HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 11-30 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
NOVEMBER 30, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, John Whitehead, Rex Newman, Sean Rahn
and Dianne Reem. Commissioner Stephen Erdmann was absent and excused. Also present were
Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning Specialist Ronald Warren, and
Planning Commission Recording Secretary Nancy Czajkowski.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 12, 2000
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Whitehead, to approve
the minutes of the October 12, 2000 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously.
CHAIR'S EXPLANATION
Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission's functions 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 in these matters.
DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING I -1
USES
Chair Willson introduced as a discussion item, a request from Mr. Sam Baxter to seek
Amendment of Zoning Ordinance regarding I -1 Uses.
Mr. Warren presented a staff memorandum on the proposed amendment. (See memorandum
dated 11/27/00 for Ordinance Amendment Request attached.) The matter involves a request by
Mr. Sam Baxter to amend the City's zoning ordinance to allow "recreation and amusement
places" to be a use classification allowed in the Industrial Park (I -1) zoning district. Such an
amendment would permit Mr. Baxter to operate an indoor go -kart track in that zoning district,
specifically at 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway.
Chair Willson asked about the document submitted as an application noting it is addressed to
Brooklyn Park and not Brooklyn Center. Mr. Sam Baxter, President of Fast Track, responded
that it was a mistake by the typist.
Mr. Warren stated this is the application and is significant in that it starts a 60 day time limit. He
noted confusion between Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park is an error made often. He added
within the body of the document it references the City of Brooklyn Center and its ordinance. He
stated although it is an inadvertent error, it could be argued that the application is not properly
11 -30 -00
Page 1
submitted. He stated they could manually correct the application and re -start the clock this
evening recognizing receipt of a corrected application.
Chair Willson stated he believes this is what the Commission should do.
Mr. Warren stated the Commission could by motion accept the revised letter as application for
the requested zoning amendment, acknowledge receipt of it today and note the time for statutory
review begins today and runs until January 29, 2000.
Chair Willson asked further about the sixty days. Mr. Warren responded that when there is a
written request for zoning approval, the City is obligated to give an answer within 60 days.. He
added if there is no action by the city within the time limit, the request is considered approved.
Mr. Warren stated his memo was put together before the written submission based on discussions
he had with Mr. Baxter and assurances from Mr. Baxter that the written application would be
submitted by November 27, 2000. He noted it is a point well taken about addressing a new start
of the time limit.
Chair Willson stated he would still like to see this document updated and addressed properly.
Mr. Warren stated the minutes should reflect he is correcting the document by hand so that it is
addressed to the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission and that the date it has been received is
November 30, 2000.
Commissioner Newman stated he would like to see Mr. Baxter submit a corrected version. Chair
Willson concurred.
There was a motion by Commissioner Newman, seconded by Commissioner Reem, to affirm the
correction in the address to the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission as requested by Mr. Sam
Baxter, to acknowledge the references in the address to "Brooklyn Park" be changed to
"Brooklyn Center" and to stipulate the applicant must submit an updated request by December
10, 2000.
Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Newman, Reem, Boeck, Rahn and
Whitehead.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Warren resumed his presentation of the staff memo.
In response to an inquiry by Chair Willson, Mr. Warren explained that the matter before the
Planning Commission is to advise the City Council on whether the zoning ordinance should be
amended to allow "recreation and amusement places" as a permitted use in the I -1 zoning
district. If such a use is allowed, the go -kart facility, with its accessory uses, would be
considered a permitted I -1 use and could be conducted at 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway without
any other formal approval by the City. A building permit would be needed to accommodate
11 -30 -00
Page 2
changes to the building. He explained that currently "recreation and amusement places" are
special uses in the C -2 (Commerce) zoning district only.
Mr. Warren pointed out that the site proposed by Mr. Baxter for the go -kart facility is in a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) district which has an I -1 underlying zoning designation. As
such, I -1 uses are allowed to be carried on within the building in the district provided they abide
by the Planned Unit Development approval. The building in question is limited to a 20%
office /80% industrial occupancy per the PUD approval.
