Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 06-26 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 MEETING CITY HALL June 26 , 1975 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order at 8 :00 p.m. by Chairman Pro-tem Robert Foreman. oll Call: Chairman Pro-tem Foreman, Commissioners Scott, Engdahl, Pierce and Horan. Also present was Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Approval of Minutes : Motion by Commissioner Scott, seconded by 6-19-75 Commissioner Engdahl to approve the minutes of the June 19 , 1975 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were : Commissioners Scott, Engdahl, Pierce and Horan. Not voting: Chairman Pro-tem Foreman, who explained he was not present at that meeting. The motion passed. Jacobson Arrives : Commissioner Jacobson arrived at 8 : 05 p.m. Continue .Consideration Following the Chairman Pro-tem' s explanation., of Application No. 75012 the first item of business was the consideration (Titus, Inc. ) of Planning Commission Application No. 75012 , submitted by Titus, Inc. The item was introduced by the Secretary, who explained that it consisted of a request for rezoning, from C-lA to C-2, of the approximate 8. 5 acre parcel lying north and west of Northway Drive, westerly of Xerxes Ave. No. He stated the application was tabled following the required public hearing on May 22, 1975, and the matter was referred to the Central Neighborhood Advisory Group. The Secretary stated that the Chairman of the Neighborhood Advisory Group had submitted a letter stating the findings of the group after a June 18, 1975, meeting at City Hall, which was attended by a number of residents in the area. He stated the group unanimously recommended that the zoning remain unchanged. At Chairman Pro-tem Foreman 's request, the Secretary read the report of the neighborhood group chairman, and the letter was placed on file. Chairman Pro-tem Foreman explained to the audience that the format of the meeting was not a formal public hearing, and that while interested residents would have an opportunity to comment on the petition, the agenda item consisted of considering the available input and developing a recommendation for the City Council. He then recognized Mr. Jack Rice of the Dayton Hudson Company, owner, who represented the appli- cant. Mr. Rice presented a brief overview of the history of the Dayton Development Company 's interest in the land, which he said, dated back approximately 20 years . He stated the original concept had been for a hospital-medical complex, which had not materialized due to a number of factors , including lack of certification for such a facility by the State Department of Health. He commented on the 1967 rezoning of a portion of the land to C-2 , which is now the present Super Valu site, and noted the dedicated public right-of-way which is Northway Drive. -1- 6/26/75 He stated the concept since then had been development according to the allowable C-1 uses; probably a high rise office building. He commented he personally had worked toward that concept for a number of years and that apparently there was little feeling that there was a north area market for a speculative high rise office complex. He also commented as to certain design constraints perceived by perspective, buyers and developers including: lack of direct access from County Road No. 10 and Brooklyn Blvd. ; the lack of median cuts in County Road No. 10 ; and the lack of extensions of York, Zenith, Abbott and Beard Avenues from the north. He noted there were many reasons for these constraints , many of them con- sistent with the owner' s overall plans in the development of the area. He stated further, that the owner had tried to adhere to the City' s intent to have a unified development on the property, versus a multiple parcel development. Mr. Rice stated that he felt the present proposal was beneficial not only to the developer, but also for the area and the City for e following reasons : conversion of non-productive space into a complimentary retail center to Brookdale, in that clustering had definite advantages for retail business; the opportunity to recover original acquisition and other long term costs. He stated that the proposal generally met the goals of the City in terms of access plans and further definit- ion of Brookdale of a major regional center. He contrasted C-2 zoning with C-lA zoning, and he noted that office-type development would tend to generate high traffic at the peak periods, which was not a desirable factor in this area. He also noted that 400 of the people attracted to the retail businesses would be those in the Brookdale area anyway, according to his data. He stated that while C-2 might generate more trips and more cars, it would be spread out over a period of time. Finally, he noted that C-2 buffer zoning requirements were more stringent than those of the C-lA zone. With respect to ramifications on the neighborhood, he said that while a park-like open space would be ideal, a realistic estimate of the situation would be that it is not what was going to be developed. He commented that an advantage to the neighborhood would be to have a unified developed project consisting of a low-rise structure versus a high-rise, which would be permitted under C-lA. Mr. Rice then introdu.ced Mr. Fred Poisson, the architect for the applicant, who reviewed the conceptual site and building plans for the project. Following a brief discussion, Chairman Pro-tem Foreman then recognized a number_ of neighboring property owners, including the residents of 5836 Brooklyn Blvd. ; 5836 Zenith Ave. No. ; 5836 , 5835, and 5901 Abbott Ave. No. ; 3301 and 3315 59th Avenue No. Concerns incliqued: the proposed buffer zone treatment; the original intent, as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan that there would be no retail uses on the subject site; 6/26/75 _2_ the traffic problems on 59th Ave. No. ; and concern as to the type of uses which would be permitted in the C-2 zone, notwithstanding the present proposal. A brief discussion ensued relative to the traffic sttuation on 59th Ave. No. , and it was suggested that perhaps the City Engineer could evaluate that situation on its own merits, since it was not clear that a development on the subject site would necessarily intensify the number of persons who are using 59th Ave. No. as a shortcut from Brooklyn Blvd. to Xerxes Ave. No. Further discussion ensued relative to the concern with general aesthetics and maintenance of the initial improvement in that several residents commented there were a number of areas on the perimeter of the Brookdale complex which had not been maintained in their original state. Following the remarks by neighborhood residents , Chairman Pro-tem Foreman recognized Mr. Rice, who offered several concluding remarks relative to the long term efforts of Dayton Hudson Corp- oration to assure the upkeep and upgrading of Brookdale aesthetics. He also commented as to the buffer treatment, noting that the applicant was flexible with regard to fencing or screening materials. He also stated, with respect to the concern as to property values, that it could be demonstrated residential property values do not necessarily decline due to the