Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988 04-14 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 REGULAR SESSION APRIL 14, 1988 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Recording Secretary Mary Lou Larsen. Chairman Lucht stated that Commissioners Bertil Johnson, Lowell Ainas and Mike Nelson had called indicating that they would j not be able to attend this evening's meeting and were excused. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1988 j Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to approve the minutes of the February 25, 1988 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. j APPLICATION NO. 88002 (Coldwell Banker) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first item of business, a request for a variance from Section 35-704.2c of the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than 10% of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center to be occupied by restaurants without providing sufficient additional parking to meet the restaurant parking formula. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (See Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88002 attached). Commissioner Bernards stated that he would not participate in the review of this variance application to avoid any possible conflict of interest because of his association with Coldwell Banker. The Secretary stated that a public hearing is required, notices were sent to surrounding property owners and the applicant is present to answer questions. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Lucht asked if anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing no one, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Malecki to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki and Wallerstedt. Not voting: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Wallerstedt stated she agrees with Mr. Lidstone of Coldwell Banker that there is excess parking at the Humboldt Square shopping center. She asked for clarification between an ordinance amendment and granting of the variance. Chairman Lucht explained that granting the variance may set a precedent for other shopping centers. He asked the Secretary for his opinion. The Secretary 4-14-88 _1_ explained that in order to grant a variance, the standards for variances have to be ` met and, in the opinion of the staff, in this case, they are not met. He stated there is no real ordinance related hardship, this is not necessarily a unique situation and the standards for variances do not authorize economic hardships. He explained that he believed it would be inappropriate to grant a variance in this case. However, he stated, that the applicant has made a good argument that his request will not be detrimental. In cases such as these, the City has been generally willing to amend its ordinance so any similiar situation can be accorded the same consideration. Commissioner Wallerstedt inquired if any problems with other shopping centers are foreseen in the future. The Secretary stated that he did not foresee any future problems if the ordinance is changed. He stated that, to a certain extent, there is generally a surplus of parking spaces in retail shopping centers. He explained that a reduction in the retail parking formula was looked at a couple of years ago, but was basically rejected because it would alter the density or floor area ratios in retail areas in an unacceptable manner. The Secretary stated that by allowing restaurants to occupy a greater area in a retail shopping center without applying a more restrictive formula would not affect density or floor area ratios, it would just allow a perhaps more intense use of existing space. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88002 (Coldwell Banker) Motion by Commissioner Wallerstedt seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend denial of Application No. 88002 on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance are not met. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki and Wallerstedt. Not voting: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend approval of an amendment to Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances regarding restaurant space allowed in shopping centers. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 88003 (Equitec Institutional Fund III) The Secretary introduced the next item of business, an appeal of a determination by the Zoning Official that day care centers are not permitted in the Industrial Park (I-1) zone. The Secretary reviewed the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 88003 attached). He stated that he has more reservations since the writing of the staff report about the appropriateness of day care uses in the I-1 zoning district. He pointed out that the I-1 zone allows, as permitted uses, various manufacturing and service uses that do not appear to be compatible with day care uses. The Secretary also noted that the City Council has discussed the possiblity of eliminating some of the commercial uses already allowed in the I-1 zone because of a belief that they too may be inappropriate uses in portions of the Industrial Park. Specifically, the Secretary mentioned a possible j proposal for a fast food restaurant at the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. He also noted that it seems that recent court decisions seem to place the burden on cities to show that special use permits are not appropriate rather than the burden being on the applicant to show that special uses are appropriate in particular situations and it may well be that the City may consider eliminating some uses from consideration in the I-1 zone rather than adding new uses. The Secretary explained that it was not long ago that the City adopted regulations which would allow day care facilities in commercial zone districts (Cl and C2). He 4-14-88 -2- noted that prior to that day care