Chairman Willson inquired if the proposed ordinance amendment would be effective throughout
the industrial park zone. Mr. Warren noted that if adopted, a recreational use such as the go -kart
facility would be allowed throughout the industrial park zone as a permitted use and in the PUD
zones that have an underlying I -1 designation.
A brief discussion was conducted about the process for amending the ordinance. The timing and
City Council consideration was mentioned. The Commission agreed that the go -kart use was
properly classified as a "recreation and amusement" use which is allowed in the C -2 (Commerce)
district as a special use.
Mr. Warren briefly reviewed the history of the Industrial Park zoning and the concerns that lead
to the adoption of the current zoning designations and allowable uses in the zoning district.
Commissioner Boeck noted that the City had adopted the Planned Unit Development ordinance
and zoning designation to give itself flexibility in dealing with zoning issues based on
submission of a proper plan. He pointed out that in a PUD zone the City could allow an
otherwise non - permitted use if various findings as to appropriateness were made. Mr. Warren
acknowledged this, but pointed out that in the particular PUD zone, various uses and use of the
buildings were specified in the PUD approval. An amendment to allow a use not otherwise
acknowledged would require a formal approval and findings that it is compatible in all respects
to the existing PUD. He further explained that the PUD in question was developed to
acknowledge the complex parking relation and inter - relation to the buildings and land uses
surrounding Parkway Circle and the central parking lot. He again pointed out that if the
proposed ordinance amendment were adopted to allow recreation and amusement uses as
permitted uses, the go -kart operation could then be located in any building designed to support
an industrial use.
Mr. Warren pointed out the staff position that the recreation and amusement uses were proper
C -2 uses and should be confined to the C -2 zone rather than be allowed in the I -1 zone where the
City had taken specific action to exclude them from the I -1 zone.
Chairman Willson stated that he was struggling with the question, however, he did not favor
establishing a precedent that would allow recreation and amusement uses such as proposed by
Mr. Baxter throughout the 1 -1 zone.
Commissioner Rahn inquired if the applicant could request a special use be granted. Mr. Warren
responded that establishing the use as a special use in the 1 -1 zone would also require an
11 -30 -00
Page 3
ordinance amendment. Commissioner Rahn concluded there are only two options the applicant
can pursue; amendment to the ordinance or amendment to the PUD.
Chairman Willson stated that he did not favor amending the ordinance because it would be
effective throughout the industrial park.
Commissioner Newman stated that if the ordinance is amended, it would not be limited to go-
karts but to all recreation and amusement places.
Further discussion ensued regarding the proposal and the proper parking requirement for such a
use. Mr. Warren noted that the fact that the building was available and might be able to
accommodate the applicant's proposal, should not be the sole reason to allow it in the I -1 zoning
district. He pointed out that there are buildings in the C -2 zone that could well accommodate
such a use such as the K -Mart building, which has recently been vacated. The question is what is
the appropriate zone given all the factors and taking into consideration the evolution of how the
City got to where it is with respect to land use.
Chairman Willson recognized Mr. San Baxter who thanked the Commission for the opportunity
to speak regarding his proposal. He stated he understands the Commission's concern about what
uses should be allowed in the zone. He explained he would like to bring his entertainment
complex to Brooklyn Center and that he believes it could be an asset to the community. He
noted the different types of entertainment they would offer. He noted the types of buildings
found in industrial areas are conducive to accommodating his use and proposal. He also noted
his desire to be located close to a freeway or highway to allow people from around the area
access to the facility. He pointed out that the concept is new to the Twin Cities area but has been
successful elsewhere.
Mr. Baxter pointed out that it was ironic that adult uses could go into the industrial zone while
his proposed entertainment use cannot. He noted that the parking available will accommodate
his proposal and that their use is more active in the evening and on weekends when other uses in
the area are less intense.
