Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 04-28 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STUDY SESSION • April 28, 1977 1 . Call to Order: 8:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call : 3. Approval of Minutes: 4-14-77 -4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's function is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. Gabbert and Beck, Inc. 77016 Site and Building Plan Approval for final phase (freestanding building) of Westbrook Center, 5605 Xerxes Avenue North. 6. Review of City Council Deliberations of Application No. 77001 (remanded to Commission by Council on 4-25-77) . • 7. Continued Consideration of Proposed Rezoning Evaluation Criteria. 8. Discussion Items: a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Hearing Scheduled for May 12, 1977 b. Zoning District Compatibility Policy c. Mandatory Land Planning Act d. Critical Area Corridor e. Pending Items 9. -Other Business: 10. Adjournment: � J� • • �. Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77016 Applicant: Gabbert and Beck, Inc. Location: 5605 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant seeks site and building plan approval for a 7500 sq. ft commercial building which represents the last construction phase of Westbrook Mall Shopping Center. The original site and building plans for the center were approved by the City Council on July 22, 1974 (Application No. 74040) and there have been several amendments, the most recent being August 18, 1975. The project was originally comprehended in two phases. The first phase accounted for an existing power line and power pole easement running across the property. The second phase accounted for the erection of a freestanding building -- then proposed as a 5000 sq. ft. building -- and presumed the elimination of the easement. The power lines and power poles have been eliminated and thus, certain parking lot improvements such as curb and gutter and parking space delineation which were viewed as temporary can now be finalized. Earlier approvals have included the deferral of a certain number of parking spaces (most recently 115 spaces) in consideration of the following: the applicant's contention that the full compliment of ordinance required spaces is not necessary given the type of uses in the center; the submission and approval of a "proof of parking plan" which shows that the ordinance required parking can be installed on the land available using a 900 parking stall design rather than the installed diagonal design; and the eventual development of a freestanding building near Xerxes Avenue North as represented by this ,application. We have analyzed the parking situation and will be prepared to comment on the final figures representing the current amount to be deferred as proposed by the applicant as well as the amount of spaces required under the ordinance given the size of the proposed new building, the size of the mall itself and the size of the Hirshfi.eld's Paint Store building. The plans indicate at this time the proposed freestanding building would con- sist of a financial institution and one or two other office-type tenancies. The plans indicate a future remote teller station for the bank which would be located on a parking lot delineator west of the building. On November 13, 1975 the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal by the appli- cant wherein crushed rock or washed gravel would be used in the parking lot delineators rather than the originally approved wood chip mulch. It was the consensus of the Commission that the rock could be used, but that it would be subject to review at the time of the final development. It is suggested that Commissioners drive by the premises and view this situation. We will be prepared to discuss the parking space deferment as well as the design of the proposed building in more detail . Y 4-28-77 Gabbert & Beck, Inc. continued Approval would be subject the following: 1 . Building plans are subject to review by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior' to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading and drainage utility and berming plans are subject to review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 3. The performance agreement and financial guarantee submitted under Application No. 74040 shall include the completion of site improvements comprehended under this approval . 4. Installation of certain parking stalls as indicated on the approved site and building plans may be deferred until deemed necessary by the City Council , providing such deferred areas are developed, landscaped, and maintained in accordance with approved site plans and ordinance requirements. 5. All site improvements previously deferred in consideration of the then existing power company pole and line easement shall be installed and/or completed as permanent improvements. 6. All landscaped areas on the site shall be provided with under- ground irrigation. 7. All trash disposal facilities and roof-top mechanical equipment • - shall be appropriately enclosed and screened from view. 8. Site and building plans shall comply with State provisions for the handicapped. 9. Installation of the proposed remote bank teller station shall be subject to review by the Planning and Inspection and Engineering Departments. 4-28-77 -2 :.� _.