HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972 04-20 PCM Minutes of the Proceedings of the
Planning Commussion of the City of
Brooklyn Center in the County of
Hennepin and State of Minnesota
April 20, 1972
The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to
order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:05 P.R .
Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Bogucki,
Forehian, Scott and Engdahl. Also present were Director of Public
Works James Merila and Administrative Assistant Blair Tremere.
Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Scott
to approve the minutes of the March 16, 1972, meeting as submitted.
Motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Scott,
to approve the minutes of the March 30, 1972, meeting as corrected.
Motion passed unanimously.
Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Commissioner Scott
to approve-the minutes of the April 6, 1972, meeting as corrected.
Motion passed unanimously.
The first item of business was continued discussion of the pro-
posed development of the land owned by Mr.Marvin Gordon, located
south of FI-94 at Lee and Noble Avenues extended. Chairman Jensen
read a memorandum dated March 24, 1972 from Eugene Hagel, Director
of Parks and Recreation, to the Planning Commission Secretary,
regarding the subject property as it pertains to possible park use.
The memorandum stated that the Parks and Recreation Director's
position was a negative one, consi.doring such factors as location,
dimensions, proximity to homes and accessibility. Mr. Hagel further
noted that he could not envision the area as serving any needed,
suitable, or acceptable park function.
The Secretary noted that the Park and Recreation Commission had
also been asked to consider the possible use of the subject property
as a park or as an extension of the existing park and that a response
should be forthcoming prior to the next study meeting.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that it was his intent to have the
Park and Recreation Commission consider the use of the land not just
for park purposes, but also from the perspective of open space use
and the possibility of the City acquiring the parcel for that purpose.
A discussion ensued relative to noise and pollution emitted
from freeway traffic, and Chairman Jensen commented that it was
apparent the Highway Department as well as the public had learned
many lessons with regard to freeways and that a change was taking
place in construction philosophy. Commissioner Bogucki stated that
nonetheless the subject parcel was a poor location for any type of
residential use.
Commissioner Bogucki stated that the Commission should suggest
a moratorium on residential construction along the freeway, at least
until some further indication is received from the various agencies
such as F.H.A._ relative to their willingncsP to finance or back
construction an parcels abutting freeways.
1
-z-
In further discussion, Chairman Jensen stated that all sides of
the issue should be examined, including the possibility that the
subject parcel would not be acquired as open land or park space, and
thus a determination was needed relative to the best land use. He
then recognized Mr. Gordon who commented that the highway department,
at the time the freeway was constructed, felt that this particular
parcel was developable.
He stated that he had been informed that financial backing
would not necessarily be withheld due to the proximity of the parcel
to the freeway, and he referred to comparable development near the
freeway in the Garden City area of Brooklyn Center.
Chairman Jensen stated that his basic concern was that the
Commission would not condone the creation of a development which
would deteriorate at an abnormal rate. The Director of Public works
suggested that possibly, within the context of Mr. Gordon' s present
concept, the applicant could achieve the necessary noise and pollution
abatement via substantial berming. Mr. Gordon responded that he had
discussed noise buffering with others who had developed similar
parcels and there was a definite preference for heavy tree and
shrubbery cover.
There being no further discussion, the matter was deferred
until the next study meeting.
The Commission meeting recessed at 9 o' clock and resumed at
9:10 P.M.
The next item of business was continued consideration of a
proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relative to off-street
parking provisions. Chairman Jensen reviewed the previous discussion
and stated the primary concern was with the proposed amendment of
paragraph 3, Section 35-701 (3) which was proposed to read as follows :
3. Spaces accessory to uses located in a business or
industrial district shall be on the same lot as the
uses served unless a special use permit authorizes
accessory off-street parking not located on the same
Property with the principal use. Parking spaces
so authorized off-site shall not be credited toward
parking requirements unless the off-site property is
legally encumbered for parking accessory to the
principal use through deed restrictions or covenants.
Chairman Jensen stated that it had been suggested at the last
study meeting that the paragraph be terminated after the word
"requirement" . He further stated that he was concerned with the
possible distance of the accessory parking area from the principal
use, as well as the matter of the possibility that the land used
for the accessory parking might be zoned for uses other than that
of the principal use.
Chairman Jensen suggested that the Commission seek the
comments from the City Attorney relative to the question: If
this ordinance were adopted, what problems would be realized" in'''
the various residential zones„ i..:e. would it be permitted in zoning
districts other than that of the principal use?
1
1
-3-
Relative to the question of whether accessory off-street parking
might be used as a credit toward parking density requirements for
the principal use, Commissioner Grosshans stated that it appeared
that that was not so much the main consideration as was the factor
of distance.
An extensive discussion then ensued relative to whether a
distance should be specified by such an ordinance and what distance
would be feasible or desirable.
The Director of Public Works commented that throughout the
City there are various street widths, block lengths, and right-of-way
width, therefore if distance parameters are to be provided, they
should be determined by design with consideration rather than
arbitrarily picking out numbers.
Further discussion ensued relative to specific areas throughout
the City where the applicability of such an ordinance could be
comprehended. Commissioner Grosshans stated his concern with what
the maximum distance would be in terms of the walking distance from
the principal use. Commissioner Engdahl stated that he was concerned
as well that pedestrians would not be required to cross major streets
especially at uncontrolled intersections.
The Director of Public Works stated that it is evident guide-
lines are needed and that the staff could research the various
factors which contributed to a viable accessory parking facility,
considering the concern of the Planning Commission as well as
available data from the private sector such as shopping centers.
Chairman Jensen then summarized the discussion and stated that
further consideration would be deferred until the next study meeting
so that the staff could consult with the City Attorney as well as
research the need for such accessory parking facilities throughout
the City.
The Planning Commission then commenced a review of the Compre-
hensive Plan, including commentary submitted by the various
neighborhood groups. Discussion ensued relative to the material
on pages 15, 16, and 17 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Scott
to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The Planning
Commission meeting adjourned at 11:10 P.N.
C airman
1
1
1