Mr. Baxter stated that the cost for building leases in industrial areas are more reasonable than
leases in commercial areas given the amount of space needed to meet their needs. He added that
the K -Mart building might work but his experience in trying to lease such space has not been
good.
He reviewed his efforts to get a conditional use permit in Brooklyn Park and that the Planning
Commission and City Council welcomed his proposal. The reason he has not located there
following approval of his request is related to problems working out details of the lease and
correcting some building deficiencies.
There was further discussion regarding the proposed ordinance amendment request.
11 -30 -00
Page 4
ACTION TO DENY REQUEST TO AMEND ZONING
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Whitehead, to
recommend to the Council that it deny the request submitted by Mr. Sam Baxter for amendment
to the City's zoning ordinance to allow "recreation and amusement" uses as either a permitted or
special use in the Industrial Park (I -1) zoning district on the basis that said use is properly
classified as a C -2 use and there is no compelling reason to add such a classification of use to the
listing of permitted or special uses in the I -1 zoning district.
Commissioner Newman stated the applicant has an alternative to seek amendment of the PUD.
Mr. Baxter stated the city has lost Target and KMART. He noted if they want to deny his
request they would lose again and there would be no entertainment here. He asked where would
the kids hang out besides the mall. He further questioned how the hotel was included in the
PUD. Mr. Warren responded it was approved as part of the Planned Unit Development use for
that area. He suggested the applicant look further at the PUD section of the ordinance for the
necessary procedure for requesting an amendment to a PUD.
Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Whitehead, Newman, Rahn, and
Reem.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Council will consider the Planning Commission's recommendation at its December 11, 2000
meeting.
Mr. -Baxter asked how many signatures from residents were necessary to bring an ordinance
amendment before the people. Mr. Warren responded he could contact the city clerk to see how
many signatures are needed to bring an ordinance forward.
Mr. Baxter stated when he appeared before the City Council, the people there were very
receptive.
Commissioner Boeck stated they are not in favor of amending the ordinance to have amusement
uses in an industrial zone. He noted there are other avenues the applicant could take.
Mr. Baxter stated he could not go into the commercial zone since he does not have deep pockets.
Chair Willson stated the Commission is concerned about broadening amusement uses in an I -1
district.
Mr. Baxter stated unless the city expands its horizons the uses would go other places. He noted
retail space is too expensive to give an affordable amusement. He added there is no
entertainment in the city.
11 -30 -00
Page 5
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Warren stated the Council meetings in January 2001 would be on the 8 and the 22 nd . He noted
the Planning Commission meetings would be on the 11` and the 25` of January. He added he
would try to get the year's schedule by the next meeting. He stated the following terms are
expiring: Chair Willson, Commissioners Boeck, Rahn and Reem. He noted if any of the
Commissioners are interested in continuing to serve they need to let him know. He added the
positions would be up for consideration in January. All of the above noted Commission members
expressed their interest in serving on the Commission for another term.
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Newman, to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:48
p.m.
� 7
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Nancy Czajkowski
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
11 -30 -00
Page 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning Commission Secretary
RE: Ordinance Amendment Request
DATE: November 27, 2000
On the Planning Commission's November 30, 2000, agenda is a discussion item referred to the
Commission by the City Council for discussion and comment. The matter involves a request
by Mr. Sam Baxter to amend the City's zoning ordinance to allow "recreation and amusement
places" to be a use classification allowed in the Industrial Park (I -1) zoning district. Such an
amendment would permit Mr. Baxter to operate an indoor go -kart track in that zoning district,
specifically at 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway.
Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of a November 9, 2000, memorandum from
myself to the City Manager regarding Industrial Park land uses. The memo provides
background on the specific issue at hand and Mr. Baxter's proposal. (Note: This memo was
also presented to the City Council for their review.)
