1'960`s, the property in the area south of 57th Avenue and east of Lyndale Avenue had been rezoned to R2 (Two Family Residential ) without notification of the affected property owners. Mr. Weber responded that during the current Com- prehensive Planning process, the City was trying to involve the public as much as possible. He explained that the Inventory por-tion of the Plan had been discussed in October, and that in March, the recommended changes would be reviewed at a public hearing. Chairman Engdahl again recognized Mr. Brown. He inquired as to the possibility of signals being installed along West River Road prior to the time of the upgrading of 169. He, commented that the ;pedestrian signals which had been installed in the last year were ineffective. The City Engineer explained that installation of traffic signal's was under the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Department of Transport- ation. He stated that signals had been installed at 66th Avenue in the last year, and that requests had also been made for signals at 69th and 73rd Avenues. He ex- plained that the Department of Transportation has a priority system for installing signals because of the limited funding available. He explained that these criteria are based upon the amount of traffic, cross traffic, and number of accidents at the intersection, with available money being allocated for signals at intersections with the most priority paints. He continued that the intersection at 73rd Avenue does rat meet the State criteria, and that the intersection at 69th Avenue does meet the criteria, but is low on the pr'ior'ity list.. He explained that because: of the width of the road at that point, a signal could create more problems at the intersection than existed today. Chairman Engdahl recognized Richard Morris, 6911 Dallas Road, who commented relative to crosswalks on Lyndale Avenue. He stated the Police do not enforce the law which requires that motorists stop at crosswalks. The City Engineer stated that this matter had been brought to the attention of the City Council at the last Council meeting, and direction had been given to the Police Department to enforce that law. Chairman Engdahl recognized Mary Ellen Vetter, Chairman of the Conservation Commis- sion, Mrs. Vetter stated that the Conservation Commission had discussed the document at its last meeting, and in essence, agreed with the objectives established by the E.Q.B. for the Corridor, the Goal and Policy Guidelines, and the Critical Area Plan. She stated the Commission was concerned with the status of the lease with the Minnesota Department of Transportation which had been negotiated for the use of River Ridge Park. She explained that it had always been felt that the lease was a tenuous agreement, and that therefore, not much money had been spent in the development of the Park. She continued that the Commission recognized that this would not change the plans for the Park, but that it would like to know the status of that lea-se. 12-21-78 -5- Chairman Engdahl recognized Mr. Wilbur, 6857 Dallas Road, who had a question regard' ing the notification of the public hearing. The Secretary explained that the public hearing was on the Critical Area Plan, and was not a hearing on the design and up- grading of 169. He explained that notice of the public hearing had been dished in the Brooklyn Center Post, which is the City's legal newspaper, :and that::a <meedm> had been held in October with the Citizen Advisory Commissions and Neighborhood Advisory Groups on the Critical Area and Comprehensive Plans. He also stated that notices had been sent to Neighborhood Group members and that those members had been encouraged to contact their neighbors and encourage them to contact the City if " they were interested in the public hearing. He explained that the City is required to give "reasonable" notice, and not to notify individual property owners of hear- _ings on the Critical Area. He also explained that the situation referred to earlier by Mr. Warhol was similar in nature and that in that situation, in the Comprehensit Rezoning of 1968, copies of the revised Zoning Ordinance had been mailed to every property owner in the City. He explained that this was the second hearing on the Critical Area Plan. Mr. Wilbur inquired as to how long ago the widening of 169 had been proposed. The City Engineer responded that hearings regarding the 169 upgrading had not yet begun, and the the City became aware of the magnitude of the upgrading a few weeks ago. He continued that even though this is only a preliminary stage, it was decided to include conceptual information in the Plan, because the City was aware of this major upgrading scheduled for the future. RECESS The Planning Commission recessed at 10:10 .p.m. and rasumed at 10:30 p.m. Commissioner Theis left the table at 10:30 p.m. Chairman Engdahl recognized David Berg, 6842 West River Road, who inquired as to the bicycle/pedestrian trailways south of Brooklyn Center. Mr. Weber responded that in the City of Minneapolis, trailways were planned along Lyndale Ave . Mr. Weber next discussed the Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance. He expl-aimed this ordinance would overlay all existing City Ordinances, and would gig the City the control necessary to implement the Critical Area Goals and Policies. He continued that no changes were proposed for the Zoning Ordinance, but rather the Overlay District Ordinance would be in addition to the Zoning Ordinance. He ex- plained that for example, the Critical Overlay District Ordinance requires Wre detailed plans than are required under the Zoning Ordinance. He proceeded to review Section 2 of the Ordinance. In response to a question from Mr. Berg regard- ing the possibility of allowing earth-sheltered houses in the Corridor, Mr. Veber explained that, as with all other ordinances, the City Council can permit variances to the Critical Area Overlay Ordinance provided the request meets the Standards .€err Variance. In a discussion regarding Section 2.2 A, the Secretary_ stated the provisions shouilm be clarified to read as follows: "No site plan shall be required for a single one family or a single two-family dwelling. . .," since a tract development would requne a site plan. He pointed out that single family dwellings are subject to all the restrictions of the ordinance. He also explained the Standards for Variance which must be met prior to approval of a variance request. Mr. Berg discussed a particular piece of vacant property which he owns, and a dis- cussion-ensued relative to the definition of "bluff Tine" as it relates to setback requirements. The City Engineer commented that the true definition of a "bluff . , line" is change of grade. He commented that the definition of bluff line should be clarified in the ordinance if it is intended to be used as a line which is parallel to the river. 