uses had only been comprehended in residential zones such as family day cares in single family homes and the use of church facilities to provide day care. He noted that the City, at the time of the adoption of these regulations, gave careful consideration and specifically noted that day cares would be inappropriate in commercial shopping centers and next to certain types of uses. He added that some consideration was even given at that time to allowing day cares in the industrial zones as principal uses, but that it was rejected as being inappropriate. He noted that it does not appear that there are many, or any, appropriate locations in the I-1 zone for day cares to be located. The Secretary added that there is land available in the Cl and C2 zones around the Industrial Park which could be put to use for day care centers that are more appropriate than the site being considered by the applicant. He noted the location of the Learning Tree, the fact that there are day care operations being conducted in churches on Humboldt Avenue just east of the Industrial Park, and other locations convenient to the I-1 zone. He added that there is vacant, C1 zoned land, which already comprehends day care uses across the street from the proposed site which could be developed. He concluded by stating that all of these factors raise serious reservation about the desirability and compatibility of day care uses in the Industrial Park Zoning District and lead him to recommend not changing the Zoning Ordinance. Chairman Lucht then recognized Janis Blumentals, representing the appellant, who explained that he believes the day care center is an educational use which is allowed by special use permit in the industrial park. He explained the applicant would be willing to cooperate if the use is granted with restrictions. Mr. Blumentals stated that the Commission should not confuse the issue with the desirability of fast food restaurants in the I-1 zone. He expressed the opinion that day care uses are compatible with a number of uses allowed in the industrial park such as offices and should, therefore, be allowed. Chairman Lucht asked if the applicant wished to speak. Mr. Blumentals then introduced T. J. Wilson of Equitec, the Palmer Lake Plaza Property Manager and Assistant Property Manager, Marshall Everson, President of LaPepiniere Montessori School, Linda Carabelli and Debra Brown, representatives of the LaPepiniere Montessori School. The nature of the school was explained by Debra Brown. She stated their primary concern was for the children who are toddlers through kindergarten in age. She explained that they are a very reputable school and distributed pamphlets describing the school's program which offers day care from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. She stated a service is being offered to parents working in the I-1 zone, that they would have a separate entrance to the building, would not create a traffic problem and would provide a suitable play yard. In regard to constructing a freestanding building, she stated it just isn't feasible economically for them to provide such a facility as they have tried it in other locations and it has not worked out. She added that they believe this site is a good location. Chairman Lucht stated he does not question that the school is a reputable one, but the issue here is whether or not the use is an appropriate use in the Industrial Park zoning district. Mr. Blumentals stated he feels it is a good use in the I-1 zone that could be approved with restrictions added by either considering it an educational use or amending the ordinance to allow day care uses in the I-1 zone. He explained that the proposed 4-14-88 -3- site is a large building that can be adequately modified to provide a needed service in the area. He noted that many people in this building, and the Industrial Park, would take advantage of the convenient location. Mr. Everson stated that at the national and state levels senators and representatives have advocated day care centers that provide on-site child care for workers and he is sure this same issue, if not addressed now, will come before the Planning Commission and City Council again in the future. Further discussion ensued regarding land use characteristics and zoning of day care centers in the industrial park. Chairman Lucht stated he was not in favor of adding day care as a comprehended use in the I-1 zone. He noted his opinion that it is inapproppriate given the uses already comprehended in the I-1 zone. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked where the nearest LaPepiniere Montessori School is. Mr. Everson stated there is one in Crystal currently located in the old Thorson school, but that this is the facility they are proposing to locate in Brooklyn Center. The Secretary noted the options available to the Planning Commission regarding their consideration of this application. He stated that, first of all, the r application was an appeal to the Director of Planning and Inspection's determination that the LaPepiniere Montessori Academy is a day care use and is, therefore, not a comprehended use in the I-1 zoning district. He explained that ` this determination is based primarily on the fact that LaPepiniere is licensed by the Department of Human Services as a day care and that this use has the same land use characteristics as a day care use which is nowhere listed as a comprehended use in the I-1 zone. The Secretary further explained that the Commission could recommend acceptance of this determination or recommend rejection of it perhaps based on a finding that LaPepiniere is an educational use acknowledged in the I-1 zone. The Secretary noted that schools are considered educational uses, but that no school has been allowed in the I-1 zone. The educational uses allowed in the I-1 zone have been such things as a school of dance or other types of instructional