Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 05-30 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 MAY 30, 1991 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairperson Molly Malecki at 7:33 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairperson Molly Malecki, Commissioners Ella Sander, Wallace Bernards, Bertil Johnson and Kristen Mann. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. Chairperson Malecki noted that Commissioner Ainas had called to say he would be unable to attend and was excused. Commissioner Holmes arrived at 7:33 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 16, 1991 Motion by Commissioner Johnson seconded by Commissioner Mann to approve the minutes of the May 16, 1991 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Sander. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91009 (Earle Brown Bowl) Following the Chairperson's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for special use permit approval to construct a temporary seasonal deck capable of seating 50 immediately west of the existing Earle Brown Bowl and also to operate two volleyball courts on a seasonal basis in the south parking lot of . the bowling alley property at 6440 James * Circle. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91009, attached) . The Secretary noted that no food or alcohol would be served at the volleyball courts. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any discussion about portable bleachers being placed around the volleyball courts. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that the applicant does not expect many spectators. Commissioner Bernards asked about the possibility of tailgating at the volleyball courts. The Secretary responded that that would not be permitted. Commissioner Sander asked whether any food or beverage would be served to people on the deck through a window in the building. The Secretary responded in the negative. He stated that service would be through two doors immediately adjacent to the deck. Commissioner Sander asked who would monitor the bowling 5-30-91 1 alley's security people to know whether they are in fact enforcing the conditions of the special use permit. The Secretary responded that that would probably be something that the police department and code enforcement personnel would handle. Commissioner Johnson stated that the volleyball leagues would have noise and asked what impact this might have on other properties in the area. The Secretary reviewed a map of the area and showed where the Budgetel and Econolodge motels were located. He showed the distances between the volleyball courts and those buildings and added that the rooms are air conditioned and the windows would probably, therefore, be closed. He added that the recommendation of staff is to try the volleyball leagues on a test basis and that if there were problems the operation could either be shut down or not renewed next summer. Commissioner Bernards asked whether there was any undeveloped land in the area which might be affected by the proposal. The Secretary pointed out two vacant parcels, one to the south of James Circle and the other immediately to the east, south of Hardees. The Secretary stated that he did not think the proposal would have any significant effect on the development of those parcels either way, positive or negative. In answer to a question from Commissioner Holmes, the Secretary noted that there was a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance to screen outside commercial activities. He pointed out that approval of the amended special use permit would also involve an exemption from this screening requirement. Commissioner Holmes asked if there would be a railing on the deck. Mr. Mark -Bruer, of Earle Brown Bowl, responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked how high the deck would be off the ground. Mr. Bruer responded that it would be approximately 12" off the ground. Commissioner Sander asked whether other restaurants would likely ask for such an outside eating area. The Secretary responded that that was a possibility, but that other restaurants cannot show a drop in parking demand on a seasonal basis which the bowling alley has shown through their sales data. Commissioner Sander stated that if the deck were open in September and October, it would really tax the parking capacity of the site. The Secretary stated that the seating on the deck would require 25 parking spaces plus a few more for employees. He added that it was not clear whether the applicant is asking for approval of the deck during September and October or whether it would only be up until Labor Day. He stated that he had conflicting information on that question. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the courts. would be locked up when not in use. The Secretary stated that there would be gates leading out of the courts, but that he was not sure whether they would be locked. 5-30-91 2 Commissioner Holmes stated that he was concerned regarding a possible traffic hazard because of the proposed location of the volleyball courts. He noted the location of the main entrance drive to the site. The Secretary showed the parking lot on a transparency and reviewed the areas where patrons park. He noted that most of the restaurant customers parked to the west of the building and the bowling customers park to the south of the building. He stated that the area where the volleyball courts would be placed is an area of fairly low activity. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Mark Bruer, of Earle Brown Bowl, stated that the volleyball courts are located where they are because of the parking lot islands which can protect them from oncoming traffic. He stated that they do want people to see the volleyball courts. Mr. Bruer stated that they would cease the deck on Labor Day. He added that there would be no lights on the deck and that service would cease at dark. He stated that there had been some discussion as to whether a wood deck or a concrete deck would be more appropriate and that wood was chosen for aesthetic reasons. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding securing of the courts, Mr. Bruer stated that the courts would not be secured per se. He stated that there would be a nylon netting around the courts, but that it would not be locked in order to let people out who ventured in. Commissioner Bernards related that he had been responsible for a lighted tennis court at the high school at one time and that it was a taxing job. He asked whether problems wouldn't occur with the volleyball courts. Mr. Bruer stated that they had not had problems at their other location in Woodbury and that security personnel would be on duty. Commissioner Sander asked what hours the deck would be open. Mr. Bruer responded that the deck would be open from before lunch through dusk. In response to a question from Chairperson Malecki, Mr. Bruer stated that there are not many spectators at volleyball contests, at least that has been the experience at Woodbury. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the bowling business would pick up as a result of the volleyball leagues. Mr. Bruer stated that it probably wouldn't unless it rained. Chairperson Malecki asked about how feet would be washed to get the sand off of them. Mr. Bruer stated that a garden hose would be used with a children's swimming pool to wash off the excess sand. Chairperson Malecki stated that she had been to the site that day and that sand was getting out of the court area because of the recent rains. She asked how this would be controlled. Mr. Bruer stated that the lot would be swept probably every month to six weeks. Commissioner . Sander stated that she was concerned regarding the sand from the players and also sand on the parking lot. She stated that she was not satisfied with the proposed cleaning regimen. There was a discussion of the use of the sweeper. Commissioner Mann stated 5-30-91 3 that she agreed with Commissioner Sander and suggested that the lot needed to be swept about every week. Commissioner Sander asked how the City would monitor the sweeping operation. The Secretary stated that if a problem arose, they would take action. There then followed a discussion of the service to the deck. It was generally agreed that 10:30 p.m. was an appropriate time to close down service to the deck. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No 91009) Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Ms. Betty Narveson, of Budgetel, stated that she was concerned with the volleyball portion of the application. She stated that some of the patrons in their hotel opened the windows at night and she was concerned about noise from the volleyball leagues keeping patrons awake or annoying them in some fashion. Chairperson Malecki pointed out that the volleyball leagues would be approved on a trial basis, if at all. She recommended that Budgetel inform the City if there is a problem. The Secretary added that he would encourage Budgetel to contact the Earle Brown Bowl management right away if there is a problem with noise. Commissioner Sander stated that the City needed to know if there was a problem. The Secretary agreed, but stated that he did not want to be contacted every time someone yelled at the volleyball courts. Chairperson Malecki concluded from the staff report that the matter would not necessarily come back for review unless there was a problem. The Secretary stated that a report would be prepared and that it could be brought back to the Planning Commission as well as the City Council if that was desired. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Johnson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Holmes stated that he agreed with the changes that had been discussed so far, but that he felt there would probably be a safety hazard with spectators at tournaments. He also stated that he felt the courts could become an attractive nuisance for kids after dark. Commissioner Bernards stated that he very much liked the outdoor eating area, but that he was more lukewarm to the volleyball proposal. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91009 (Earle Brown Bowl Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Mann to recommend approval of Application No. 91009, subject to the following conditions: 1. Construction plans for the deck are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 5-30-91 4 2. Seating on the deck shall be limited to 50 seats and service shall terminate not later than 10:30 p.m. 3 . The outside deck and the volleyball courts may operate during the seasonal period when bowling leagues are not functioning between May 1 and Labor Day of each year. 4. Volleyball play shall cease not later than 10:30 p.m. 5. The applicant shall sweep the parking lot near the volleyball courts on a weekly basis to minimize the flow of sand into the storm sewer system. 6. The volleyball courts shall be placed on the site in a manner to minimize any disruption of parking and to avoid proximity to catch basins. 7. The applicant shall employ on the premises security personnel whose responsibility it shall be to prevent the consumption of food or liquor at the volleyball courts and to respond promptly to any noise complaints. 8. City staff shall monitor any complaints pertaining to the operation of the outside deck and/or volleyball courts during the first summer of operation. A report on such complaints and on any parking, drainage, noise or sanitation problems associated with either outdoor . activity shall be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration not later than April 1, 1992. If the Council finds that any aspects of these outdoor activities constitutes a nuisance, it may terminate or modify this special use permit. 9. The special use permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 10. Alcoholic beverages may not be sold or consumed outside with the exception of the deck area. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is subject to regulations established by the Chief of Police, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 11 of the City Ordinances. 11. Any noise coming from the deck or volleyball areas constituting a nuisance shall be prohibited. The applicant and his representatives shall cooperate fully in complying with this directive and any others given by police or code enforcement personnel. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 5-30-91 5 Commissioner Holmes asked whether the liability on the proposed deck would be the bowling alley's. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. APPLICATION NO. 91010 (Marquette Bank Brookdale) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request for site and building plan approval to construct a 5,700 sq. ft. addition to the front of the Marquette Bank Brookdale at 5620 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91010, attached) . The Secretary also reviewed recent changes to accesses in the area: to Westbrook Mall off Brooklyn Boulevard and the access change on 56th Avenue North. Commissioner Mann stated that the intersection of the access road and 56th Avenue North is a bad area and asked whether there was any way to require that the access to the bank be off that access road. The Secretary answered that that would only be possible if the bank and Westbrook Mall would agree to such an access. He stated that the present access arrangement on 56th is probably the best of a bad situation. Commissioner Johnson agreed with Commissioner Mann and stated that turning movements in that area are dangerous. In response to a question from Commissioner Bernards regarding the canopy, the Secretary stated that it would come down, but added that the night depository on the north side of the building would remain. Commissioner Sander asked why the site was ever approved without storm sewer service. The Secretary stated that that predated his time with the City. He stated that the bank was built in the early 1960's and that there was obviously -no public storm sewer in 56th at that time. In response to a question from Commissioner Holmes regarding handicapped access, the Secretary showed the