Because the determined use classification for the go -kart track facility is one allowed only in
the C -2 (Commerce) zoning district and not in the I -1 zone, Mr. Baxter was advised that it
would not be allowed to be conducted at 6707 Shingle Creek Parkway.
He pointed out that he had a similar problem in Brooklyn Park, but was allowed to pursue the
matter as a conditional use which he was eventually granted to conduct the use in an industrial
building north of the Northland Inn on Boone Avenue. The approval was granted subject to a
number of conditions relating to the use and the upgrading of the building and site in question.
I advised him that he could seek a zoning approval for his use by filing a Planning Commission
application to seek a determination that his proposed use is "similar in nature" to a permitted
use in the Industrial Park zone per Section 35 -330, Subdivision If. He agreed that none of the
uses listed in the I -1 zone were similar in nature to his proposal. He still believed he should be
able to operate his facility in the Brooklyn Center I -1 zoning district. He, therefore, requested
11 -30 -00
Page 1
the opportunity to address the City Council about an ordinance amendment. After a brief
discussion with Mr. Baxter at their November 13, 2000 meeting, the City Council by motion
directed the Planning Commission to review the City's zoning ordinance and advise the
Council if there was reason to consideration modification to the ordinance along the lines
suggested by Mr. Baxter.
Mr. Baxter will be providing the Planning Commission with written material on Monday,
November 27, 2000, and also be applying to the City for a zoning ordinance amendment. The
60 day review period provided for in Minnesota Statutes will begin at that time. A response to
his request, if the written application is provided by Monday, November 27, 2000, will be
required of the City Council by January 26, 2001.
Mr. Baxter's arguments, at least as they have been presented to me verbally, are that the
industrial zone is an appropriate zone for his use because he can take advantage of the high
ceiling and large spanned buildings typically found in an industrial zone. These buildings work
well for laying out one or two indoor go -kart tracks and space can be made available for his
other accessory uses such as arcade games, a snack bar, pro shop and conference facilities. He
likes being located close to the freeway and adjacent to other uses such as the hotels, bowling
alley, restaurants, etc. that are in close proximity to his proposed location. He has noted that
matters such as noise and air quality can be addressed so that the use of the building will not be
a problem. He believes he will be providing a worthwhile activity that can be of value and
enjoyment to the community.
As mentioned previously, he has received approval to operate his facility in an industrial
building in Brooklyn Park. He has explained that he was allowed to do this through a
conditional use permit after what he describes as some reluctance on the part of the Brooklyn
Park staff. He, therefore, believes he should be able to operate his facility in an industrial
zone in Brooklyn Center as well.
The Planning Commission's attention is directed to the November 9, 2000, memo regarding
Industrial Park uses. Mr. Baxter's indoor go -kart track proposal with the accompanying
accessory uses is considered a use classification of a "recreation and amusement place" such as
motion picture theaters and legitimate theaters, sports arenas, bowling alleys, skating rinks and
gymnasiums as listed in Section 35 -322, 3d of the zoning ordinance. Certain aspects of his
proposed use, namely the arcade, might also be classified as an "amusement center" which is
also listed as a special use in Section 35 -322, Subdivision 3n. None of these uses are
classifications that are permitted as a special or permitted use in the Industrial Park zone.
They are uses confined solely to the C -2 (Commerce) zoning district and are special uses in
that zone.
Zoning ordinances are typically exclusionary, meaning that if a use is not expressly allowed in
a particular zone as a permitted or special use, it is prohibited. This is the case here.
11 -30 -00
Page 2
There is much history in the evolution of the City's I -1 or Industrial Park zoning district as to
how it contains the uses that are allowed. At one time, this classification of use was allowed as
a special use in the I -1 zoning district.
In 1989 the City became very concerned about the ability to control or exclude some
commercial uses believed to be inappropriate in some areas of the industrial park. Generally
these uses were commercial uses that were authorized by special use in this zoning district.