uses. A finding that LaPepiniere is an educational use, if upheld by the City Council, would mean the applicant could file for a Special Use Permit as such a use. The Secretary continued to review the options available to the Planning Commission noting that the Commission could also recommend an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow day care uses in the I-1 zone if the Commissioners believed this to be appropriate. He noted that the applicants are requesting such an action if the Commission does not recommend approval of their appeal. The Secretary concluded by explaining that the Commission could also recommend against any ordinance amendment if they believe it to be inappropriate. A discussion ensued among the Commissioners regarding the application. Commissioner Bernards stated that from a land use basis he believed there was no reason to uphold the applicant's appeal. He added he was also opposed to any amendment to the ordinance that would allow day care uses in the I-1 zoning district. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 88003 (Equitec Institutional Fund III) Following further discussion, there was a motion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend denial of the appeal contained in Application No. 88003 and to uphold the Director of Planning and Inspection's determination that a day care use is not a comprehended use in the Industrial Park 4-14-88 -4- (I-1) Zoning District. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Further discussion ensued among the Commission regarding the possibility of amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow day care uses in the I-1 Zoning District. Commissioner Bernards reiterated his opposition to such an amendment stating his belief that due consideration was given to the appropriate locations for day care uses when the City amended its ordinances to allow day cares in the C1 and C2 districts. He added that nothing has been shown to indicate that day cares are appropriately located in the I-1 zone and that he does not find them to be compatible overall with the other uses acknowledged in that zoning district. Commissioner Malecki commented that day care uses might be appropriate in some particular locations in the I-1 zone. She did not favor totally ruling out their consideration in that zone in the future. She noted that she is not in favor of an amendment at { this time, but feels further review and study of the issue would be in order. Chairman Lucht commented he did not at this time, see any appropriate area in the I-1 zone for day care uses, but that he was not opposed to further studying the issue in conjunction with the proposed study of all special uses in the I-1 zone. ACTION TO NOT RECOMMEND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Following further discussion there was amotion by Commissioner Bernards seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to recommend to the City Council to not consider an ordinance amendment to allow day care uses in the I-1 zoning district at this time, but to include consideration of day care uses in any study undertaken by the City regarding appropriate special uses in the I-1 Zoning District. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Comamissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEM a. Development Options in the I-1 Zone. i The Secretary briefly reported on a discussion the City Council had at its last meeting regarding development concerns in the I-1 zone. He explained that the J Council had discussed some of the limitations in the existing ordinance; the fact that there might be a number of inappropriate uses now allowed in the I-1 zone; that recent court decisions seem to put the burden on the City to prove that special uses i are inappropriate rather than the burden being on the applicant to show that proposed uses are appropriate as the ordinances were originally intended. The Secretary reviewed the history of the development of the current ordinance relating to the I-1 zone and noted that the last major amendment to this section was to comprehend a number of commercial uses in the I-1 zone around 1975. It appears some of the uses may well be inappropriate. He added another consideration might be the size of parcels in the I-1 zone, requiring large parcels for development might be considered. The Secretary added that the staff has looked at a draft Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) Ordinance for this area and other areas as well and such a draft will be reviewed with the Commission in the near future. The Secretary added that the reason this has become an immediate concern was the potential for a fast food restaurant, a budget hotel, and a small office building to be located on the northwest corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary stated this is a prime corner in the I-1 zone and has often been referred to by the owners as the keystone and entrance to the Shingle Creek Business Center. The Secretary pointed out the above mentioned uses appear to be inappropriate, but the City might not be in a position to prohibit such uses if applications were applied for. The land is for sale and new developers may be coming in. He noted that a moratorium might be in order to allow study of the area. 4-14-88 -5- Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that her family has bought a new home and that she will be moving out of Brooklyn Center. She stated that she would be submitting her resignation from the Commission to the Mayor and that her last Commission meeting would be the last meeting in May. It was reported that Commissioner Bernards and Nelson would be unable to attend the Commission's May 12, 1988 meeting and were excused. t ADJOURNMENT ! Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Wallerstedt to adjourn the j meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Chairman E E 4-14-88 -6-