12-21-78 -6- r 1 . Weber next reviewed the site plan approval standards contained in Section,2.5. discussion ensued relative to Subsection C. Commissioner Book inquired as to why utility buildings were excepted from the 40 ft. setback restriction. Mr.. Weber explained that this provision would except lift and pump stations. In. a discussion regarding Subsection E, it was determined the provision should be modified to read: "The proposed development will not substantially increase the run-off rate or decrease the natural rate of absorption of storm water." In a discussion regarding Subsection B (6), there was a confusion over the width of a #Q slope which would prohibit its being built upon.. Mr. Weber stated the matter could be addressed R,ore carefully. Chairman Engdahl again recognized Mr. Farmes, who commented relative to Subsection K. Her stated that any proposed development would lessen, public opportunities to view the River from within the Corridor and suggested that the word "substantially" . be inserted. It was the consensus of the Comm-+ssion that the provision be modified to read: "...nor does it substantially lessen public opportunity to view the River -from within the Corridor.." There.: was also discussion regarding Subsection B (5) (a) regarding terraces and retaining walls, and Section J regarding density of trees on the site. Commissioner Book pointed out that 10 trees per acre was not very dense landscaping, and that the ordinance did not specify the size or type of tree. Following further dis- cussion, it was the consensus of the Commission that the provision be revised to read: but in no case shall the applicant be required to raise the density above TO trees per acre, the replacement trees being no smaller than 22 inches in diameter." _ Mr. Weber next reviewed Section III . River Crossings. He commented that since highway 169 was not considered a new roadway, provisions- of this section would not apply to its upgrading. It was the consensus of the Commission that Section 3.02 R.be revised to read: "Cuts and fills are to be minimized. " Section IV, Riverfront !Uses/Access and Section V. Existing Uses were reviewed. In a discussion regarding Section 5.01 it- was pointed out that the requirements only applied to existing structures whose location or use was inconsistent with the Ordinance or the Critical Areas designation order. In. a discussion regarding Section VI, Pilings, Dredging, and Filling and Section VII, River€ront Protective Structures: Natural Means, Commissioner Book pointed out that the construction of the proposed pedestrian/bicycle trai Tway crossing would be in violation of this ordinance provision. It was the consensus of the Comission that Section VI . should be revised to read: "No pilings shall be driven into the riverbed except as is necessarily incidental to water dependent uses., or a use which has been determined to be of public benefit. . ." #. discussion of Critical Overlay District Ordinance ensued. Chairman Engdahl -recolrized Mary Ellen Vetter, who stated the Conservation Commission was concerned that the term "public utility buildings" contained in Section 2.5 C could be mis- construed since it was not defined in the ordinance. Mr. Weber stated the term could be defined and included in the definitions . Mrs . Vetter also explained the Comaission`s concern with the expression "walling off" contained in Section 2.5 F. It was the consensus of the Commission that the provision be changed to read "... and the obstruction of views of the River Corridor from other properties and public rights of way has been minimized." 12-ZZ-T8 -7- The Secretary read a memorandum received from the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding the Critical Area Plan and River Ridge Park. The Director of Parks and Recreation explained in the memorandum that while the Plan as submitted is gener- ally consistent with plans for improvements to the Park, some of which are currently in progress, and others which are recommended for future development by thefParks and Recreation Commission, he perceived a potential contradiction in implementatiom of the Plan. He explained that the Plan speaks to allowing as much enjoyneut of the River as possible "without degrading the existing amenities," which is in harmony with the the Parks and Recreation Commission's philosophy of preserving the natural character of the area by avoiding "overdevelopment" or anythinguhich could be detrimental to the area. He continued that the Plan also speaks to up- grading the access road and parking lot at an estimated cost of $280,000.00, which could be interpreted to mean a roadway comparable to a City street, -complete with curb and gutter. If this were the case, the Director of Parks and Recreation urged a modification of this portion of the Plan to provide instead, a road with no curb, consisting of a single lane with certain areas widened for meeting on- , coming traffic. He concurred with the proposed surfacing of the parking area as as it would encourage more orderly parking, and recommended the use of wood`Vi bens and native materials as automobile barriers wherever necessary. The Director of Parks and Recreation concluded that he felt the above would have the resultant effect of 1 ) discouraging high-value traffic into the park, 2) preserving and enhancing the natural amenities, and 3) prevent overuse of what is intended to be a passive, nature-oriented river access Park. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Book to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanismsly. RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR CRITICAL AREA PLAN AND CR iX ARFA OVFRI_AY DTSTRTCT ORDTNANCE Motion by Co missioner Book seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to recommend adoptioh of the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Plan and Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance revised as discussed. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Jacobson seconded by Commissioner Book to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:10 am. Chairman 12-21-78 -8-