Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970 08-27 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota August 27, 1970 The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:16 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Robert Jensen, Commissioners Henry Bogucki, Robert Grosshans, Paul Ditter, and Karl Schuller. Commissioners absent were: Adrian Dorenfeld and Charles Nichols. Staff members present were: B. E. Peterson and Tom Loucks. Motion was made by Commissioner Bogucki and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to approve the minutes of the August 6, 1970 regular meeting, as submitted. The motion carried unanimously. Following the Chairman's introductory comments, the first item of business was a neighborhood committee report in regard to Viewcon, Inc. rezoning Application No. 70048. Chairman Jensen read the following reports "The West Central Neighborhood Committee Meeting - August 24, 1970 Members present at meeting: Don Ewert, Marvin Hintzman, Gerald Nesseth, Arden Rassmusen, Robert Sidlo. With regards to the above subject application, the Committee feels that a convenience center built at this point on County Road 10 would create an additional traffic hazard to an already heavily traveled road. Members of this group also noted that there has been numberous accidents on County Road 10 near this area. It was mentioned that the service station built to the south on this road was an example of the problems created. We also felt that the application for a variance deviated considerably from the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan and agree with Chairman Jensen that it would set a precedent in regard to future applications. Respectfully submitted, Robert Sidlo, Secretary" The next item of business was Application No. 70048 requesting rezoning from R5 to C2 submitted by Viewcon, Inc. for a property located at 5801 Major Avenue North. Mr. Loucks introduced the application and noted that the staff had considered a number of factors in a Mluating this application. He noted that it appeared that the Commission was faced with the task of determining if commercial facilities for the purpose of providing convenience items in areas of residential character are an appropriate use of the land. He further stated that the Viewcon proposal may be appropriate in terms of a convenience center as an integrated or unit development in conjunction with the Twin Lake North Apartment complex. 5.: i i<. -2- Mr. Loucks stated that perhaps a rezoning to commercial use could be interpreted as spot zoning; however, in terms of the unit concept being proposed, it appears to be an appropriate use that may not be applicable to future requests for commercial facilities. Mr. Loucks further commented that information submitted to him by the Police Department indicates that there have been six acci- dents in the vicinity of the Twin Lake North apartment complex in the past 18 months. Of the six, three were directly related- to the ingress and egress points existing on the Twin Lake North property. He reported that the Police Department stated that the incidence of accidents in this area is not abnormal compared to other high use areas throughout the City. In addition, he stated, that in his opinion traffic would not be increased significantly because of the pedestrian access to the development which would, in effect, probably tend to reduce vehicular trip generation from within the immediate vicinity; while a convenience center would generate traffic, the substitution of pedestrian traffic for vehicular traffic from the apartment complex and neighborhood would tend to counter-balance this situation. Chairman Jensen stated that the use appeared to be appropriate in this instance, but felt that by rezoning this parcel the Commission would be creating a spot zone, thus setting an undesirable precedent in which the Planning Commission would be unable to pre- vent further commercial development in this area and other areas in the City of a residential character. He further stated that he was particularly concerned about the R3 parcel to the east of the Twin Lake North apartment project. He posed a question that the Planning Commission may at sometime in the future receive a request for commercial development on this parcel and would be unable to deny such zoning given the fact that the McGlinchy parcel was zoned commercial. Mr. William Lundberg, representing Viewcon, Inc., stated at that time that they, as the owners of the property, did not now and in the future have any intentions of asking for commercial zoning for that particular parcel. Chairman Jensen responded that there would be no guarantee that Viewcon would always own this particular parcel nor that Viewcon would not change its mind in regard to commercial development on this parcel. Mr. Grosshans commented that on the face of things, the development appeared to be appropriate but he would be reluctant to rezone the parcel in that in his opinion it may constitute a spot zoning. The Chair then recognized Mr. G. A. Johnson of 5727 Major Avenue North who stated that he agreed with Chairman Jensen that perhaps the rezoning would constitute a spot zone. He further stated that he was not particularly opposed to the project, but wondered if it would create any additional traffic problems. Chairman Jensen then polled the Planning Commissioners as to their opinions in regard to this rezoning. Commissioner Ditter felt that the rezoning in this instance might be particularly appropriate. Chairman Grosshans responded that he was fearful that perhaps this rezoning would constitute a spot zone. Commissioner Schuller expressed the opinion that perhaps the Commission would be creating a spot zone and was also concerned that if the parcel was indeed rezoned, that there was no guarantee that the developer would construct a convenience center. Commis sioner Bogucki felt that the proposal was adequate and would provide service for convenience items. 1 1 1 -3- Chairman Jensen then stated that it appeared that the concensus of the Commission is that the convenience center commercial zoning may be appropriate in this instance, however, that the Commission would be creating a spot zone and felt that it would have a great deal of difficulty in dealing with future requests for commercial zoning in areas of residential character. He further stated that perhaps the staff should seek a legal opinion from the City Attorney in regard to the ramifications of spot zoning for commercial use and the effects or impact it may have upon future requests for commercial facilities of this nature. At this point, the Chair entertained a motion from Commissioner Schuller to pend Application No. 70048 until such time as the staff could receive a legal opinion from the City Attorney in regard to spot zoning and the ramifications thereof. The motion was seconded by Bogucki. The motion carried unanimously. The next item of business was a Neighborhood Report of the West Central Committee in regard to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Grosshans made a brief statement in regard to this matter and noted that a written report will be forthcoming. The next item of business was a Neighborhood Report in regard to the sidewalk network. Commissioner Grosshans made some brief verbal comments in this regard and reported that a written report would be forthcoming. The next item of business was a nursing home report. Mr. Peterson reported that the staff had visited a number of nursing homes in the past several weeks and further stated that they would perhaps visit one or two other nursing homes before submitting a written report in regard to these visits. Mr. Peterson then read to the Commission a draft nursing home ordinance which the staff had drawn up and indicated that it was in the very preliminary stage however they would like a reaction from the Planning commission. The Commission then discussed various aspects of the draft ordinance as presented and directed the staff to further pursue the matter and present any additional material at the study meeting of September 24, 1970. The next item of business was freeway development zones. Mr. Loucks reported that the staff was currently looking into the matter but felt that a report would not be forthcoming for at least 30 to 60 days. Motion by Commissioner Grosshans and seconded by Commissioner Schuller to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Chai an 1 1 1