development of a commercial center in the vicinity. He commented finally that he appreciated the neighbor's concern, that once a piece of property was rezoned, it is subject to any of the permitted uses and not necessarily to any conceptual plans which are presented. He stated the owner would be willing to place a deed restriction on the sale of the property, limiting future uses to a retail center. The Secretary explained that while the owner of the land can perhaps accomplish such a deed restriction, that could not be required as a condition of the rezoning itself. An extensive discussion ensued and Commissioner Horan inquired of the neighboring residents whether they were aware of the possible uses and construction permitted in the C-lA zone. It was the consensus of those present, that they were aware of the possible uses in that district as well as those permitted in the C-2 district. In response to a question by Commissioner Pierce whether any serious proposal for the C-1 develop- ment of the land, other than the original medical professional complex, had been submitted to the City, Mr. Rice responded in the negative . He stated he had attempted for several years to secure such a development, but none was apparently feasible. Commissioner Engdahl noted possible C-lA design wherein a high-rise office building would be surrounded by a massive parking lot with less of a buffer between the residential properties -3- 6/26/75 than the C-2 district. He commented that it was important the neighboring residents realized that possibility. Commissioner Jacobson stated that while she felt there was a definite need to develop the subject parcel, and while there was some merit, at least conceptually, in the type of center proposed, she recognized and appreciated the concerns of the neighboring residents as to the traffic situation on 59th Avenue and the concerns of the intensity of the C-2 development versus the C-1. Commissioner Scott stated that the primary issue was whether the community needed additional C-2 land. She stated there was a substantial amount of such land, which was vacant, in the Brooklyn Center Industrial Park, and noted further the supportive retail center under construction across from this project, south of County Road 10 . She suggested that regarding concerns as to traffic on 59th Avenue, that the City Engineer be contacted. She concluded that while the land definitely should be developed, it should be done according to the present zoning and not necessarily rezoned to accommodate a specific development. Commissioner Pierce commented that the subject parcel represented the only C-lA zoned land in the City, and that he recognized there were a number of undesirable ramifications possible with C-2 zoning, such as the hours of operation and general intensity. He also noted that to his knowledge there has been no areas of this magnitude rezoned to C-2 in the City since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and the original zoning ordinance. Commissioner Horan stated that with respect to the neighbors concerns, there was definitely a high exposure factor with the parcel whether it was C-2 or C-lA. He reiterated Commissioner Scott' s statement that it was questionable whether additional C-2 land was necessary in the community. Chairman Pro-tern Foreman commented as to the history of rezoning requests since he had been on the Commission, and noted that in each case, the Commission' s deliberation had been one of caution. He stated that serious consideration had to be given to the long lasting effects of the proposed action, and that in his opinion, the substantial amount of vacant land in the City, which was already zoned C-2 , precluded the need for more such land. He stated that once a Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, a major rezoning should not merely accommodate a specific development. He stated that input from the neighborhood group and the various residents was very significant, particularly with regard to the potential ramifications of the proposed zoning with this site. Following further discussion, there was a motion Action Directing by Commissioner Horan, seconded by Commissioner Resolution Denying Pierce to direct the preparation of a resolution Application No. 75012 recommending denial of Planning Commission (Titus, Inc.) Application No. 75012 , submitted by Titus , Inc. , citing the following: 6/26/75 -4- 1. The high exposure of the subject parcel to residential property and the intensific- ation of that exposure with C-2 retail development. 2 . The need for additional C-2 zoned land in the City is not perceived, particularly in consideration of the substantial amount of land so zoned which is available for retail development. 3. The provisions of the Comprehensive Plan which classifies the subject parcel as service/office in nature rather than retail . 4 . Consistency with the general policy of the City to avoid situations of large C-2 tracts abutting single family residential properties The motion passed unanimously. Other Business: In other business, an extensive discussion ensued Comprehensive Plan as to the appropriate format for pursuing the Review review of the Comprehensive Plan. It was the consensus of the Commission to proceed section- by-section in reviewing the existing language, updating earlier efforts of the Commission, and further, to evaluate the plan by neighborhood. It was also the consensus of the Commission to reg- ularly consult the neighborhood groups as their particular areas came under consideration, and that initial attention should be given to land use and land subdivision policies in the Southeast and Southwest neighborhoods. Further disccssion ensued, and it was the consensus that present policies and ordinance requirements should be uniformally followed until such time that revisions deemed appropriate were recommended and approved by the City Council. Brooklyn Park Rezoning: In other business, the Secretary noted that the Planning and Inspection office had been informed by the City of Brooklyn Park that another request by the same applicant had been submitted for rezoning of the parcel located at the Northeast quadrant of the intersection of T.H. 169 and 73rd Avenue North. He stated that whereas , the initial proposal last spring had comprehended rezoning from single family residential to general business, the present proposal was from single family residential to limited business . He stated the matter would be taken under advisement and Brooklyn Center residents within 350 feet would be notified of the public hearing scheduled for July 9 , 1975 . Pending Items: In other business, the Secretary briefly discussed a number of pending items, including the proposed construction of a Metropolitan Transit Commission bus maintenance facility on a site southerly of the City maintenance garage on Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that preliminary site plans had been received from the applicant. He commented it was conceivable that the application would be ready for the regular meeting in July. -5- 6/26/75 Motion by Commissioner Engdahl, seconded by Adjournment: Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11: 30 p.m. Chairman s 6/26/75 -6-