__ I I \ \ :< i I / i --------- -- - \� APPLICATION NO. 77616 WESTBROOK � Y,NO EAT RTN- 0 5 30 80 OABB i BECK MC. EDINA.MINNESOTA 945.4341 r conceptual site Ian VVM7 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77001 Applicant: Richard Rockstad • Location: Northeast corner of 70th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Rezoning (Review of City Council deliberation of- request as remanded by City Council ) The City Council on April 25, 1977 remanded this item to the Planning Commission for further consideration in light of Council, deliberations on March 28, 1 977 and on April 25, 1977. At the March 28 Council meeting the staff was directed to prepare alternatives which could be considered in providing for the redevelopment proposal submitted by the applicant with the recognition that zoning and permitted uses should be consistent with Comprehensive Plan provisions. We prepared a memorandum to that effect, and it was the subject of discussion at the last council meeting. (copy attached) The City Council indicated that alternative No. 2 appeared to be the most appropriate means of approaching this situation and the attached draft ordinance was endorsed. The Council , however, refrained from a first reading of this ordinance amendment until such time the Planning Commission has reviewed the matter. It was the consensus of the Council that the intent of the ordinance amendment and the intent of the City Council as expressed in the March 28 Council minutes could be reconciled with the concerns of the Planning Commission as expressed in Resolution 77-1 which was adopted by the Commission on March 24 (copy attached). The issue is essentially a confirmation of a policy that service office uses are deemed compatible with R-5 uses and since this compatibility is expressed in the current Comprehensive Plan, it would seem redevelopment proposals as suggested by Mr. Rockstad could be treated accordingly. There is a blanket recognition throughout this specific deliberation that the Comprehensive Plan will , in fact, be subject to major review and revision within the next two to three years, and that consequently the designation of various areas throughout the City for specific type land uses will be subject to close scrutiny by the public, neighborhood groups, Planning Commission and City Council . The policy determination involved with this specific matter would be a matter of record when 'such review occurs, and the policy can be presented in more specific and elaborate terms and graphic representations at that time. We will be prepared to discuss this matter in further detail at the meeting. The City Council is requesting a specifc review and commentary at this time so the matter can be finally disposed of at the next meeting on May 9. MEMORANDUM: Alternatives For Accomplishing Rezoning and Development Goals Suggested by Planning Commission Application No. 77001 T D. G. Poss , er Cit 'Mana Y g Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere CKGROUND Tie City Council, on March 28, 1977, directed the preparation of options for implementing the proposal and zoning change comprehended under Application No. 7 001 submitted by Mr. Richard Rockstad. The proposal comprehends the area at the northeast corner of 70th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. It was the finding of the Council that the proposal, which seeks rezoning from R-5 to C-1 , would be beneficial to the area and to the community. T e Planning Commission and City Council have on numerous occasions discussed the Comprehensive Plan and zoning principle considerations which constitute this matter, namely, the compatibility of C-1 service/office type uses and R-5 and R-4 ulti-residential type uses . It is the intent of this memorandum to cite various alternatives for properly • reflecting the Council's policy determination that there is such a compatibility and comparability through Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendment. V dually all of the C-1 zoned land abuts Brooklyn Boulevard and was designated a part of the comprehensive rezoning of the City in June of 1968 when the Council adopted Ordinance 68-10, which is the current Zoning Ordinance. Most of these C-1 properties are within areas called planned development districts by the Comprehensive Plan, which was adopted in November of 1966 under Resolution No. 66-295. The Comprehensive Plan map also shows two planned development district areas which were zoned in 1968 as R-5 . One area is on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard south of I-94 and north of 65th Avenue North. The other, which includes Mr. Rockstad's property, is on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard north of 70th A enue North. The: Comprehensive Plan states as a planning goal for the west central neighborhood and the northwest neighborhood: Establish the areas along Osseo Road (as shown on the plan map) which are now vacant or subject to future change to a "higher" land use, as planned development districts. These areas would be permitted to be developed or redeveloped only if the owner or developer does so as a "package" as opposed to individual lots and only if an appropriate use is proposed -- possibly apartments, a • -2- public and semi-public buildings, or certain commercial services such as clinic, professional office, etc. The reason for restricting • the type of development is well stated in the preceding section on Osseo Road development goals. Tie reference to Osseo Road development goals refers to the concern that c mmercial development along now Brooklyn Boulevard be limited to nonretail, low intensity uses. Furthermore, it calls for the limitation as to the number of c rb cuts and access