location of the handicapped stalls on the plan and the location of a ramp to the southeast customer entrance. Chairperson Malecki asked how much landscaping there was along the access road to the east. Mr. Loren Hoseck, the architect for the project, stated that there was very little landscaping in that area. Chairperson Malecki asked whether additional landscaping would cause a problem. The Secretary responded that he did not think so. Chairperson Malecki then asked the applicants whether they had anything to add. Mr. Loren Hoseck, the architect for the project, and Steven King, a representative of Marquette Bank Brookdale, stated they had nothing further to add, but would answer questions. Commissioner Bernards asked whether the bank would operate at regular hours during construction. Mr. King responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sander asked whether there was a full basement under the building. Mr. King responded that there is presently a full basement under the existing building, but that the addition would only be to the main floor. 5-30-91 6 Chairperson Malecki asked whether the applicants had any problem with the modifications to the plan recommended in the conditions of approval. Mr. Hoseck reviewed the various modifications and stated that some of them had been met already or were unnecessary and that the others would be no problem. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO 91010 (Marctuette Bank Brookdale) Motion by Commissioner Sander seconded by Commissioner Bernards to recommend approval of Application No. 91010, subject to the following conditions: 1. Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. Grading, drainage, utility and berming plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, prior to the issuance of permits. 3. A site performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of permits to assure completion of approved site improvements. 4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site maintenance. 7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. 8. B612 curb and gutter shall be provided around all parking and driving areas, except along the north side of the lot as recommended by the City Engineer. 9. The applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee for this project. 10. The property owner shall enter into an Easement and Agreement for Maintenance and Inspection of Utility and Storm Drainage Systems, prior to the issuance of permits. 5-30-91 7 11. The plans shall be modified, prior to the issuance of permits, to indicate the following: a) Not greater than a 5% slope at or leading to the access onto 56th Avenue North. b) Existing and proposed site utilities. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The - motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 91006 (Sunlite Properties) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for variance approval to allow a 15' wide buffer between the parking lot at 1601 67th Avenue North and the Berean Evangelical Free Church property at 6625 Humboldt Avenue North. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 91006) . The Secretary explained that staff could not address the question of an expansion of the church without a proposed plan for such an expansion. He stated that selling off land to Sunlite Properties would have some effect on potential expansions of the church. The Secretary also reviewed the draft ordinance amendment. Commissioner Bernards asked what was the definition of an institutional use. The Secretary stated that that is not addressed in the ordinance at present, but might be in the future after a group home amendment. He noted that institutional uses included churches and schools primarily. In response to -a question from Commissioner Bernards the Secretary stated that institutional uses are similar to C1 uses and that C1 uses are allowed in the R5 zone. He added that an industrial use adjacent to an R5 use is required to have a 15' buffer. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Malecki then opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 91006. Chairperson Malecki asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Janis Blumentals, the architect for the applicant, stated that the ordinance amendment would address their concerns. Commissioner Sander stated that she was in favor of denying the variance, but changing the ordinance. There followed a brief discussion in which most of the Commissioners concurred with this opinion. The Secretary stated that the reduced buffer from 50' to 15' could be used for parking, but not for building. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING -Motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Sander to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. 5-30-91 8 Commissioner Sander expressed concern about the possibility of putting a loading area on the east side of the industrial building. Mr. Janis Blumentals explained that that would not be feasible in this circumstance. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the possibility of a conversion of a multiple family building to an institutional use resulting in a nonconforming buffer. The Secretary pointed out that a multiple family site would now also be entitled to a 15' buffer, the same as an institutional use. Commissioner Bernards inquired as to a group home in a single family zone. The Planner stated that up to six clients in a single family home would be classified as a single family use rather than an institutional use. Between 7 and 16 clients would be classified as a multiple family use under state law. Over 16 or 20 clients would then be classified as an institutional use. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO 91006 (Sunlite Properties) Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Sander to recommend denial of Application No. 91006 on the grounds that the standard of hardship had not been met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO BUFFERS. . Motion by Commissioner Mann seconded by Commissioner Johnson to recommend adoption of an ordinance amendment relating to required buffers where an institutional use abuts an industrial use to allow a 15' buffer for parking, but not building. Voting in favor: Chairperson Malecki, Commissioners Sander, Bernards, Johnson, Mann and Holmes. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS (Budgetel) The Secretary then referred the Commission's attention to some plans for a facelift at the Budgetel Inn and for a new canopy. He stated that the plans showed basically cosmetic changes to the exterior and to the roof design, that there were no substantial additions to the building. He noted that the plans showed a roof sign and that this would only be allowed if the freestanding sign for the site were to come down. The Planning Commission concurred that there was no need to bring the matter through the Planning Commission and City Council for site and building plan review. ADJOURNMENT -Motion by Commissioner Bernards to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:46 p.m. airperson 5-30-91 9 1 1