Based on various court decisions and planning literature at the time, the City was not certain it
could deny or control certain special uses in the Industrial Park zone. The City, therefore,
undertook to rezone from I -1 to C -2 certain land located north of the freeway and east of
Shingle Creek including the sites of the current Hilton Hotel, Chi Chi's Restaurant and land
located south of Freeway Boulevard and east of Shingle Creek Parkway. This area contained
motels, restaurants, bowling alleys and other commercial uses felt to be appropriately located
but were commercial uses that may not be appropriate throughout the Industrial Park zoning
district.
Commercial uses, other than some service and office uses, were no longer allowed in the
Industrial Park zone through the adoption of an ordinance amendment. Also, the PUD zoning
classification was adopted to address particular acceptable uses based on site plan submittals.
The City's Comprehensive Plan was also amended at that time to acknowledge the changes in
direction and future development proposed by the City. The current Comprehensive Plan,
recently adopted, carries on these same types of recommendations for the particular land in
question. The history of the industrial park development and the current zoning which reflects
the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that "recreation and amusement place" commercial
uses should be discouraged from locating in the Industrial Park zone.
The fact that Brooklyn Park allows such a use does not make it imperative that Brooklyn
Center accept this use in its Industrial Park zoning district. There are some subtle differences
between the zoning in the two communities. A discussion with Mr. Will Neumeister, Senior
Planner at Brooklyn Park indicates their classification of use is a "commercial indoor
recreational facility ". Such a use is a conditional use (same as our special use) in the B -2, B -3,
B -4 and BP (Business Park) zoning districts in Brooklyn Park. Mr. Neumeister explained that
the site granted a conditional use for the go -kart operation was in their old industrial district.
They have undergone some recent zoning changes. Now that use is no longer allowed in their
industrial zone. The property on which the permit was issued is now in the BP zone and can
be used as such provided all conditions associated with the granting of the permit are met.
The fact that the building in question in Brooklyn Center is available and works for Mr. Baxter
should not be the sole determinant that the use should be allowed in our I -1 zone. Buildings in
our C -2 zone can work for such a use and I would suggest use of such buildings or the
development of a new building to house such a use could be pursued. For instance, the K-
Mart building might work and it is in the proper zoning district in Brooklyn Center. The fact
that land or a building may not be available should not be the sole determinant for the
11 -30 -00
Page 3
ordinance amendment to allow such a use in our Industrial Park zone. Amending our
ordinance to allow this use as a permitted use would make it a use that would be allowed
throughout the Industrial Park zoning district.
No specific parking requirement for the go -kart use is acknowledged in the zoning ordinance.
Because this use is allowed in a C -2 zone such as bowling alleys, theaters, sports clubs, etc. it
would have to provide parking for a C -2 development at least on the basis of one parking space
for every 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area, which is the general commercial parking requirement
if no other standards exist. Further evaluation of parking would be in order if it is determined
that this use is to be allowed in the Industrial Park zone.
The building in question is part of a PUD /I -1 zone. Under the PUD approval, 6707 Shingle
Creek Parkway is allowed to be used for up to 20 percent office and 80 percent industrial
occupancy. If it is determined that Mr. Baxter's proposed go -kart use is an acceptable or
allowable use in the Industrial Park zone, it would be considered an industrial type activity and
it could fit under that category. If, however, it is not considered an appropriate activity under
this category, an amendment to the PUD would have to be accomplished before the use could
be allowed. Other questions might need to be addressed under the PUD concept such as, is
this use the same type use comprehended under the PUD /I -1 zone such as the hotels,
restaurants, business offices, etc. that have generally been allowed in the PUD zoning district?
The Planning Commission should review and discuss all aspects of this request and be
prepared to make a comment and /or recommendation to the City Council on a possible
modification to the city ordinance. The staff finds no compelling reason to make such a
change as proposed by Mr. Baxter.
11 -30 -00
Page 4