points along Brooklyn Boulevard because of the high traffic v lume. It is clear then that the Comprehensive Plan speaks to the compatibility and comparability of multi-residential (R-4 and R-5) and service/office type uses (C-1). It is also clear that in 1968 the City Council determined R-5 and C-1 to be the appropriate "higher zoning referred to by the Comprehensive Plan for these planned development districts . Me experience of the last ten years is that none of the planned development d stricts have developed as a package and, in fact, most of these properties remain the sites of nonconforming uses which are single family homes in most cases. It would seem then in the context of recent City Council and Planning Commission deliberations on this matter that the Comprehensive Plan should be clarified and • odified'through amendment to reflect the current thinking. ALTERNATIVES 1 Amendment of Comprehensive Plan There is an established procedure in the Zoning Ordinance for amending the Comprehensive Plan. It calls for notice to be published in the legal newspaper and for a public hearing to be held by the Planning Commission before adoption of a resolution by the City Council. Essentially, this is a matter of amending, by resolution, Resolution No. 66-295 which constitutes the Comprehensive Plan. T ie amendment would modify the present language referring to planned development d stricts and package type development and provide new language referring to the c mpatibility and comparability of certain multi-residential and certain service/ o five type uses. Rezoning then, from R-4 or R-5 to C-1 or conversely from C-1 to R-4 or R-5, would then be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2 Amendment of the Present Zoning Ordinance • A other approach which would seem to be feasible in the context that the Comprehensive Plan will soon be subject to major revision and modification, is the provision in the R-5 and R-4 districts for certain C-1 service/office uses as -3 special uses in those zoning districts. This approach is similar to that taken several years ago in providing commercial uses in the Industrial Park district. • The relationship of this ordinance amendment to the existing* Comprehensive Plan 'would be clearly established in the Council minutes reflecting the intent of the c ange. The essential difference between this alternative and No. 1 is that a formal rezoning would not be necessary since as special uses each specific d velopment would be looked at on its merits as a permitted special use in that z ning district. 3. Rezone the Subject Property This would amount to an approval of the Application No. 77001 through resolution citing the policy determination and findings by the City Council that the proposal as consistent with current thinking. The action would be a formal acknow 1 dgment that future applications from property owners similarly located in this area or zoning district would be treated in a like manner. COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION P ocedurally, each of the alternatives would require approximately the same amount of time since each involves an amendment to the ordinance. The first a ternative would perhaps require a slightly •longer time since a public hearing following publication of notice would be'necessary . It would seem that alternative No. 2 would be the most expeditious and perhaps most fruitful route since it would speak to the intent of the City Council and would.provide a mechanism for review and approval of specific developments. When the Comprehensive Plan is eventually subject to major revision and r adoption within the next three years, the matter can be explicitly treated in at document and -forma-lly reflected in subsequent amendments of the Zoning Ordinance. A ternative No. 2 can be reviewed as an appropriate interim measure which is c nsistent wit_h the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, reflects the City Council's d termination that there is a comparability between the multi-residential and s rvice/office uses, and provides an effective means of reviewing development proposals on their merits without the formality of rezoning action. We will be prepared to discuss these alternatives and the procedural considerations in, detail. Member Robert Foreman introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption, RESOLUTION NO. 77-1 • RESOLUTION.REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSTION OF APPLICATION NO. 77001 SUBMITTED BY MR. RICHARD ROCKSTAD WHEREAS, Application No. 77001 submitted by Richard Rockstad proposes rezoning, from R-5 (Multi-Residential) to C-1 (Service/Office Commercial), of property at the northeast corner of 70th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard addressed as 7000 and 7006 Brooklyn Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Commission held a duly called public hearing on January 27, 1977 when testimony both for and against the request was taken; and WHEREAS, the item was referred to the Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group which, in a letter dated March 2, 1977, recommended that.the R-5 zoning should be retained for reasons cited therein; and WHEREAS, the Commission on March 10, 1977 considered the matter, including additional testimony both for and against and the Advisory Group report; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the request in terms of the Comprehensive Plan criteria for the area, and in terms of the intent of the area zoning; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center to recommend to the City Council.that Application No. 77001 submitted by Richard Rockstad be denied in consideration of the following: 1. The request is characteristic of "spot zoning," i.e., zoning which discriminates in favor of a particular landowner and is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or with accepted • planning principles. 2. Testimony was offered by neighboring property owners who had been notified of the hearing and who expressed the 'desire to retain the present zoning, rather than establishing commercial Use in the area. 3. The Northwest Neighborhood Advisory Group submitted a written - recommendation that the residential character of the area should be maintained, and that the R-5 zoning of the subject property should be retained. 4. The proposal is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which defines the area, on the east side of Brooklyn Boulevard from the subject property to Noble Avenue North, as a planned development district which should reflect a common zoning and, preferably, a common development. 5. The Commission has not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the Comprehensive Plan and zoning for this area, and the Commission holds that rezoning the subject property alone at this time would be premature because of the precedent upon the balance of the area. The applicant has stated his preference for immediate disposition of the petition, rather than for deferring it until the Compre- hensive Plan for the area can be analyzed and possibly modified. Date Mayor ATTEST: • Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Deborah Jacobson, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Robert Foreman, Cecilia Scott, Gilbert Engdahl, Deborah Jacobson, Harold Pierce and Patrick Horan; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO SPECIAL SERVICE-OFFICE USES IN THE R-5 DISTRICT HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 . Section 35-314, 3, is hereby amended as follows: (b) Certain service-office uses which, in each specific case, are demonstrated to the City Council to be: 1) Compatible with existing adjacent land uses as well as with those uses permitted in the R-5 district generally; 2) Complementary to existing adjacent land uses as well as to those uses permitted in the R-5 district generally; 3) Of comparable intensity to permitted R-5 district land uses with respect to activity levels; 4 Planned and designed to assure that generated traffic will be within the capacity of available public facilities and will not have an adverse impact upon those facilities , the immediate neighborhood, or the community . and, which are described in Section 35-320, Subsections 1 fib) (c) (0) and (j) through (t). Such service-office uses shall be subject to the C-1 district requirements of Sections 35-400 and 35-411 and shall otherwise be subject to the ordinance requirements of the use classification which the proposed use represents . Adopted this day of 1977. Ma or . ATTEST: Clerk • ate Published • R. S �v Z vosT. festive Date. � Uul For Review and Discussion - Second Draft 4-77 • DRAFT CRITERIA FOR REVIEWING REZONING APPLICATIONS The Commission on March 24 reviewed the first draft of criteria for reviewing rezoning applications which were drawn from two City Attorney memos No. S-37 dated October 15, 1970 and No. S-46 dated July 23, 1971 as well as staff research into zoning and planning resources. The purpose of this second draft is to set out the possible criteria in a format suggested by the Commission's discussion. It was determined that the following criteria would be used in evaluating rezoning applications and in answering the two following general questions: is the proposed consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? Is the rezoning proposal characteristic of "spot zoning?" 1 . The proposed use has no relation to the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed rezoning benefits the applicant and damages surrounding property. 3. The proposed rezoning has no public purpose. 4. The proposed zoning classification is inconsistent with surrounding classification. 5. Consideration of the proposed rezoning has centered on the specific use proposed rather than on all the uses compre- hended within the proposed zoning classification. 6. The proposed rezoning includes consideration of whether substantial changes occurred in the area since the subject property was originally zoned. 7. There is a broad public purpose evident versus a .narrow public purpose. 8. The subject parcel will not bear the same restrictions as other parcels similar situated. 9. The property is not suitable for any permitted uses. 10. Expansion of an existing zone would result. 11 . The size or number of parcels should not be solely controlling. 12. Is the land in question an individual parcel of single • ownership. ' Pag 2, D a driteria for Reviewing Rezoning Applications We ll .be prepared to discuss these in further detail and suggest a number of ammatical changes to bring the criteria into conformance with the checklist fo t suggested by the Commission. That concept was to create a series of que ions answerable in either the affirmative or the negative and that the ba c evaluation criterion would be whether there was a preponderance of one re onse or another. F lly, it was the Commission's thought that the individual criteria could be us as substantiation points in a resolution of either denial or approval for any gi ven *rezoning application. 4-28-77 i